The Instigator
Joshau
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should kids eat candy

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 4 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 904 times Debate No: 74920
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Joshau

Pro

Should kids eat candy?

from,
Joshua
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Joshau

Pro

Kids need some sugar to stay alive
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO's only argument is that kids "need sugar to stay alive." But what PRO fails to acknowledge is that our bodies convert nutrients from foods that we eat into glucose - i.e., sugar - which is what powers us through the day. By no means is the artificial, incontrovertibly unhealthy components of candy necessary for survival, nor does PRO provide evidence to that effect. What he is referring to - the type of sugar in candy - is ADDED sugar, such as high fructose corn syrup, which contains *no* essential nutrients [http://authoritynutrition.com...].

In fact, candy is terrible health-wise for the following reasons:


I. Too much sugar is unhealthy

"Too much sugar of any type in your diet can lead to dental cavities, weight gain and overall poor nutrition, especially if the sugary foods are taking the place of foods containing nutrients and vitamins. The American Heart Association says that women and men should consume no more than 100 to 150 calories per day from sugar, respectively. Sugar contains 4 calories per gram. If a candy bar contains over 25 grams of sugar, this is an entire day's worth for a woman. Although, as the American Diabetes Association explains, it is a myth that eating too much sugar causes diabetes, overindulging in sugary foods can definitely raise your blood sugar levels if you already have diabetes; higher blood glucose levels can lead to more diabetic complications." [http://www.livestrong.com...]

Therefore, the impacts are cavities, weight gain, poor nutrition, and possible diabetic complications.

II. Candy contains saturated fat, which is also harmful

"Saturated fat plays a major role in the development of high cholesterol, says Medline Plus. High cholesterol can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. Each gram of fat contains 9 calories, and calories from saturated fat should make up no more than 10 percent of your total calories. For example, if your regular caloric intake is 1,500 calories, you should consume no more than 150 calories from fat, or just under 17 g of saturated fat, each day. Since one candy bar can contain 11 or more grams of saturated fat, this might put you over your daily allotment when combined with other foods containing saturated fat, such as dairy products, meat, butter and certain oils." [http://www.livestrong.com...]

Therefore, the impacts are high cholesterol and the possibility of heart disease and stroke, both of which can induce death.

III. Added sugar is harmful

The added sugar found in candy can induce addiction, cancer, liver, obesity (where "each daily serving of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with a whopping 60% increased risk of obesity"), metabolic complications, and even insulin resistance - which is also a problem because a poor diiet can induce diabetes [http://authoritynutrition.com...].


For these overwhelming impacts, and demonstrate that there are NO health benefits whatsoever from eating candy, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Joshau

Pro

Joshau forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Joshau

Pro

Joshau forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Joshau

Pro

Joshau forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Ah.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I have an account, though I'm relatively inactive.

That's a good point, actually.. Stalin had an account on Edeb8, so Lars would know whether he's a Stalin multi. Unless he says otherwise, I'm inclined to believe he isn't.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Are you on Edeb8? Apparently RXR is too. He has *some* respect for *some* people, but it is rare.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Although Stalin, at least, had some degree of self-respect. This fellow is just pathetic.

i do however have my suspicions that he could be someone else. If so, he should let me know. Usually my gut feelings are accurate.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Me too. He was (and still is) a lot like Stalin.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Sounds like it.

Then the question becomes, who's RXR?

My money is on it being Stalin.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I think he's RXR. His harassing personality, his being familiar with DDO members, and his debating style all point at him being another RXR alt.

#Exposed
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Lol.

Who are you, again?

I find it astounding that a supposedly new member just made an account today to harass a number of people, all of whom, I'm sure, could hand him his hindquarters in a debate.
Posted by RobieRX 2 years ago
RobieRX
Great noob-snipe ResponsiblyIrresponsible.
Posted by Rainyi 2 years ago
Rainyi
Sugar also shortens lives...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
JoshauResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
JoshauResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Ff
Vote Placed by TBSmothers 2 years ago
TBSmothers
JoshauResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct-pro forfeited 3 out of 5 rounds so I will be giving conduct points to the con. S&G- Both sides had decent grammar. Argument- The pro gave a relatively weak argument that the con rebutted rather easily. This is why argument points will be going to the con Sources- The pro did not use sources while the con did therefore this goes to the con
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
JoshauResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Cause chocolate. Noob got FF'd rely