McDonald's can be harmful.

Thank you for your reply. First of all, I would like to make a complaint. You have openly defined the topic. However, as the contender, you are not allowed to define topics. If I, as the instigator, wish to define the topic, I will. If I don't, then the topic is left broad with no one being able to define any words. That is a rule of debate that you, as one on the Debate Team, should know. And please don't give me all this stuff about >mimic voice< "Oh! How do YOU know that I'm on the Debate Team? Huh? Are you a stalker?" Please...just stop. Your acting is horrible anyways. >>>>You said that McDonald's has a Ronald McDonald's House Charities. I did not say that McDonald's was a total destructive force with no intent of benevolence. I merely stated that McDonald's could be harmful. >>So you are agreeing with me when I say that McDonald's is not harmful. From the sentences that are preceded by four ">"s, those are my words. The sentence that is preceded by two ">"s are my opponent's words. As you can see, there is no where in MY quote that states that I state the McDonald's is not harmful. I merely mentioned that it isn't pure evil. Anyways, the debate of the topic is MCDONALD'S CAN BE HARMFUL. You have often strayed from the topic even when I defined "can" as "to be able". You are disobeying the rules of debate. I personally have an older friend who worked at McDonald's from 2003-2005. Disgusted by the quality of the kitchen, he instead applied for a job at a fancier restaurant in New York where I forget the name. He has told me that at a fancier restaurant, after reading your argument, one does not cook food over and over repeatedly. And even though at McDonald's there is the variety that you can add or take away, pickles, mustard, ketchup, cheese, onion, etc., it still is basically the same thing. He has also stated that the quality of food at McDonald's is greatly lower than that of the fancier restaurant. This is no longer speculation because of a personal account from someone who has worked on "both sides of the fence". You state that "My opponent is agreeing with me on my point, I rest my case." The only reason why I agree with you, which I don't, is because you have taken my words, and twisted it in such a propagandist way that I end up saying what I don't say, which just so happens to fit your argument perfectly. I would thank you to stop using such despicable means of propaganda and participate in a clean, sanitized debate. To recapitulate, the topic of the sentence of the debate is the "McDonald's [as a broad subject, including its divisions and food] can be harmful." Now, I ask for you to remember that "can" means "to be able" and seeing as McDonald's is able to be harmful in the case of unhealthful weight gain. Although one can lose the harmful fat with a large amount of exercise, you still are able to be harmed if you don't. There is the possibility that McDonald's has the ability to harm you if you don't exercise. Next, animal slaughter. My opponent has stated that it depends on how you look at it. However, if you look at animal slaughter from the view of a cow, the cow will be harmed and then turned into a patty. Therefore, McDonald's can be harmful. The following is an excerpt from the book: "Earth Voice" This excerpt is about the life of a young calf and his life from birth to a patty: "Generally, when a cow gives birth to a male calf, he is immediately shipped to a [patty] factory and put in a stall so tiny that he cannot move except to collapse his legs into a sitting position. For his entire short life, he is tied by the neck to prevent him from almost all bodily movement, including licking himself. He is fed a diet deliberately lacking iron and roughage... Symptoms of diseases caused by the deficient diet and lack of exercise. Growth hormones may be administered to speed weight gain and he is kept in darkness except during feeding time. Four months later he is killed to create a "delicacy" called a patty." As John Robbins, author of "Diet for a New America" so succintly puts it: "The average cow [that will eventually become a lifeless, thin cylinder of meat] living on today's farm is bred, fed, medicated, inseminated, and manipulated to a single purpose, maximum meat production at minimum cost. They live with unnaturally swollen and sensitive udders...the females are kept almost constatly pregnant and her calves are taken from her almost immediately after birth. However, "contented" is the characteristic most meat companies describe the cows in their farms [I resent him not labeling them as factories of slaughter]. However, cows in most factories are fed tranquilizers to calm their frazzled nerves." As you can see from this description, which comes from a book in the nonfiction section, mind you, cows are treated horribly, which in other words, are caused harm. I have proven to you in these two sources, that McDonald's [as the broad subject, which includes its food] who is a benefactor of these factories, can cause harm to cows. Seeing as I have successfully defended my points and refuted all of my opponent's points, McDonald's can be harmful, and I have won this debate. Thank you all...and God bless us [believers] all.