Fast Food restaurants should be banned from the U.S.

The customers aren't as stupid as you think they are; they know that junk food isn't healthy and no, they shouldn't be told that they can't eat it just because it is unhealthy. And I think Pro's attack on those who work at fast food places is unfounded and totally out of place in this debate. As well as this, on the point of people who work there, if you banned fast food places, not only are you telling people what they can and cannot eat but you are also depriving millions of Americans jobs in which they depend on to survive. And no, sometimes they can't get anything better, but why should they HAVE to get anything better? "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 2.7 million U.S. workers are employed in food preparation and serving (including fast food) as of 2008".[s1] It has now risen to over 3 million workers. What will you propose we do with all of these people suddenly out of work? They're contributing to society; they have a stable job and pay their taxes. Not everyone can be qualified to be a nurse or a Doctor; we depend on those who do menial jobs to be the foundation of our whole society. Without them we would crumble. I think Pro's attack on them for not living up to Pro's standards of level of qualification is callous and unfair for those who have to do the boring jobs in which they just work to make ends meet. And no it isn't a "magical coincidence", as pro puts it, because a lot of the time they take it because that's all they can get, they don't see it as a career choice. You need to keep your personal feelings out of the debate and keep focused on rational and logical reasoning rather than letting your emotions intrude on the persuasiveness of your points. As for the nutritional side, ever since the documentary "Super size me" in 2004 a lot has changed, e.g., the "super size" has been taken off of the menu in McDonalds. As well as the portions being limited more than they were, it is also allowing for healthier food: "Not all fast food is bad. Today, more and more fast food restaurants are offering healthier options and new menu items. There are also ways you can customize your order to be healthy for you" [s2]. Now it is healthier than ever before. Granted, it isn't the healthiest of food, but it is up to the individual to moderate what they put into their bodies because, again, the more responsibility we give the populace the more they'll make intelligent individual judgement rather than relying on being herded around in life waiting for orders on how to live and what to put into their bodies. I agree with you that information has to be given to the nutritional content of the food, but fast food shouldn't be banned for the reasons I have stated. You go on to claim that you never said adults shouldn't be able to eat certain types of food, but then you go on to say "I just said they shouldn't be allowed to eat JUNK food in America". There is no discernible difference; you are saying that people shouldn't be able to eat one type of food because you think it's wrong, which is you saying you want to control what they eat which shouldn't be, and thankfully isn't, the case. Also, it depends what frozen food you are talking about on whether it is healthier than fast food. For example a relatively measely portion of frozen DiGiorno pizza (the most popular brand of frozen pizza) has the following nutritional content: "Serving Size: 1/6 pizza, Calories: 310, Fat: 10g, Carbs: 38g, Protein: 16g"[s3]. So when compared with a big mac which has 590 calories, they are relatively the same for calories considering a sixth of pizza isn't as big as a big mac. So in order for Pro's argument to stand she must also realise that not only would she have to ban "fast food", but frozen food too because it can be equally as unhealthy. Also, if it is based on the food being unhealthy then I suppose Pro would also want smoking, alcohol and anything else that could be harmful to be banned. This is an absurd concept and idea, but Pro is hinting heavily toward that in the rationale of her reasoning. People should have the choice, it isn't Pro's place to enforce her morals and her beliefs on everyone else, societies do not work that way. Finally, I'd like to give a quote on the charity that McDonald's is involved with, "There are currently 305 Ronald McDonald Houses in 52 countries and regions. Ronald McDonald Houses act as a home away from home so families can stay close by their hospitalized child. Ronald McDonald Houses provide over 7,200 bedrooms to families around the world each night, with an estimated value of $257 million in lieu of hotel costs" [s4]. Not only would it make over 3 million people jobless, and not only would it infringe on the rights of individuals to put what they wish into their bodies, but it would also have a huge impact on the charity which the institutions give. Granted, the example wouldn't show much if Pro was debating that junk food is simply unhealthy then it'd be irrelevant, but Pro wants to ban fast food altogether, and so all of the acts of those institutions would be torn down along with it. To sum up, no, Pro hasn't shown that Fast food should be banned in the US. Pro has pointed out in the first round the damage it can have in excessive amounts on the body and hasn't addressed those who eat it in healthy amounts, and Pro has shown a passionate dislike for unhealthy food. What Pro hasn't done is accounted for the points I raised about individuality and the right of a person to eat what they wish. She claimed to not be arguing this, but then by saying she only wants people to not eat fast food or junk food shows that she's actually very confused in her wording and in what she's trying to get across in this discussion. Pro hasn't argued for more awareness of nutrition in fast food; Pro never said anything along the lines of giving choice to those who eat fast food and educating them more but has said that we should get rid of all fast food outlets altogether, from the big corporate McDonalds to the one hot dog stand New-Yorker; all is unacceptable in Pro's eyes because of her own morals. I say that Pro is wrong to want to stop people from eating the food stuffs they wish and Pro hasn't sufficiently argued against my points raised and the sources brought forward, let alone provided a solid basis for her own point of view which was weakened by her anger towards the issue. Sources: http://www.pamf.org... [s2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [s1] http://www.myfitnesspal.com... [s3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [s4]