The Instigator
Mayan_D
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThuggsyBogues
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

School lunches should be more nutriotinal

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 2 votes the winner is...
ThuggsyBogues
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 44945
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Mayan_D

Pro

I think school lunches should be more nutrional! Who wants to be my opponent?
ThuggsyBogues

Con

Ok, I'll bite. As you are the Pro you can post your argument first.
Debate Round No. 1
Mayan_D

Pro

Ok i believe that school lunches should be more nutritional because i don't think there is enough nutrition in the lunch. I heard that PRISON lunches are more nutritional than school lunches. Should'nt children be getting more nutrition than jailers? If children don't have really good nutrition, they have a higher possibility of getting very sick and maybe even death (hopefully not). I will continue on the next rounds.
ThuggsyBogues

Con

I'll start off with my constructive then address my opponents argument.

I negate the resolution "School lunches should be more nutritional" based on overwhelming evidence that making school lunches more nutritional is not effective in terms of feeding the kids, and it is not economically viable..

Making school lunches more nutritional is not effective in feeding children: The National School Lunch Program was implemented in the USA as part of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010". This program has been a colossal failure. According to newsmax- "kids aren't eating the healthier food and are often left hungry, which has actually become a hindrance to learning." Assistant superintendent Chris Abdoo said "The staff worked hard to implement the new regulations, but there were just too many problems and too many foods that students did not like and would not purchase'...'Students complained of being hungry with these lunches" about the program. The Government Accountability Office also reports that schools were forced to substitute ranch dressing and ice cream in order to meet the minimum amount of calories required by the program without surpassing the maximum amount of grains and meat. The kids simply don't enjoy these healthier options leading to more wasted food, and less kids eating. The program itself also results in the unintended consequence of forcing schools to feed students less healthy food.

Making school lunches is not viable economically: The National School Lunch Program cost the Federal Government 11 billion dollars. The program not only costs the Feds money, it loses money for the schools themselves. New York"s Burnt-Hills-Ballston Lake school district opted out of the NSL Program after losing over $100,000 dollars in three months. Schools in Carmel Clay, Indiana, have also dropped the program. They lost $300,000 attempting to implement the program only to find that students were rejecting it. According to a USDA fact sheet, 81.7 percent of meals in 2011 were given as a free or reduced lunch. The program simply cannot support this percentage of children who pay very little back into the system while simultaneously opting for more expensive options required by a more nutritional lunch.

[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com...
[2] http://www.fns.usda.gov...
[3] http://www.newsmax.com...

Now on to address my opponents points:

"I heard that PRISON lunches are more nutritional than school lunches. Shouldn't children be getting more nutrition than jailers?" My opponent did not provide a source, and is not a reliable source for information. Children should be getting more nutrition than prisoners, but as I have shown, government mandates are not the solution.

"If children don't have really good nutrition, they have a higher possibility of getting very sick and maybe even death." My opponent again provides no source, and more importantly, no evidence of children ever getting sick or dying as a direct result of insufficient nutrition in school lunches.
Debate Round No. 2
Mayan_D

Pro

(for the other round)
1) http://www.psfk.com...
2) http://kidshealth.org...

(this round)
According to School Health Policies and Programs study in 2006, 11.7 percent of elementary schools, 19 percent of middle schools, and 23.5 percent of high schools included meals from fast food restaurants. Learning information depletes the brain's supply of glucose, according to Scholastic.com. Therefore, it is important to refuel children's glucose supplies with a healthy lunch. A healthy lunch can give children the energy they need to stay focused, pay attention in class, and learn the information presented to them in their classes after lunchtime. A person's eating habits are typically acquired during his childhood, according to The Dairy Council. Therefore, healthier nutritional choices throughout children's entire lifetimes. By making healthy school lunches the norm as opposed to the exception, children will inadvertently learn about nutrition and healthy eating. The reverse is also true. School lunches that provide more calories than a child needs to maintain his body weight can lead to weight gain and obesity. This not only can compromise the child's health, but also lead to health problems as an adult. According to Colorado State University, children who are overweight have increased risks of developing health problems, including diabetes and hypertension, and becoming obese adults. Healthy lunches with proper portions can help support a healthy life. Teenagers who eat fast food frequently consume more fat and calories and fewer essential nutrients, including calcium, vitamin A, and vitamin C, than their counterparts, according to The Dairy Council. Lunch is supposed to supply a child with about one-third of his total daily calories, according to Scholastic.com. Therefore, it is important to ensure that lunch is a well-balanced meal to ensure that your child receives good nutrition.

