[post=80841280]This post[/post] inspires me to reopen this crucial debate. The attempt by the now banned poster from the referenced thread failed for obvious reasons. But I think a more light-hearted discussion of the merits of these two fast-food giants is now in order. Ladies and Gentlemen, let’s hear your arguments in favor of and against each of these corporate fast-food behemoths!!!
They both suck, but Burger King makes slightly better hamburgers, so they get my vote.
[sub]This is a Great Debate now? Whatever happened to partial-birth abortions of messiahs with libertarian leanings?[/sub]
Hey, when my home town opened the first BK (Mickey D’s having been there some 5 years already), it was a VERY big debate! 
I will not eat at burger king…those comercials creep me the hell out. i don’t eat at McDonalds often, but never at burger king.
I don’t eat enough at Burger King (simply aren’t any ones convenient to where I’m likely to want a burger) to offer a proper opinion on it, but I do definitely prefer A&W to McDonalds. Of the burger joints I frequent, I like Wendy’s the least (because of their buns).
While we’re at it, would someone explain what the hell Burger King did to their fries? Holy crap they’re awful!
I prefer McDonalds. Burger King puts too much glop on their burgers, then the bun slides around. Plus it’s icky.
It was better to work at BK than McDonalds, though.
I can’t remember the last time I ate at either one but Burger King’s stuff at least tasted vaguely like hamburgers. McDonald’s don’t taste like anything else I’ve ever had and it’s not at all pleasant; the only thing they’ve got going for them is they beat Carl’s Jr by a mile unless you like dry, tasteless slips of leather. In 'n Out used to be really good but for the last few years they’ve gone so far downhill they aren’t worth bothering with any more (I could even take the subliminal bible thumping when the food was better).
I do agree that the Burger King commercials are unsettling to say the least, but the burgers are edible.
It’s probably a triumph of advertising that anyone eats at either place.
McD’s can’t cut it - if you don’t got Whoppers, you’re not worth stopping at. Give me a four-napkin sloppy Whopper and some rings and I’m jolly. However there aren’t any BKs near me at all so I haven’t had one in maybe a couple years.
I quit eating McD years ago when they started using ground cardboard (or something that has as much taste) in the burgers. I like Wendy’s only for the Spicy Chicken sandwiches. A&W is closest to me though so that’s where I satisfy my (very rare) burger cravings (no, not referring to the doneness).
I’m guessing the popularity of McDonalds has a lot to do with their taking the lead in (1) marketing to children and (2) offering breakfast.
I would be happy eating at McDonalds or Burger King or any of their competitors once in a while, but not on a regular basis. If I had to choose between them, I would probably base my choice on which one I had eaten at less recently, or on which one was offering some new sandwich I wanted to try.
In my city, for at least three decades, McDonalds’s biggest rival has been Hardee’s, with Wendy’s and Burger King (in some order) comnig in third and fourth for fast food hamburgers.
They decided they couldn’t actually beat McDonald’s at their game, so they made a completely different type of fry.
Now that’s interesting… around these parts, BK fries are crisp, golden and plumpish, whereas McD’s fries are usually flaccid, collapsed-inwards, straw-yellow and terribly oversalted. I don’t rate the food in either establishment particularly highly, but McD’s is lower in my estimation.
Burger King. I like their chicken sandwiches.
Thudlow, BK serves breakfast. Do they not serve it in your neck of the woods?
Which one’s got the “special sauce”? 'Cause there was this news story about this punk kid, worked in the kitchen, and his innovation for “special sauce”. Kinda like a “personal touch”.
So, the other one.
BK for the burgers, McD’s for the fries. I’ll usually take two BK burgers, throw away the bottom buns, and make a doubleburger. BK also gets the nod for having onion rings.
Neither place would be my first choice for lunch, but sometimes that’s all you have available.
I’m pretty sure they do, but I was under the impression that McDonalds got there first (“took the lead”) and more heavily promoted their breakfasts. But perhaps I’m wrong.
How come these guys don’t get hit with false advertising? If look at the juicy monster of flavourful freshness on the ads and the flaccid glob of tepid grayness you get in that wrapper, you know what I am talking about. Why can’t I demand to get the burger in the picture?
oh, and Burger King all the way. They are delicious. <|=o)
I eat at either rarely. The burgers are indistinguishable, but McDs fries are significantly better (even up to the level of good) so McDs wins usually. When I eat lunch out I usually go to Wendy’s - okay fries, better burgers, and easier to get to from my office. For dinner, it is Popeyes all the way. 
Fries? Why are you guys debating fries?? Both chains’ fries suck.
But BK has onion rings. Agreed, they’re no better or worse than one would expect from a fast-food chain, but at least it has 'em, and they’re miles better than fast-food fries, which all suck, except for Bojangles.
But a burger chain must stand or fall on the strength of its burgers. Being a middle-aged guy who is rarely interested in eating a fast-food burger of the size of a Whopper, Big Mac, or Quarter-Pounder anymore, I admit that I’m not exactly in their target demographic, but it’s all in the small burgers for me. And there’s no contest there. Burger King has a perfectly good Whopper Jr., a smaller but otherwise just as good version of its signature burger. (Wendy’s has a yummy Junior Bacon Cheeseburger, if we want to widen the debate.) And McDonald’s has…its original hamburger and cheeseburger, which are really pretty crappy burgers, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to their signature burger, the Big Mac. A Junior Big Mac would at least put them in the game, but they don’t have one.