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

Nap time for Elementary age children should be done away with.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 68426
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




First response is for acceptance. Thank you in advance to whoever accepts this debate, and good luck to you.


Challenge accepted, compadre. I wish good luck to you, and hopefully we can have a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1


To begin, I would like you, as the con, to acknowledge the fact that nap time is recognized as a staple in most kindergartens across the United States. However, this is something that is simply not needed. To start us off, I present to you a piece of evidence from the website named, where, at one point, Manisha Witmans, who is the director of the pediatric sleep program at Stollery Children"s Hospital, states that only 10 to 12 percent of children at age 5 take naps, and age 5 is the entry age for kindergarten. I bring this up because it's questions the need for a nap time, when such evidence could be taken to mean that only 10 to 12 percent of children in Elementary school are actually sleeping. Not to mention the fact that children could easily be doing something else education wise, like reading, or writing, instead of wasting their time napping, as one of the most crucial times of learning for a child is at age five, where they are far more likely to pick up on the basics of a language. This is refered to as the window of learning opportunity. This means that during one of a child's most important moments in life, it could be wasting this time napping.

Let's also not forget the fact that once a child goes to Middle School once Elementary school is over, he or she will be used to getting a nap in the middle of the day, and will end up falling asleep in class due to a messed up sleeping schedule. It is because of these facts that I ask to have Naps in Elementary school stopped, as the pro side believes that the large number of advantages firmly outweigh the minimal number of disadvantages.

(Sorry for any errors. I did this on my phone.)


I thank opponent for his response.

While I do believe a majority of the kids do not nap during naptime (which Pro provided a souce to back up), there are many things beneficial about the presence of naptime, which I will cover.

I. Simply the act of laying there helps out the kids.

In elementary school (most notably kindergarten), many of the children have huge fluctuations in energy. This is evident in many kindergarteners, where they can either have lots of energy or little to none of it. Naptime sort of helps to balance this out. You can potentially calm down the kids (hyper) or allow them the ability to be quiet and rest so they can be rejuvenated (little/no energy). Either way, information from my first source shows that simply the act of laying down and closing your eyes " helps your muscles and other organs relax" [1]. This is applicable for all ages.

II. Kids and the teacher need a time to relax.

As stated in the previous point, kids' energy levels tend to fluctuate quite frequently. With the presence of nap times, it gives them a chance to relax, as well as the teacher, who's been dealing with these children for a majority of the day. Simply giving averyone in the classroom a chance to relax and wind down helps them by maintaining their energy level (the main reason it's not present in higher grades is because kids learn to control their energy levels over the course of time).

III. It's vital that kids need at least some period of rest.

As present in many animals (as seen in the example below), those of a younger age need to rest more than those of an older age.

Humans are no exception to this. As those kids need a time to relax, it's vital that they do end up receiving it, in order to promote their natural growth. As time passes on, they will no longer need it as much as they did in elementary. As such, naptime's all for the best of the students, as the concept of naptime itself promotes the childrens' growth.

IV. Sleep is not necessary during naptime, but it helps significantly more.

Sleep is a vital part of all ages. Sleep itself has many benefits, including improved memory, better ability to spur creativity, grade improvement, and a sharpening of attention. [2] These are all vital elements that kids in the elementary grade level need. As time goes on the kids still get sleep, but on their own. The allowance of a "nap time" in elementary school allows the students to hone these vital importances of sleep even faster than if naptime were excluded entirely.

Overall, my argument covers these points (simple TLDR:)
1. The act of laying down has benefits on the kids, even when they're not sleeping.
2. The kids with their energy fluctuations and the teacher both need a time to relax.
3. Sleep/rest are a vital part of growth development in younger animals/humans.
4. Sleeping has many benefits associated with it that help out in the school setting.

Over to Pro.

[Pic 1]
Debate Round No. 2


i would like to start by thanking my opponent for taking time to make a good response.

