Debate Rounds (1)
Kids are time crunched at lunch
Kids need food
Kids need energy from food
Kids are sometimes protesting longer lunches
Kids have recess, and then lunch, they need more food to make up that energy
Now, for my argument, I'll go on the offensive. In your argument, you stated "Kids have recess, and then lunch, they need more food to make up that energy". How so? There is a very specific meal cycle in a day. The average meal takes six to eight hours to pass through your entire digestive tract, nearly an hour more than the average school day, which is seven hours. It is during the digestive process that nutrients are released into the blood via the stomach and the cilia in the intestines. While I know this is a conglomeration of facts, please allow me to explain.
The average lunch for a student 4 - 9 years of age in 500 to 600 calories. What I find absurd is that you believe a student can somehow burn these calories in half an hour, which is the typical recess, and at the longest, an hour. The amount of physical activity required for this to occur far exceeds the time and the physical capability of anyone of this age. This calorie intake (lunch) supplies energy until the end of the day. Dinner, well, this supplies calories in your sleep, which believe it or not, you burn a significant amount of calories in your sleep. If your problem is children running out of energy during the day, well this is a problem with their calorie intake in the morning (breakfast) not their lunch.
Next argument I plan to attack educational issues, I didn't want to exhaust all my options in one go...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 7 months ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the nature of this debate being 1 round long this meant that Con could make arguments and refute the arguments brought up by Pro in the first round. Since Con's arguments still stand (because there was no round for rebuttals) and Pro's arguments don't since they were refuted and Pro could not respond because the debate was 1 round long this ultimately meant that pro's burden of proof cannot be fulfilled. Pro had the entire burden of proof since he is proposing a change in the status quo. Con wins due to Pro's inability to fulfill his burden.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.