One Ought Not Eat and Walk in Public

Thanks to my opponent for his response. I'll take each of his arguments in turn, then make my round-closing remarks. - Utilitarian Argument --1. Walking and eating in public decreases utility2. Decreasing utility is wrongTherefore, eating and walking in public is wrong.Eating and walking in public decreases utility in the way that people get hungry on a regular basis. If you're in public odds are you will pass someone who is hungry or on the verge of being hungry. Sensory interaction with your food will then remind them of, pique or enhance their hunger. The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people. In public there's a chance of decreasing the utility of multiple people. Therefore, you've decreased utility which is wrong. Response:There are several flaws with my opponent's utilitarian argument. He asserts without warrant that "The feeling of hunger decreases utility in people". I disagree. We all have to eat. Some of us several times a day! If someone is already sated, seeing/smelling food is unlikely to make them hungry. If they are already hungry, or are on the verge of hunger, then it may make them hungry. But they were going to get hungry soon anyway, in that case!There is no net change; so what if they're hungry slightly sooner? There's nothing stopping the hungry person from eating food of their own. In contrast, my opponent's argument forces a decrease in utility for the original hungry person. Unlike the person walking with food, who may merely remind someone that they're hungry, my opponent advocates that people be kept hungry, which is "wrong" by his own argument, as he has stated that the feeling of hunger decreases utility in people, and that decreasing utility is wrong. Walking by a pizza deliveryman can remind of hunger, too, but by Pro's case, the hungry person must remain with lower utility, even if they could fix it immediately.Further, my opponent needs to recognize that, in regards to utility, one must look at the overall picture. You can't focus on one negative aspect, and ignore the positive utility. When someone is hungry, they want to eat. His argument ignores circumstances in which people have no choice but to eat in public. Appointments that must be kept, or jobs which prevent one from a traditional "sit in one place and eat" meal. -- Safety, Waste and Efficiency -- Walking and eating in public can be unsafe. People can divert their eyes from what they're doing and potentially run into people, step into traffic, run into an object etc.That something can happen does not mean it will. If my opponent is arguing for paying attention while walking, I'm all for it. But eating does not inherently mean that one ceases to concern oneself with safety. It can also cause waste. If you're walking with a sandwich or an ice cream cone or something, walking can cause items to slip and fall out of or off of it thus wasting valuable food.You can spill on your shirt and have no way to fix it because you're on the move.These are "can" arguments, not "will definitely" ones. I'm against wasting food, and against littering (not, per se, noted by my opponent, but certainly following the line of the argument). But being against these things does not necessitate being against eating in public. Places designed for eating do not have washing machines. They have napkins and paper towels and bathrooms. Many places have paper towels and bathrooms, and napkins are unnecessary to accomplish the same level of "fix" if paper towels are present. There is no less likelihood of being able to "fix" a spill if one is on the move. In point of fact, there are occasions when being on the move might help with the stain; if one is headed home, one is that much closer to a washing machine and stain-fighting tools. The "setting" of a stain can be time-dependent. Also, its inefficient. Instead of storing the energy as you relax, you're expending energy while trying to take in energy. This is not working at optimal efficiency and therefore should not be done. This is faulty. Presumably, when someone is going somewhere in public, that's a place they'd go whether or not they ate while on the way. By my opponent's argument, they would have to sit in the place designed for eating purposes then go where they're headed. Even sitting expends some energy, thus increasing the net amount of energy required for the two tasks of eating and going to a destination. It also increases the net amount of time required to accomplish the tasks of the day. It is considerably more efficient to obtain food, then continue on one's business.------------------------------------Eating in a place designated or designed for eating is pleasant. Preferring to eat in such a place is a perfectly legitimate choice, despite its relative inefficiency. However, my opponent has failed to establish any reasons why one should not take the more efficient and sometimes necessary course of eating in public. I look forward to Pro's next round!