1. Laying there does not help the children.

Going back to Con's first source, I would like to point out that it being up the fact that the brains neurons have three states, one where neurons are constantly firing, therefore sending information to the brain, one where the neurons are on and on-and-off state, where they still send signals, but not as much, and one where the neurons are completely silent. This is self explanatory, since no brain activity is occuring. These states of neuron activity is being awake, sleeping, and deep sleep, respectively. However, I will concede that you can gain muscle and organ relaxation, but Con's first source also says that this can be accomplished by simply reclining in a chair, which can be done while just watching TV. And, recent data shows that's kids, in fact, watch 35 hours of TV a week [1], this is roughly 5 hours a day, if my math is correct, so children can just as easily gain the affect you say having your eyes closed gives just by relaxing and watching TV.

2. Teacher relaxation.

First off, when a person is employed to become a teacher at any grade level, they know what they plan on getting into, if they don't, they have no business being a teacher. The Con states that teachers need time to relax. Nap time for teachers is essentially break time, and that means they are getting paid to do nothing, not to mention the fact that Lunch time exists. To prove my point, let me give you an example. As a children, when I had nap time, I never slept, in fact, I read. The entire time, my teacher would be on his computer doing something else related to school activity. Ergo, nap time does not give teachers a break, they're still hard at work, and as I said before, Lunch exists to feed the students and staff, and give them time to relax.

3. Vital need for rest.

It is a child's JOB to learn in school. That is the sole reason they are there. Therefore, there is no reason for kids to be giving a time to rest in Elementary school. As it is, Elementary school only teachs you to read and write, the rest of the time is arts and crafts, children have no need for rest at any period of time during school, not to mention the fact that they can nap once they get home, since nap time can be done literally anywhere when a parent is around.

4. Sleep is not necessary.

I concede that sleep is vital for all ages, however, as stated in my third point, nap time can be conducted in many places, I.E. The car, at home, just to nap two examples. However, as I've brought up already as well, the benefits of sleep during nap time only occur provided the child actually sleeps.




I thank Pro for his responses.
(I'm having a hard time adjusting to 24hr rounds instead of 3 day ones :P)

Anyway, let me head into my refutations of opponent's arguments, as well as defend my own.

Most important moments in life could be spent napping.

As I mentioned in my previous round, napping (or simply the act of laying down and closing your eyes) has a positive effect on the child (or anyone for that matter). Despite Pro's TV arguments, the benefits only kick in when the person is "laying down and closing their eyes" [quoted from [1] of R2]. As well, even if the kids are relaxing and watching the TV, they are still stimulating their mind to try and understand what the television is saying and how to comprehend it. Overall, this can be considered relaxing, but not enough to receive the benefits of full relaxation. While laying down does indeed induce a feeling of relaxation and ease, reading or watching television alongside it doesn't fully put the mind at rest. While both are valuable (and many kids do read at nap time), a huge majority of the time you won't receive the same degree of benefits as if you were laying down and closing your eyes.

The children are wasting their time napping.

Overall, this essentially countered by my "kids need rest" argument, however I shall cover it in depth. Based on the bonuses of simply relaxing and actual sleep, kids can gain benefits they use later on in life. Overall, if as a result of a certain action or actions (in this case, rest) lead to a positive effect, it isn't a waste. This applies to rest as well. There are many bonuses to sleep and rest, so simply stating that it has little to no positives is a false assertion.

Children could fall asleep in class once they reach middle school, due to the schedule flux.

Normally I would agree that a schedule flux could be the result of negative things (I.e. Changing the time of when you have to go somewhere each day). However, in this case I'd have to disagree. As kids become older and more mature, they don't need as much sleep, and as they progress they don't need as much of it, until a certain point when they gradually need more and more. The pattern here is that at certain stages in life, the body is not able to use a lot of energy. Kids, who do have a lot of energy, tend to have it in short bursts before becoming tired. Take this as opposed to the elderly, who can't do as much as their body won't "let" them. As children age and mature, their energy needs change as well. Teens as well need more sleep and more food, as they are experiencing a growth spurt (a majority of the time). Overall, the body is a complex being, and energy is one of its many assets. Kids need more sleep as their bodies cannot sustain energy as long as more mature bodies, and this is why the system of a "nap time" is removed in future grades.


