Junk food is beneficial for you.
Welcome to the debate.
First round is for defineing and last round for concluding. I define 'junk food' as "pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value". I define "beneficial" as "resulting in good; favourable or advantageous"
Since R1 is for defining terms, I will further qualify what my opponent has presented.
good (n)- to be desired or approved of; suitable, fit <good to eat> ; that can be relied on <good for another year> 
"you" (n)- me
What is considered desirable or favourable is highly subjective and will defined as such (dependent on the individual). Based on these definitions, I will argue in this debate that I find and have found pre-prepared or packaged food with low nutritional value to be desirable, reliable, etc. and feel that I have benefited from it whether it be from enjoyment or from any other factor I deem desirable.
I would like to thank you for accepting my debate.
Junk food can cause many undesirable effects such as obesity and heart attacks. Obesity is a state where your body is overweight. Being overweight can affect many things, such as walking speed, heart condition etc. This is certainly not beneficial for you, and these conditions can cause injury or death.
By avoiding this unbeneficial junk food, one has much lower chance of obesity, as it is mainly caused by food habits. Good food habits also has other benefits such as a good blood stream. Overall, junk food is certainly NOT beneficial.
Junk food is beneficial for me as defined, as I find it to be desirable in taste. I have certainly benefitted and continue to benefit from it by enjoying the flavour and convenience of a quick meal at a cheap price. Furthermore, I have found it to be reliable as the expiration date is often long into the future.
In short, pre-prepared food is desirable for me as it saves me time and money while simultaneously providing me with tasty meals.
Since this debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to me, what my opponent considers desirable is irrelevant. I am not obese or at risk of a heart attack, nor does my current level of consumption of junk food put me at risk for any of these things. Even if I was, this would not change the fact that I benefit from junk food. Even if I agreed with my opponent on the things he lists as undesirable, it would not change the fact that I still find junk food desirable for the taste, price, and convenience. If I did not find it desirable, I would not eat it.
Whether junk food is not beneficial overall to people in general is irrelevant to the debate, as the debate resolution is about whether it is beneficial to me. For my opponent to refute my argument, he will have to show that it is not desirable for me in terms of taste, convenience, and price.
To even begin to use this argument, my opponent would first have to provide evidence that junk food is causing me depression. He then would also have to show that this possibility makes it so that I no longer desire junk food. I just had a bag of microwave popcorn. Furthermore, the debate resolution is not "a diet high in junk food is beneficial for your mental health." My diet is not high in junk food, and this is irrelevant.
My opponent's rebuttal fails as it attempts to tell me my opinion is incorrect. My desires are neither correct or incorrect. My preferences are determined by what I consider valuable. In this regard, the potential negative health consequences of a diet that involves the occasional consumption of junk food don't change my eating habits. If I thought the cost outweighed the benefit, I wouldn't engage in the behaviour. I perceive the value the convenience of and enjoyment from the taste of junk food to be greater the cost of potential health risk. To say that potential injury outweighs the good taste is to make the absolute claim that health risk is objectively worse than tastiness is good. It is my individual perception of what is beneficial, as defined, that matters.
Furthermore, I am not even necessarily impeded at all by such concerns when eating junk food. Even if I was consuming a high amount of junk food and it was having a clear negative impact on my health, that wouldn't change the fact that I find it desirable. Even if the negative health risks crossed my mind, it wouldn't change the fact that I still desired the food. If junk food wasn't desirable, I would not consume it. My opponent's claim seems to be akin to claiming that I eat junk food against my desires.
Also note that it's not just the taste that makes me call junk food beneficial. As a college student, the convenience and low price are very helpful and greatly outweigh possible harmful effects for me. My opponent has dropped the convenveince and low cost arguments.
To argue that junk food is not beneficial to someone does not mean they have to be already affected. So, I have already given evidence that you are prone to depression by junk food. Depression changes people's appetite as well, so this will lead to the possibility that you do not like junk food, even if your intake is not high. (1) Also, as explained before junk food leads to disease, which I am sure outweighs taste. Most teenagers rank health in front of convenience. Since junk food is addictive, you can easily be buying a lot of junk food which is not cheap.
Another reason why junk food is not beneficial to you is because of the artificial things it contains. Here us an article on Chicken McNuggets.
"The meat alone in McNuggets is compromised of 7 different ingredients, many of which are made up of several other ingredients. Some ingredients that make up the ‘meat’ include sodium phosphate, safflower oil, wheat starch, dextrose, and a particularly dangerous substance known as autolyzed yeast extract. Autolyzed yeast extract is similar to MSG, an artificial sweetener that has been linked to obesity and other health conditions.
