The Instigator
tinkdebate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Organic food should be administrated in schools

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 4 votes the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,752 times Debate No: 21078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

tinkdebate

Con

Rules:
1. available sources
2. No Profanity
3. Be Proffesional
4. Have A Great time
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

I accept, and will be supporting the case that Organic Foods should be Administered in Schools. as PRO.

Just some definitions.

Organic Foods: Organic foods are made in a way that limits the use of synthetic materials during production
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Administered: To give or apply in a formal way (basically meaning readily available)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


If you disagree with any definitions, please PM or comment.
Debate Round No. 1
tinkdebate

Con

I Agree with the definitions.
Now i will State my first point, research shows that 23% of u.s citizens are consistently buying organic food, while the other 77% are eating non- organic foods. you have to remember that organic food comes in smaller packages and wwww.organicconsumers,com has a blog about how a guy named matt palmquist and his roommate tryed to go organic for the weeek, he says normally a weeks woth of grocerys ranges around $130.00 but while going organic matts total was $199.78 about $65 more and since organic food comes in smaller packages tham matt will be getting less for more.
My next point is obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously, but the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of unhealthy food, we shouldincrease the amount of sport and excersise in schoolsat the same time schools should encourage parents to keep their kids on a balanced diet.
My third point is, a balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salthow do you decide what is healthy and what is not? is up to if pupils are very active and involved in sports they may need to eat alot of calories.. you have to teach children whether or not to choose an apple over a candy bar. the upbringing cooperation of child and parent, the state shouldnt take the job..! Besides the school serves to meals (lunch and breakfast) Lunch is arequired meal, they have to give you the following: beverage, fruit or vegetable and a whole serving, whether it be a slice of pizza bosco sticks or taco's. it is the parents careless mistakes that lead to obesity.
My name is Savanna Carter I atten Patttengill middle school And i rest my Case,,,,( VOTE FOR CON)
To you pro :)
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Thanks for the quick reply, CON.

Let's start with a refutation.

1. More expensive and less quantity
PRO's first point was how organic foods are much more expensive than normal foods, also coming in smaller quantities.

However, that is an investment that is completely up to the family to choose. This resolution is not forcing students to buy organic, rather, it gives students an option to buy organic and eat healthier.

If families wish to spend more to allow their student to eat healthier, that is their choice. However, if families do not wish to spend extra money, or find it too costly, then they are not required to buy organic foods.

Therefore, the argument that it is much more expensive is invalid, as families are given a choice as to whether or not they would like to eat organic.

2. obesity

PRO's next point is that we should not solve obesity through the promotion of organic food, but rather promote sport and excercise, as well as a balanced diet.

I would like to point out to PRO that we are already doing this, we are already promoting sport and excercise and balanced diets in schools. We are teaching students about eating healthy, however, obesity rates in children remain high. http://www.ncsl.org...

As a result, it is obvious that this is not working, and we need to take a step further. This can be done through the promotion of organic foods, by allowing students to eat healthier. Like PRO said, obesity is a huge problem that we should take seriously.

Therefore, it is only logical that we do everything in our power to solve this issue, and promoting organic foods would only improve the issue, rather than making it worse. As a result, we should promote organic foods to solve obesity.

3. education

PRO says: "balanced diet includes small amounts of sugar, fat and salthow do you decide what is healthy and what is not?"

I would just like to point out that we already know what foods are healthy or not. Just look at the four food groups.

This point does not really add any new information, it just merely adds on to the previous point, about how a failure of education is the result of obesity, how we need to teach students to eat healthier and excercise more.

http://www.childhoodobesityfoundation.ca...

We are teaching students to be more active and eat healthier, to try to reduce obesity. However, like I said, that is not working as obesity rates are still high and climbing. Therefore, we must take the next step and administer organic foods in schools.

Now moving onto my affirmative case: arguments.

Arguments

1. The Next Step

As I mentioned, and Pro agrees, obesity is a huge issue. Therefore, as it is still unsolved, we must solve this issue by doing everything in our power. This includes administering and giving the option of buying organic foods in schools.

As PRO says obesity is a problem we should take seriously, it does not make any sense to me why we would not impose another solution to the problem by administering organic foods. This would solve the problem, and by not passing this resolution, we are not doing everything in our power to solve the serious problem of obesity, which does not seem logical at all.

2. Health defects

By not giving students the opportunity to eat organic, they would continue and be unaware of healthier options, and continue with their frozen foods and unhealthy options.

In fact, normal foods have alot of residue pesticides on them. http://eap.mcgill.ca...

This is obviously unhealthy, and by passing this resolution, we give students the chance to eat healthy through organic foods, which is much better than our current state.

Therefore, as this resolution only holds benefits for our future, and no down sides, it is obvious that this resolution should be passed

Therefore, vote PRO.




Debate Round No. 2
tinkdebate

Con

Thank you for your reply pro… Obesity argument:
I rest my case on obesity argument 
On to my next points.
Organic Farming is better for consumers: a study published by the National Research Council in 1993 reported that the primary form of exposure to pesticides in children is via dietary intake. A more recent 2006 study showed that organophosphate levels dropped immediately when children were started on an organic diet (see studies section). According to the Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org...) eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables exposes one to about 20 pesticides per day on average. Eating the 12 least contaminated foods exposes you to about 2 pesticides per day on average. Further, a study from 2005 in which umbilical cord blood was sampled showed that 21 commonly used pesticides can cross the placenta2.