Teacher Relaxation.

When I introduced this point, I was allowing the presence of an "assistant teacher" which is what I commonly had in elementary school, though I can't say the same for others. If the teacher is indeed working, it gives them some time to work silently without any distractions from the students. Even if the teacher is relaxing, if an assistant teacher is there they can easily cover for the teacher (and vice versa). Even if rest time just ended up being a "paid relaxation" for the teacher, keep in mind they are dealing with running, playful, and energetic five year olds, which can sometimes be very difficult to manage one, let alone at least 10. I would have to say the "paid break" idea depends on the teacher (if they deserve it) and the students (their activity levels). Overall this part has the potential for questions, yet a teacher being able to silently complete work is an obvious plus for the presence of nap time.

Child's job to learn in school.

Children do in fact already learn lots in school. In fact, the average school day for a five year old can be about 5-8 hours, depending on the school. The child is always learning new things at this age, especially as this is the most important part of their learning, as Pro pointed out. The kids already end up learning lots anyway with the current schedule of a nap-time implemented. If the entire concept of nap time was removed from the school environment, who knows what might happen? While the child may get rest at home, they could end up being aggravated due to lack of sleep/rest, and it could end up relatively badly for the teacher and the parents. The child could even fall asleep at school not during nap time (I explained why older students don't need sleep as much, but kindergarteners still need it frequently). Even though the child isn't learning as much as if there were no naptime, everyone needs a break once in a while. Workers in today's workplace, in exchange for hard work end up taking paid vacation days. This is sort of comparable to kindergarten. Due to the kids working hard at learning and trying their best, they get rewarded with a break, and if you force a certain worker or a student to work hard with no break, the results could end up being negative. In fact, study guides normally recommend around 20-30 minutes of hard studying and a 5 minute break between studying. If you learn a lot in one chunk, you won't retain the information as well. The same concept applies here. If kids learn for the entire day without an ounce of break or relaxation, then they won't retain the information they learned in class that well, no matter how much they are taught.

Sorry if I had bad spelling, I was using my phone too.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


(Yeah. Not the best idea, time wise. Thankfully, the debate fell on the weekend though. Great timing.)

1. Kids are to hyper to relax.

While the Con's argument asserts that the relaxation effect is only applicable to laying down and closing ones eyes, I, as the pro, will argue this point again with any possibility that can occur, number one being this. Con admits that children are hyper and playful. However, he also concedes to me during R2 that he "does believe thay a majority of the kids do not nap during nap time. Since he has admitted this, let's use an example. Say that, during nap time, 20% of the children are asleep, that leave the other 80% awake. Now, if these children are, as Con states, hyper and playful, what are the chances that these children will actually lie down and close their eyes? There is no indication, or evidence given to support the possibility that children may lay down and relax. Second scenario, children are, by very nature, curious to the world around them. As such, they are constantly aware of their surroundings and always taking in and processing information whenever possible. As such, say a child stays in a designated nap spot, what is the likely hood that they will actually close their eyes, or fall asleep? As hyper as the Con claims the children to be, what will make them suddenly shut off their brain? What's to stop them from staring at the ceiling, or shifting around and looking at posters on the walls, or outside, if windows are nearby?

2. Children and wasting time napping.

According to Con, "based on bonuses of sleeping and rest, kids can gain benefits that they use later in life." I agree that rest is beneficial to children, and that proper sleep can boost cognitive functionally,, con does not go into detail about what benefits sleeping will give that are actively used later in life. The reason I say this is because it begs the question, "What benefits do children learn?" Do they learn techniques for how to fall asleep better? And if they do gain benefits, I would like con to point out which benefits are gained from Elementary school nap time specifically, as most of the benefits derived from sleep can be gained by just natural, nighttime sleep.

