The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Junk food should not be banned in school

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 85383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Hi, we are happy to be here to discuss such a important topic. I believe that Junk food should not be banned in school. Because, I think the banning junk food is not a good way to decrease children's obesity. It is just a remove children's food option. There is another way to decrease children's obesity:more exercise, healthy food, etc.
Thank you.


I accept the challenge..

I think junk food should be banned in school..well simply put...because it's harmful to the health of children

while eating junk food satisfies one's hunger but it is very harmful in the long can lead to type 2 diabetes , it can cause digestive problems , it can lead to obesity , it can cause fatigue and weakness , can lead to depression and for even more reasons refer to this link ..

Banning junk food in schools is a start towards the goal of a healthier lifestyle for children
Debate Round No. 1


Just a "banning junk food" is not way to decrease the Children's obesity. It is just a removing the children's food or snack option. People (usually children) have their rights which shows that children's can choose their snacks whatever they want. and there is another way to decrease the obesity such as exercise, etc.


I'll start by presenting my argument
Banning junk food is a good start in the right direction(I.e. Healthy lifestyle) .. And the benefits of banning junk food aren't only limited to reduction in obesity .. Junk food is very harmful ..and that's why it's called junk food and not healthy food
It Has low nutritional the long run it takes more than what it gives back to your body

I've already mentioned the harms in the above argument

While on the other hand eating healthy food is beneficial to the health of an individual ..
I mean our body has food requirements ..and We have to meet them
Now while if the children eat junk food to meet their hunger requirements results in degradation of their mental and physical health..which is not desirable
While if they eat healthy food their would be an upgradation of their physical and mental health..which is desirable

Food is an integral part of our lives..and we should start seeing it as one rather than just a medium to meet our health requirements..right food can be such an important part in growth of an individual..while the wrong food can be just as important part in slow degradation of an individual

Now to refute your argument
Just banning won't solve the problem of obesity..but junk food isn't only limited to obesity results in degradation of an individual in so many other ways(see them in above argument and its link).
And pretty sure if children decide to snack on rat poison not understanding how harmful it is we can't allow that :)

Debate Round No. 2


okay. I understand. I agree that junk food is not healthy. however, it is not reason for banning junk food from school. and there is another way to protect children's health from obesity such as providing a good healthy food to children in school (not the banning), make a mandatory (required) healthy class, or healthy food cooking class, etc. therefore, My argument is there is another way to protect children's health from obesity. not just banning the junk food.


Given that children will eat junk food at home or outside...banning it completely from school cafeterias is a good idea as it ensures children eat healthy food at least once a day..the amount of junk food children consume today is too harmful for them in the long run .. Moreover banning junk food in schools is important because other than promoting a healthy lifestyle it will also educate children about health and nutrition(we often think we are educating them with what we say..but actually our actions speak louder)
Now i would have refuted your argument..but you did it yourself when you presented the idea that a good way to protect children's health is providing them with healthy food in schools in your r3 argument
But what I need you understand is junk food isn't only limited to degrades you both mentally and physically while healthy food does the opposite..

what you basically argue is this..that it's children's right to have the choice of junk food at school..this argument is invalid ..well simply because there's no such right :)

Thankyou for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tashasays 9 months ago

Pro's resolution is that junk food should not be banned from schools. He states that there are other, presumably better, ways to decrease childhood obesity such as education and exercise. Con states that junk food leads to numerous health problems, not just obesity and therefore, junk food should be banned. Pro restarts his argument as a rebuttal, but does not address the additional health issues. Con's final argument is that schools need to practice what they preach. If schools educate children about healthy eating as pro suggests, they need to also demonstrate those values, which is absolutely true. Since con was able to prove that junk food is bad for children and pro's solutions must include banning junk food, con wins the argument.
Posted by AngryBlogger 9 months ago

Apparently, it seems like I am banned from voting, can someone please vote in my name for me and simply paste this RFD?

Vote con.
The pro presented an argument but never defended his argument he presented. Simply the con gave more arguments which most were factual such as health risk is at threat when eating junk food, fatigue and such. The pro never really really rebuttal anything the con had to say in that regard but simply said it takes away more snack and food options. This is not a good argument.

So therefore, I am awarding the con with the more convincing arguments and also for conduct seeing that the pro didn't have much to say at all.
Posted by FuckleBerryJuJu 9 months ago
You are contradicting yourself by saying junk food should not be banned, then saying a good alternative is exercise and healthy food..

Picture it this way, what a school cannot do is ensure that a child participates in gym class or any activities like that, what a school can do is prevent children from buying fatty foods under their supervision.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EAT_IT_SUKA 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro's argument was that obesity can be banned other ways than banning junk food. Con pointed out that banning junk food at school wouldn't stop children from eating at home, is a step towards a healthier lifestyle and that obesity isn't limited to just junk food, which trumps Pro's arguments. Pro made no attempt to refute Con's arguments so Con gets the argument points. Con used 2 different semi-reliable sources that supported his case of how banning junk food is a good thing whereas Pro used no sources. Thus, Con gets argument points.