Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.
Debate Rounds (5)
Children are getting obese every day from regularly eating fast food at school. No laws are being made to enforce it. This low-quality food is casing many illnesses, from cardiovascular disorders to ADHD, making children perform worse in school and their life. Some parents don't care enough about their child and don't decide to give them home lunches. Many children enjoy the food and don't think about the long-term effects of the chemicals that they put in their mouths.
In a recent study, it was shown that kids consume more calories that nutrients during days when they eat junk/fast foods. Today's teens are three times more likely to be obese that 20 years ago. Are children actually capable of saying no to fast food when the glorious smell of burgers rules the halls? Of course not! Are parents able to withstand the outrageous cheapness of a filling lunch that their kids savour? Again, of course not!!!
Children do not only consume this food every day, but they order more, supersize their portions and engorge until they can hardly breathe. Fast food chains don't give two plops about a child's health. The cashiers just want to make more money. If children come for another five portions, who's going to stop them, really?
I await my opponents response.
Resolved: Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.
Fast food chains- McDonalds, Subway, etc.
junk food- soda, chips, etc.
should be- ought to but have not done so.
banned-officially or legally prohibit
Cost benefit analysis will be the judging criterion to both sides.
C1. Fast foods and junk food are a large source of income.
S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students.
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs.
S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general.
Therefore by banning chains and junk food we are ultimately degrading human welfare.
I will post my rebuttals in R2 due to a large amount of rounds.
Schools can implement a healthy, balanced and tasty lunch program for the students, providing a fair amount of revenue. If students eat healthy food and pay the same amount of money for it, schools will make the same amount of profit. This is not a fantasy: http://www.californiaconnected.org....
A recent study shows that 1 out of three Caucasians and 1 out of 2 Hispanics and African-Americans will get diabetes befoe they are adults (watch the video in the link above). Do you want this to hapen to your child?
I await your rebuttals
I forgot to mention that the definition of school cafeterias will apply only to district public schools not universities because Con's argument about obesity pertains to district level schools.
As a roadmap I will be attacking Pro then clarifying my case.
Rebuttals on R2:
2nd paragraph: Pro's claim: Schools are able to charge the same price as fast food chains and still can improve the quality of health.
Rebuttal 1: Schools will not be able to charge the same prices as fast foods do, because the food needs to be prepared from scratch; this takes more labor, utilities, cooking equipments, and food resources. In this economy districts cannot afford to pay for all this. So by expecting schools to make food from scratch it only increases the price and decreases the number of students buying from schools. And let's not forget the low income, if Pro's plan is to pass then the district and state will also lose money because of high cost of food production. This may also lead to an increase in taxes, in which many despise.
Rebuttal 2: According to your source the lunch lady cooks food from scratch at a university. She also used to be a world class chef too. This brings two points: She knows much about nutrition and she has much experience.
Now if you are suggesting schools districts should hire world class chefs or experienced chefs with a degree in nutrition then the school district will go bankrupt. It is simply too costly.
"Lee has tried making her own burritos, her own teriyaki chicken and her own sandwiches on homemade bread. But with high labor costs and inadequate facilities, cooking from scratch is difficult and costly. What's more, students don't buy the homemade items; Lee is lucky if she can sell four sandwiches on a given day."
3rd paragraph: This a an absurd source and statistic. 1:3 Caucasians 1:2 Hispanics and Africans? Diabetes are mainly genetic. Food's only role in this because it is an environmental factor, so if kids are suspected of it then there will be a restriction of what they can buy.
("In noninsulin-dependent diabetes, heredity may be a factor, but since the pancreas continues to produce insulin, the disease is considered a problem of insulin resistance, in which the body is not using the hormone efficiently."; http://www.libraryindex.com...; http://www.diabetes.org...) Oh and look at the Genotype chart most cases are heredity.
This concludes for R2.
1st paragraph: Children are getting obese because they gorge on fast food outside of school. The district nutritionist does monitor the nutrition of the food sold in school because there are guidelines and restrictions. If there wasn't then protests will lead to new restrictions, but alas there isn't one recently. Fast foods chosen by the school is not an enormous factor of obesity as my opponent claims.
Extra: Soda bans is considered as a law to enforce it. ADHD is a genetic disorder;http://psychcentral.com.... Student performance is due to other factors, such as not eating breakfast at school and home or lack of enthusiasm. Most families eat at least one healthy meal each day.
2nd paragraph: This directly conflicts with my rebuttals above. Cheap fast foods are affordable rather than pricey foods made from scratch. Calories are burned from a day's walk to and from school, sports, P.E, walking to classes, etc. A reason why teens are more obese is due to ease of transportation. With cars they are able to go off school campus to purchase more fattening foods. At least schools do restrict food choices.
