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

Longer Lunches

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/11/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 88086
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Longer Lunches = Smarter Students
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


For one, I don't understand where you made the connection "Longer lunches = Smarter students". Secondly, a lot of your argument is generic. Yes kids need food, and kids protesting longer lunches in no way adds to your argument.

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...
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
>Reported vote: Sniper_Man_4567// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con overall had a better point and Con actually tried.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are too generally explained, as this could be applied to practically any debate. The voter needs to directly and specifically address points made by both debaters.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
>Reported vote: SactownBoom// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con made a well thought out argument that used good logic, whereas Pro just sort of made statements without backing them up by any credible means.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter needs to directly and specifically address points made by both debaters. This RFD is too generalized and could be applied to practically any debate.
Posted by Sniper_Man_4567 7 months ago
Apparently someone who is scared to continue on a debate.
Posted by DrewKaltenberger 7 months ago
Who the $%^& makes a one round debate...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 7 months ago
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: 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.