3. children and falling asleep in middle school

I'm glad that the Con brought this up, because this is a point I wanted to touch upon as well. So here goes. I completely deny Cons argument outright that a lack of nap time in class can bring sleeping in class in later grades. The reason behind this is due in part to the fact that the VERY reason con uses for his argument is the fact that abolishing nap time will, in turn, cause napping in middle school due to a change in the schedule. However, let's talk hypothetically for a moment and say that nap time is done away with. Now elementary students will not have to deal with a schedule flux, because they won't have a nap time in middle school either. Now, according to Con, Teens also need more sleep due to their rapidly changing bodies. Being a teen myself, this is true. However, if we follow Con's logic that Elementary school children need naps because of their fluctuating energy, we can also assume that, with Con's logic, it would also be okay to institute nap times for teenagers, since they also have an influx in energy. And it's common fact that a large majority of teenagers do NOT get the proper amount of sleep at night, so we can attribute Con's defense for nap time as a possibility that it would also be okay to add nap time for High School aged children.

Rebuttals to Defense against refutations:

First, I would like to point out that I only had one teacher in elementary school, but I will do my best to think as Con does on this situation. Second off, I will refer to back to a point a had pervious made for this round in which I hypothetically created a scenario in which the students could not, and did not rest, if we were to aply this situation to this particular argument, my response would be that this in and of itself would prevent a teacher from completing his or her work, and as such, would cause a general disruption. To this extent, I make the point that if nap time were to be done away with, the teacher would not have to worry about sitting down and working with the possibility of it being interrupted by children not sleeping. I say this because, without nap time, a teacher would know his students are awake and instead of using that time worrying, he or she could use that time to teach. And as I've stated before, in a state that Con has not argued, Lunch time exists for the sole purpose of eating, re-energizing, and getting a break, therefore, the teacher can get a break during lunch, when he or she is supposed to be "on break".

On to the second defense. Con raises a very good question. "Who knows what might happen?" And I agree, nobody knows. However, this debate is meant to answer that question, or at the very least, begin to do so. Again, Con brings up the point that everybody needs a break. This is true. But again, this is why LUNCH exists. It's THERE for the purpose of getting a break. And on the point of workers vs children, I will say that, this is not a good comparison. Workers are told when they get a job that they can accumulate paid vacation days, in fact, it's common knowledge for those with jobs, such as myself, that vacation days are avalible, however, they must be earned. Children have nap time just because they can get it, they do not have to earn it.

In conclusion, It is my stance as the Pro that nap time for elementary schools should be abolished. Over the course of this debate, I have supplied evidence and reasoning as to why this should be the case. I end by asking the judges to vote Pro. Thank you.

And thank you to my opponent for my first full debate. It was absolutely fantastic and I had a ton of fun. Thanks.


I thank opponent for his responses.

Children are hyper.

A majority of the kids will have their eyes open during naptime, at the very least not sleeping. However, for the 20% or so that do sleep, and the ones that close their eyes, they receive benefits from their rest. However, that isn't to say those that don't close their eyes and are simply laying down also have a chance to calm down.

I found a link that I believe to be at least somewhat relevant. ( This talks about rest after exercising and that it has benefits. This is at least somewhat comparable to the fact that children are hyper, and that resting after their activities and recess does some good. Even with their eyes open, looking around the classroom, they are still experiencing a period of relaxation, however they won't receive the same benefits as those who close their eyes or sleep. Overall though, they'll still feel relaxed, and have their energy levels at least somewhat maintained.

Children wasting time napping

The benefits of napping alone, or sleeping, include the things I mentioned in R2. The addition of a nap time merely expands upon this.