3rd paragraph: Fast food chains do give plops about health, that's why they have grown public awareness about their meals, they have nutrition tables, advertisements, etc. If they didn't care then meat shouldn't be inspected and hygiene isn't valued. Children gorge on these foods after school outside of campus, that has no relevance to school's cafeterias. Foods children buy after school are not monitored by the district. The fast food chains and schools do make money in cafeteria lunches. Not only that but please read Con's contention 1.
And if children to do come for 5 more portions at one time then that's absurd.
Now my contention:
C1: Fast food chains are a source of income for schools
S1: Sodas are a large profit. They are banned now, and because of it it's considered as a factor to the decline in the education system. Impact: Junk foods do benefit students.
S2: Fast food chains and schools benefit from the sales of fast foods. Fast food chains in turn fund school programs and scholarships. Impact: With the income of schools selling fast foods, fast food franchises are able to benefit society, environment, and schools.
Thank you. I will wait for Pro's response.
I will begin with defending my arguments.
"Schools will not be able to charge the same prices..."
My video is simply an exapmle of the fat that it IS possible. Food does not have to be internationally recognized, but by simply using decent ingredients. Look at this: http://www.thelunchlady.ca.... Simple, yet effective. A nice, balanced meal works for the same price as fast food.
"Lee has tried making her own burritos, her..."
My previous video and the link above proves this wrong.
"This a an absurd source and statistic..."
How is this absurd? You yourself agreed that she was a world-renowned chef.
"In non insulin-dependent diabetes, heredity may be a factor..."
Wow. I thought that my opponent would be above this. In the text, it says that heredity MAY be a factor. The scientists aren't even sure whether it is or not! But right below that, it claims that being overweight increases your chances of getting it. This is usually unhealthy eating with not enough excersize.
"ADHD is a genetic disorder.."
Again, I am baffled. "Certain components of the diet, including food additives and sugar, can have clear effects on behavior. Experts believe that food additives may exacerbate ADHD, and that refined sugar may be to blame for a range of abnormal behaviors." Are you sure you are using the right sources?
"Fast food chains do give plops about health..."
Nutrition tables are mandated by the government. Advertisements are actually made to attract customers:
/ˈ�dvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ad-ver-tahy-zing] Show IPA
1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., exp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising.
2. paid announcements; advertisements.
3. the profession of planning, designing, and writing advertisements.
"Children gorge on these..."
A recent study by Yale University proved that children are not likely to make up for junk food not eaten at school.
"And if children to do come for 5 more portions at one time then that's absurd."
Agreed. This was just an overstatement to highlight the significance of the statement.
I await your response.
As a road map I'll point out some key points before addressing my opponent's case.
1. My oppenent has not even touched on my contention, therefore he has dropped it. In debate, silence is consent. He as agreed to my points and cannot bring them back up. Con's contention's impacts outweighs Pro's.
On to Con's (I'll dissected it by paragraphs):
1. I'm sorry to say that I don't understand Canadian lunch system. But due to news proclaiming about schools lunches in America we'll be debating from an American view. If you wish to continue in Canada, then this is a whole new debate; perhaps next time you could define your terms.
But in the US we are financially tight. Especially CA, where I live, we are seriously tight on money (http://cbs2.com...). Your source never explains how this balanced meal is cheaper than fast food.
And there is no explanations on how your sources outweighs my Lee example.
This source is much more accurate because it is backed by the government rather than a group, who can simply make believe to recruit others for their cause.
3. Scientists are also unsure if eating too much is a factor. Exercise is promoted. And metabolism is heretitary ("Some disorders of metabolism have a strong genetic component." - http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...) Therefore being overweight can be solved and is genetic. In a majority of the cases heredity is the common factor. Argument stands.
4. Key word "can", "may be" and "believe." It is not confirmed that ADHD is linked to food additives. This argument still stands.
5. "Nutrition tables are mandated by the government."
Pro's argument here isn't well explained. So please read my argument (Fast food chains do give plops about health, that's why they have grown public awareness about their meals, they have nutrition tables, advertisements, etc. If they didn't care then meat shouldn't be inspected and hygiene isn't valued. Children gorge on these foods after school outside of campus, that has no relevance to school's cafeterias. Foods children buy after school are not monitored by the district.)
Because nutrition tables are mandated schools will also need to mandate what food comes in, therefore my argument stands. And please explain your purpose in defining advertisements because I don't see a point.
6. No source, my argument stands. And where do kids eat after school anyway, particularly teens? I usually have an In-N-Out burger and fries after school and before track practice.