Food Safety: One of the largest arguments for purchasing organic food has been the simple fact that organic foods contain less pesticide and pesticide residues. One study published in 2002 claimed that organic foods have one third the pesticides of conventionally grown foods1. BUT, the federal government already has standards for allowable amounts of pesticide residues, and conventional foods are well under those levels. In addition, the long term effects of ingesting miniscule amounts of pesticides are unknown, and conclusions about such exposure are questionable at best.
Sustainability: Many of the advantages of organic farming have been attributed to crop rotation which is NOT and exclusively organic farming technique. In addition, one of the newest techniques, no-till farming, is a decidedly conventional practice and it uses the least energy. In this technique, herbicides are used to clear land which means that all the energy used to till and manage land in the usual technique can be saved and used for other purposes.
Organic Food is Too Expensive: perhaps the single best argument against organic food is that it is just too costly. On average, consumers pay 50% more for organic products and up to 100% more for organic meat and dairy products2. I Got this source of information from: http://altmed.creighton.edu...

Quick and Easy
One of the main advantages of allowing junk foods in schools is that if on a particular day a child does not carry a lunch bag then he does not have to remain hungry and can easily have something to satiate his hunger. Along with that it is one of those easy to eat foods that can be eaten on the go. Therefore it saves a lot of time.

Change in Routine
Having junk food as a change in routine, instead of making it a part of ones staple diet is considered alright. It does not have major effects on a person's health either if this approach is used. The problem only arises if it is being consumed regularly.
Cooking Healthy
There are junk foods that are made supremely unhealthy by loading them with oils or unhealthy ingredients. Instead of that, if junk food like potato chips or juices are made available in the school cafeteria, there will be no need to depend on unhealthy choices from outside. Thus the same taste and thrill of having junk foods can be had without having to give in to unhealthy choices.

With that being said, I rest my case VOTE FOR CON
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Please note that CON drops all my arguments and previous refutation.

Now moving to a refutation of CON's new points.

Organic Farming is better for consumers

First, it is obvious that CON is arguing for the wrong side. If organic farming is better for consumers, should we not promote organic foods, which are caused by organic farming, as much as possible? That would include the administration in schools.

According to CON: "According to the Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org......) eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables exposes one to about 20 pesticides per day on average. Eating the 12 least contaminated foods exposes you to about 2 pesticides per day on average. "

This was my second point, health defects. I must remind all that CON is arguing against organic foods, however, this point clearly supports it.

Food Safety

Again, this point is a point that supports my case.

CON says: "One of the largest arguments for purchasing organic food has been the simple fact that organic foods contain less pesticide and pesticide residues. One study published in 2002 claimed that organic foods have one third the pesticides of conventionally grown foods"

She even clearly agrees that the food safety is an argument for purchasing organic food. Again, as CON, she should be against the administration of organic foods in schools, not for it.

Sustainability

Again, a point that supports my arguments.

CON says: "Many of the advantages of organic farming have been attributed to crop rotation which is NOT and exclusively organic farming technique"

Again, CON should be arguing against organic foods and farming, and she does not do this by stating advantages of something she is supposed to argue against.

Organic Food is Too Expensive

Finally an argument for her own side. However, I already addressed this point the previous round, by saying administering organic foods in schools does not force students to buy them, simply, it gives students a choice.

If families find it too expensive to eat organic, they do not need to purchase organic foods.

Quick and Easy

This point of CON's is about how junk food is quick and easy and cheap. However, simply administering organic foods in schools does not mean that we will remove all junk food entirely.

Simply, it means that both junk food and organic foods will be available to purchase. Therefore, clearly, CON's argument does not hold water.

Change in Routine

This argument is about the benefits of junk food. However, like I stated, we are not removing junk food. Also, this resolution is the topic of organic foods in schools, and I ask CON not to change the topic to junk food.

Cooking Healthy

Again with the junk food. This argument is entirely invalid because the topic is the administration of organic foods in schools, not junk foods.


Conclusion

Sorry CON, but it is obvious that I have won this debate. CON changes the topic several times, first to organic farming, then to junk foods.

This resolution is whether or not organic foods will be administered in schools, therefore, all those arguments for those topics are invalid.

Furthermore, CON argues alot for my side of the case, and as a result, is not fulfilling her BOP. The only argument she provided relevant to the topic and for her side of the case, was the cost factor, however I completely refuted that last round.

Therefore, because of these reasons, and the additional reason that she dropped all my refutations and arguments from last round, I have won this debate.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
tinkdebate

Con

tinkdebate forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
tinkdebate

Con

tinkdebate forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Double Forfeits? Bad Arguments? Dropped Points?
Vote for PRO
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
tinkdebateHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
tinkdebateHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had MUCH better argumentative structure, Carried the BOP, and didn't forfeit rounds, as the con did. Awesome s/g as well, where I noticed a few mistakes on the Con.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
tinkdebateHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Blaaaaaaaah. Con dropped a bunch of arguments and forfeited.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
tinkdebateHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both acknowledge that obesity is a problem and pros case offered a better solution. Some of cons points supported pros arguments. FF's