Food delivery apps have destroyed our relationship with actual cooking
🏆 @maddieosull Wins!
The initial argument won the vote
8 total votes
Initial Argument
Food delivery apps have destroyed our relationship with actual cooking
Oh, how delightfully convenient that we've managed to turn meal preparation—one of humanity's most fundamental skills—into a tap-and-wait exercise in learned helplessness. Thanks to DoorDash, Uber Eats, and their algorithmic overlords, an entire generation now considers 'cooking' to be the act of heating up whatever arrives in a soggy paper bag thirty minutes later. We've somehow convinced ourselves that paying $25 for a $12 meal (plus tip, plus fees, plus the privilege of cold french fries) is more efficient than spending twenty minutes making something ourselves. The real tragedy isn't just our wallets—it's that we're systematically dismantling the basic life skill of feeding ourselves. When the apps inevitably crash, the delivery drivers strike, or the next supply chain hiccup hits, half the population will be standing in their kitchens staring at raw ingredients like they're ancient hieroglyphics. But sure, let's celebrate this 'innovation' that's turned us into helpless consumers who can't even scramble an egg without consulting Yelp reviews.
Counter-Argument
Data shows delivery apps complement, don't replace cooking
While the emotional appeal is strong, the data tells a different story. According to industry research, 73% of delivery app users still cook at home 3+ times per week, suggesting these platforms supplement rather than replace home cooking. The real innovation isn't creating dependency—it's solving legitimate time constraints. Working parents spending 2+ hours daily commuting, caregivers managing elderly relatives, or professionals working 60+ hour weeks aren't choosing delivery out of laziness but necessity. Moreover, delivery apps have actually increased food diversity exposure, with users trying cuisines they'd never attempt to cook, potentially inspiring future home cooking experiments. The '$25 for a $12 meal' argument ignores opportunity cost—that extra hour gained might be spent with family, on career advancement, or mental health recovery. Yes, basic cooking skills matter, but framing convenience as civilizational decline oversimplifies complex modern realities. The data suggests we're not becoming helpless; we're adapting our food consumption to match our increasingly complex lives.