1) http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...

Thank You.
ThuggsyBogues

Con

As my opponent did not address my points, I'll move right into rebuttals.

"Learning information depletes the brain's supply of glucose, it is important to refuel children's glucose supplies with a healthy lunch. A healthy lunch can give children the energy they need."
-----Glucose can be refueled without a more 'nutritional' lunch program. Glucose is found in normal school lunches just as much as it is found in new healthier lunches. -----

"A person's eating habits are typically acquired during his childhood. Therefore, healthier nutritional choices throughout children's entire lifetimes. By making healthy school lunches the norm, children will inadvertently learn about nutrition and healthy eating."
-----Giving a student a 'healthier' lunch teaches them nothing about nutrition and healthy eating. Teaching the student to be responsible for his/her own decisions IN CONJUNCTION WITH actually teaching them about nutrition will lead to healthier eating with no economic input. Giving the students healthier food and merely hoping that they "inadvertently" learn will not actually teach them anything.-----

"School lunches that provide more calories than a child needs to maintain his body weight can lead to weight gain and obesity. This not only can compromise the child's health, but also lead to health problems as an adult. Children who are overweight have increased risks of developing health problems, including diabetes and hypertension, and becoming obese adults."
----- There is no evidence provided that the 'unhealthier' school lunch program had too many calories, or that it lead to obesity. Eating too many calories can obviously lead to health problems, but one meal out of the day isn't going to make a child obese. It is the school's responsibility to teach the kids about what they are eating, not to tell them what to eat. If the students understand basic nutrition, they will make healthy choices at every meal. Giving them a slightly healthier lunch will just teach the kids to eat whatever is in front of them.-----

"According to School Health Policies and Programs study in 2006, 11.7 percent of elementary schools, 19 percent of middle schools, and 23.5 percent of high schools included meals from fast food restaurants ... Teenagers who eat fast food frequently consume more fat and calories and fewer essential nutrients than their counterparts."
----- This is a bit of a reach. Teenagers who eat fast food AT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS have these health problems. Restaurant branded food IN SCHOOLS is actually significantly healthier. USA TODAY examined about 150,000 tests on beef purchased for the school lunch program. They found cases in which the agency bought meat that retailers and fast-food chains would have rejected. From late 2008 through early 2009, there were nearly 500,000 pounds of ground beef bought from Beef Packers and Skylark for the school lunch program. This beef had unusually high levels of an indicator bacteria known as generic E. coli. This is considered an indicator of whether contaminants from the intestines of cattle have gotten into slaughtered meat. Restaurant branded food can come from a non-federal source, and be just as healthy.-----

"Lunch is supposed to supply a child with about one-third of his total daily calories."
----- This is a bit random. The children can get one-third of their daily calories from just about anything. This does not support the affirmative's side. -----

Because my opponents dropped my points, and because of my effective rebuttals, I urge a negative vote.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Pun for the win!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Mayan_DThuggsyBoguesTied
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: Con had better arguments and many of his points went unrefuted.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Mayan_DThuggsyBoguesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree that a more nutritious lunch would be beneficial at schools, however Pro failed to produce a clear argument for this statement. Cons arguments were convincing and backed with resources which Pro never refuted. As such Con gets argument points. All other points are tied.