Sneaking Snacks into the Movie theater

I thank HailedPanic913 for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent is affirming the resolution, he/she has the BoP to prove that people should sneak snacks in the movie theatre. In the event that there not a convincing argument from either side, I win. Definitions: Sneak: To behave in a cowardly manner [1]. Snack: a small portion of food or drink or a light meal, especially one eaten between regular meals [2]. A ‘snack’ can be typically purchased from a movie theatre’s snack-shop/food-shop, but in the case of Pro’s argument, this snack would be purchased elsewhere, hence ‘sneaking snacks into the movie theatre’. P1: Property rights are well founded In a world where there are finite resources, it is not possible that everyone owns the very best of anything. Hence, there needs to be a way in which to allocate things to people, or else people will fight over resources (in this case, property). If someone were able to simply invade your property, business, family and other ventures which require secure property will not be able to occur successfully [3][11]. Imagine if there was no recourse in bringing a herd of elephants into a movie theatre. People would be frightened. No one would be able to see the movie, especially if the elephants sat in the front row. Clearly, the people who own the business should have the right to prevent this, and hence they should have the right to property rules. As such, the right to property law, as long as it is compliant with governmental law, people should have the right to own land and set rules as to the land. Property rights is not just to do with owning the property, but also what can be done on the property [4]. A1: It is against cinema rules in many places As set in my premise, property rights are important in people being able to generate goods and services, raise families etc. In regards to a business selling a movie experience, if the rules say that you are not allowed to bring in outside food, then that is the rule. The business has every right to enforce this rule, and even deny you service if you refuse to comply, as indicated by property laws. If you are caught and asked to leave, then you will be prosecuted for trespassing [10]. Even the word ‘sneaking’ implies that this is not being done with permission, which means that Pro has already half-argued his/her way out of this debate. These sources indicate that there are plenty of places that have rules which do not allow outside snacks (not purchased on the property) to be brought into the cinema [5][6][7][8][9]. My argument is that in places where you would be required to ‘sneak’ snacks into movies, almost certainly because it is against the rules of the business owners, which is infringing on a person’s property rights. It would be like buying a ticket for a roller-coaster, and then running up the tracks by yourself, without ever stepping foot in the ride. Yes, you have bought the ticket to have access to the roller-coaster, but that does not mean you can do whatever you want. There are rules in place as to what you can do with the ticket. A2: Moral consideration What kind of person would be so deceitful about their contract with a business? What kind of people would not adhere to the rules of a business, and have the audacity to pretend that they are? 1. A person who tacitly agrees to a contract, and then breaks the contract is deceitful (lying) 2. Deceit (lying) is immoral C. Therefore, being deceitful (lying) about your contract with the cinema is immoral Immanuel Kant outlined in his Critique of Pure Reason that to lie, ever, is immoral. This stems from the basis that treating a person as a ‘means to an end’, rather than ‘an end in themselves’, is inherently immoral – it is a violation of the Categorical Imperative. This is due to lying not having universality, in that if everyone were to lie about their contract with the cinema, then the cinema’s service (i.e. the selling of snacks) would not be able to operate, due to having zero profits. Since this service of the business would not be able to function without people adhering to the tacit contract, it would be never okay to lie or be deceitful, in this regard. To act morally is to have full control over our actions. As I have shown, the motive of my opponent is not sound, and thus his action is not moral, via Kant’s deontology. CA1: Expense is irrelevant “Prices are ridiculous get the same thing at the store next door for a way cheaper price when at the theater you pay 2x more.” If you don’t agree with the service being sold, then do not buy it. Part of the service is not bringing outside food into the place. Cinemas are well within their right to enforce such a rule. Not only that, but I have argued why this is immoral, too. References: [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.discerningtoday.org... (page 6) [4] Badenhorst, PJ, Juanita M. Pienaar, and Hanri Mostert. Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property. 5th Edition. Durban: LexisNexis/Butterworths, 2006, p. 9. [5] http://www.wikihow.com... [6] http://forums.whirlpool.net.au... [7] http://www.mumsnet.com... [8] http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk... [9] http://eyesonthedollar.com... [10] http://www.lawguru.com... [11] http://skepticlawyer.com.au...