Frighteningly, these are not the worst chemicals found in McNuggets. Dimethylpolysiloxane, a type of silicone, is added as an anti-foaming agent to the nuggets. This is the same ingredient that is used in breast implants and silly putty, yet McNuggets are marketed towards children with complete disregard for their health. Chicken McNuggets truly represent the crazy use of chemicals in fast food."(2)
My opponent argues that his speculation over possible future occurrences he perceives to be negative affect whether I find junk food beneficial/desirable. As I have pointed out, I am not addicted to junk food; it has not changed my diet or caused me depression. These are not factors I consider as they have not affected me, do not affect me now, and likely will not affect me in the future. If they affect me in the future, I will be wrong on the last point, but this would not change the fact that I find junk food beneficial.
"Also, as explained before junk food leads to disease, which I am sure outweighs taste."
This is simply an undefended assertion. As I have explained, based on the definitions for the debate, what is considered desirable is dependent on the individual. My perceived risk for getting cancer or heart disease is extremely low. Eating junk food occasionally does not necessitate either and does not worry me.
Furthermore, my opponent has dropped my argument that if junk food was not beneficial as defined, I would not eat it because I would not eat something I did not desire. He has also failed to show that junk food is not beneficial for me with regards to taste, convenience, and price, the factors I listed as my primary concerns. He conceded this.
"Most teenagers rank health in front of convenience."
A common stereotype about college students is that they live off ramen. Since I only eat junk food occasionally, my opponent seems to suggest that most teenagers never eat junk food. Regardless, the statement is not relevant as the debate is about me. If most teenagers value health enough to never eat any junk food, that would not make me one of them.
Chicken McNuggets are just one type of junk food (that I have never had) and not representative of junk food as a whole; my opponent only asserts that a lot of junk food contains artificial things. Even if he showed this to be representative of what I eat, this is the same argument I already refuted.
Since the debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to you NOT whether junk food is mostly beneficial to you, I only need to prove completely that in one case junk food is not beneficial to you. Junk food might be partly beneficial to you ie. the taste (the reason why you eat junk food), but it does pose as health risk, that even you have partly agreed on. A small junk food meal can easily grow into a big one; no one is immune. So this is a slight risk, and this leads to the statement that "junk food is not beneficial".
"My perceived risk for getting cancer or heart disease is extremely low."
Extremely low is not impossible.
"Chicken McNuggets are just one type of junk food (that I have never had) and not representative of junk food as a whole; my opponent only asserts that a lot of junk food contains artificial things. Even if he showed this to be representative of what I eat, this is the same argument I already refuted."
This is an article on other common artificial things. http://www.thebetterhealthstore.com...
Junk food is NOT beneficial to you in one way or another as all the health risks described are possible to ANYONE even very healthy people. Muscle stiffness, cancer, heart disease etc. are all POSSIBLE to ANYONE. Even in little doses, the artificial things found in junk food can easily pose health risks.
Since the debate is about whether junk food is beneficial to me NOT whether junk food is absolutely beneficial to me in every imaginable category, my opponent needed to provide evidence that junk food does not meet the characteristics for beneficial as defined. His claim that he only needed to present one thing that is somewhat undesirable in order to meet his BoP is a massive goalpost shift.
Beneficial was defined as "resulting in good..." where good was defined as "to be desired or approved of..." where what is considered desirable is dependent on the individual. It was not defined as "resulting in only good with absolutely no undesirable possible effects." As I have stated, potential health risks do not change the fact that I desire junk food, and therefore the conclusion that "junk food is not beneficial" is unwarranted.
"Extremely low is not impossible."
Just because it's not impossible doesn't mean I care. I'm not paranoid about every possibility. I know that there is a possibility every time I drive that I will die in a car accident. This does not change the fact that driving is beneficial to me as it provides much quicker transportation than I would have otherwise.
"This is an article on other common artificial things."
My opponent does not even explain this article or try to incorporate it into his argument.
As I have explained, possible health risks do not magically make it so that I stop desiring junk food. They are of little concern to me and do not make it so that junk food cannot be considered beneficial as defined. I have shown that junk food "results in good" for me with regards to convenience, cost, reliability, and taste. My opponent has dropped these arguments and has claimed that because of potential negative health effects that I cannot find junk food to be desirable and that it cannot "result in good" for me. I have shown these possibilities to not change the fact that junk food does result in good for me.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|