7. So you do agree this is invalid with this, awesome.
Oh and your chef source also states: "Then there are labor costs which typically eat up 40% of a school district's budget." And the comments display the inaccuracy of the report by using a celebrity chef rather than a typical lunch lady to make others join the bandwagon.
Voting issues (all relating to arguments in R2):
Rebuttal on R2, 2nd paragraph, Rebuttal 2 is dropped.
Rebuttal in R1, 1st paragraph.
Con's contention 1.
All these drops cannot be refuted because silence is consent.
My impacts simply outweigh my opponent's.
Thank you and I await your response.
Cpt.Price forfeited this round.
Same as before and Pro has dropped Con's contention.
That all. I await your rebuttals. Thank you.
1. I'm sorry to say that I don't understand Canadian......
Did I generalize? No, of course not. I am using varied sources because it is more advantageous.
But in the US we are financially tight.....
OK..... A Big Mac meal costs about 6.50. One of these meals costs 4.00. Yep. Talk about financial tightness.
2. I quoted you. You are saying that your information is a bad source. Are you sure that you can debate?
3. Since when were we talking about metabolism?
4. So? Your sources say exactly the same. You claim they are correct.
5. Ads about the food being healthy are made to promote the product. A Big Mac meal has 1850 calories, 93 grams of sugar and hardly any vitamins and minerals. Where is the nutritional value?
Nutritional tables are mandated by the government. Fast food chains only do this because they are MANDATED. They probably don't want to show the absence of nutrition.
6. Interesting. An Ivy League University is not a source. I laugh.
7. I said that this was an overstatement by me. If you are using a figure of speech as an argument, then you must have poor other arguments.
8. Again, I said that THIS IS PROOF THAT IT IS POSSIBLE. Please read my arguments.
I have successfully defended my arguments and destroyed my opponents'.
Con, I beg you to make your last round worth it.
Cpt. Price :)
P.S., I apologize again for the forfeit.
As a road map I'll simply attack Pro's arguments and move on to voting issues.
1. a. Varied sources are advantageous but this argument has no point. Because of the generalization of Americans kids being fat due to school food, thus we are debating upon that.
In the U.S a Big Mac costs $3.59. You claim one of your scratch food costs $4.00. So do the math, which costs more? We are saving at least $.3 per each Big Mac, add that on a big scale and we save a lot compared to a $4.00 school meal.
2. I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll ref-raise, groups can recruit others to their cause through propaganda. Therefore your source is inaccurate.
3. Metabolism is tied into the diabetes and weight issues you've discussed in R3 paragraph 3 to hopefully clarify and refine some arguments.
4. I didn't not claim my source in the issue of food additives, that is a possibility but not for sure.
"ADHD has a strong genetic basis in the majority of cases, as a child with ADHD is four times as likely to have had a relative who was also diagnosed with attention deficit disorder." This is the part I was using about.
5. "They probably don't want to show the absence of nutrition." But still they showed it so people are aware, so by buying such food they are aware of the risk. And again food bought and eaten outside of school is not the school's problem.
6. Not a valid source meaning there isn't a website present, this is just another absurd and hypothetical claim. Voters, if you do this pass then I can say Harvard University researchers proved students are less likely to buy food made from scratch in school cafeterias, therefore schools lose income and costumers.
Actually it's been proven correct (but not by Harvard :( ): http://www.education.com...
7. Yes, I agree it's very hypothetical. Thus your overstatement is invalid along with other exaggerated arguments...wait that's pretty much all of it.
8. Most of your arguments basically revolve around that source. And because I have already proved it wrong and too costly for schools, it's invalid.
And again neither Pro has not destroyed my arguments (otherwise I wouldn't be refuting in sheer shame), nor has he touched on my contentions and its impacts.
1. Again, Pro has not touched on my own contention, and please don't be confused with rebuttals.
Basically S1: junk foods are a large source of income.
S2: Fast foods promote business and school.
My contention's impacts outweigh Pro's.
"S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students.
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com...... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs.
S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general."
2. His arguments revolve around the UC Berkeley source and I have proved it wrong and too costly and basically destroyed Pro's impacts. So this source and Pro's arguments are gone.
3. Pro has not touched or in other words dropped some Con's extended arguments:
In R2, "Now R1," "2nd paragraph."
In R2. "Now R1," "1st paragraph."
Overall in the end Con's impacts and arguments outweigh Pro's arguments. Thus Con has won through cost benefit analysis as our agreed judging criterion.
Pro, I hope this last round is worth it.
I enjoyed debating this topic. And thanks again for starting this.
P.S No problem, I can understand your situation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.