Falling asleep in the middle of class

Oh boy, Pro bashed me here. Let me take the time to explain my reasoning.
As quoted by Pro, the kindergarten ages are one of the, if not the, "most important moments" of a person's life. The same could probably be said for the teenage years. However, I believe that the kindergarten ages are considered more important, as it is the stepping stool for the rest of their life, and what happens there can affect everything. Thus, I believe a nap time is needed in elementary school. In the older years of a person's childhood (teenage years), the teenagers also have a tendency to rest more, eat more, etc. all a part of their energy flux. However, this is NOT comparable to a kid's, who still needs the rest but doesn't consume as much. Foods are known as a source of energy, and this is mainly what fuels the growth of a teenager. However, kindergarteners do not each that much food, at least in comparison to teenagers. As such, they do not have as much energy as a teenager would, and therefore would require the naptime. Nap times aren't present in the higher grades, as it is assumed that they are growing, and they do not need the rest anymore, as their source of energy comes from the larger amounts of food they consume.

As the entirety of Pro's final argument revolves around the lunchtime, I shall address the two arguments as whole.

Overall, lunch time is a time of relaxation, as Pro pointed out. I do not deny it works effectively in helping out the kids. However, bringing up this overall counters the entirety of his teenager argument. Why do the teenagers need naptime if they have lunch? If, as Pro claims, it isn't needed for kindergarteners, then why should it be needed for teens? After all, teens have more stable energy than kindergarteners, at least, and they eat more, therefore having more energy. So why should they need it?

But in all honesty, Pro brings up fair points here. Teachers do occasionally work on their work in lunch, but they mainly eat, as this is their cafeteria break. Nap times would be fairly beneficial to them as they would spend the full time working, and not a majority of it eating. And I concede about the fact about earning naptime.

Overall, I believe Pro put up a good fight, but based on his assertion in R2:
" is simply not needed."
I believe I have won this debate, as I have provided reasons and benefits to a nap time/sleeping, which are grand in scale, despite the little/no benefits Pro believes the system has. Even though it seems a majority of the benefits of naptime are simply earned from lunch, nap time can have the benefits of rest, and sleep, associated alongside of it, which includes better creativity, better memory, etc., all vital resources needed for the future of a child's life. Nap time is merely there to enhance this.

I thank my opponent for the good and fun debate, and I leave the rest up to the voters to vote wisely on who they believe won, given the resolution, BoP, etc.
Overall this was a fun debate! I hadn't had one like this in a while. I thank Pro for being able to have a fun time in this debate, and I hope we can debate sometime in the future!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lulzy 1 year ago
I agree.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Good debate :)
Posted by Lulzy 1 year ago
Posted by Lulzy 1 year ago
Go ahead and contact Airmax. Let him tell you that people generally stop bringing something up when asked too. And I agree with Valkrin, I'm not angry. You're just being annoying. Secondly, you're calling us rude, yet I can think of many other situations where you've been worse. Primary example: In my debate with you, your comments constantly refer to me and melee fans as "Butt hurt fanboys".

And finally, yeah, I'm debating with you, but since you always wait until the last minute to reply, you have no right to rush me.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
"You're just pissed I keep bringing it back."
Nah, you're just being annoying bringing it up again. If you can let it go why don't you?
And contact Airmax if you fee the need...I've done nothing wrong.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
You debating with me or not? I will not be holding back for the last two rounds...
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
That's like saying Big Brother to stop spying on Germany, Russia, and China - It's NO USE!

I can let go, you're just pissed that I keep bringing it back.

I can comment on anyone's debate, and if you continue to be rude, I will contact Airmax1227 to this.
Posted by Lulzy 1 year ago
Shrek. Go away. This isn't your debate and you don't need to insert yourself just to tell me something. Get lost.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Why do you feel the need to bring in other debates? There's no point in doing so and it's rather stupid. The debate between us was two months ago. If you're still on that that's fine, but a quantum supercomputer, calculating for a thousand years, cannot even begin to approach the amount of craps I do not give.

If you feel the need to keep bringing in other debates, go on ahead and feel satisfied with yourself. You're just showing us with each and every comment you make referring to a past debage that you can't simply let go of something that isn't even that important to begin with.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year 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 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: Close debate. Both sides made good points. Con takes it by a slim margin IMO.