The Instigator
Nicholas110497
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Government impose restrictions on school lunches

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 52561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Nicholas110497

Pro

Yes they should
Defro

Con

I accept.

To clarify, Pro's resolution accounts for all schools.

I will be arguing that there should be no government imposed restrictions on private schools.

I await Pro's openning arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Nicholas110497

Pro

If government already had a say then why is there junk food in schools and why are students getting fatter
Defro

Con

I fail to comprehend as to how Pro's question supports his stance.

Pro is claiming that because the government imposes restrictions on school lunches, children are getting fatter because the food imposed by the government is not healthy.

Therefore, the government should not impose restrictions on school lunches BECAUSE it gets children fatter.


Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to my contention:

-Private schools are not government funded. They are not owned or supported by the government. Therefore the government should not impose restrictions on private school lunches.
Debate Round No. 2
Nicholas110497

Pro

Government does not fund vending machines they fund the schools so they can buy food for the lunches and since junk food doesn't cost as much there Is more junk food if government supplied more money to schools they could buy healthier food
Defro

Con

My contender has committed a fallacy. He is assuming that funding and imposing restrictions are the same. Furthermore, if there is a vending machine in a public school, then the vending machine is most likely also being funded by the government. I fail to see Pro's stance on this topic.


My contention remain unaddressed:

-Private schools are not under the jurisdiction of the government, therefore they should not have imposed restrictions on their school lunches by the government.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@scienceNerd48

ok.
Posted by scienceNerd48 3 years ago
scienceNerd48
Well i live in the USA so...
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@scienceNerd48

How is that relevant? If that's the case, then Pro would argue that the government should continue with this policy and I will argue that the should not.

Furthermore, this is not true in many countries. In Thailand where I live, for example, the government does not impose on school lunch.
Posted by scienceNerd48 3 years ago
scienceNerd48
Both of you are doofs, because the government already imposes on lunches.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kimmi 3 years ago
kimmi
Nicholas110497DefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro you need to clean up your act you need to put more umf to your debates . great job defro
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
Nicholas110497DefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't supply adequate evidence for his resolution. And left con's main argument unrefuted. Pro also made a contradictory argument
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Nicholas110497DefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lacks in punctuation and grammar. S&G points go to Con. Pro never met his burden of proof, offering a contradictory argument. Pro did not refute Con's argument, either. Points to Con.