Instigator / Pro
0
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3227

Fast Food Restaurants should remove cheap, plastic toys as a part of their kiddy meals. (ONLY A 1000 CHARACTERS)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
15
Better sources
0
10
Better legibility
0
5
Better conduct
0
5

After 5 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
35
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Fast food restaurants use little plastic toys to lure kids in to eating their food, shortening their lifespand and expanding their wallet. But should they be removed?

CHARACTER LIMIT - 1000

Fast food restaurant: A fast food restaurant, also known as a quick service restaurant (QSR) within the industry, is a specific type of restaurant that serves fast food cuisine and has minimal table service.

DEFINITIONS AND RESOLUTION ARE NOT TO BE QUESTIONED.

Lastly, good luck!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeiture.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit by Pro.

However, Con used R1 to argue his BoP, and offered good arguments. Then Con used R2 to actually offer argument for Pro, which were good arguments for that BoP, but not nearly as effective as the Con BoP. Con wins by argumentation.