The Instigator
PonyGirl
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should schools ban junkfood?

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 5 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,193 times Debate No: 32352
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

PonyGirl

Pro

They should ban junkfood for these reasons. 1. It makes less kids get diabetes .
2. Less kids will Get cavities
3. They will spend less money. That's why junkfood should be banned from schools
bladerunner060

Con

My opponent has agreed to some definitions in the comments.

To address my opponent's arguments:

Of course, my opponent has the BoP as to why junk food should be banned from schools. I will, nonetheless, be making a constructive, as my rebuttal to her arguments will not take many of my characters.

For simple rebuttal:
1. It makes less kids get diabetes .
"Junk food" does not directly cause diabetes. Particularly in small amounts.

2. Less kids will Get cavities
Junk food does not inherently cause cavities.

3. They will spend less money.
Junk food does not necessarily cost more money. In fact, in some instances, it is less money for junk food. Empty calories, sure, but not necessarily more expensive calories.

Now, on to my own constructive:

My opponent's position is that schools should not only not sell junk food, but also that they should ban children from bringing junk food into the school. The first is a position that I don't necessarily disagree with. The school has no inherent requirement to sell anything specific, so any argument against a specific item can fly.

What I am arguing against, therefore, is a school preventing kids from bringing in junk food. And not just schools monitoring lunches to ensure that there is a certain degree of healthiness, but a total prohibition. My opponent is advocating against a traditional Sandwich and Chips meal, with a candy dessert. This is a relatively balanced, good meal, that is within reasonable parental choice parameters.

Schools do take a certain degree of control over children, but they do not completely take the place of parents. If parents are okay with a certain degree of junk food, it is not a school's place to prohibit that.
Debate Round No. 1
PonyGirl

Pro

Parents aren't in school to watch their children but they want their children to be healthy and fit. But what if their children aren't fit. So it would be bad if a child that almost had diabetes ate junkfood at school. The school would be responsible for the diabetes that's why they shouldn't sell junkfood. A lot if kids are fit but some are a little unhealthy. It's ok to eat sweets sometimes but to much is bad for you. And could get you diabetes if you don't exercise so it's better if schools just didn't sell junkfood
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent for her response.

As to rebuttals:

"Parents aren't in school to watch their children but they want their children to be healthy and fit. But what if their children aren't fit."

We aren't discussing a "fat kids only" policy. We're discussing a general policy.

"So it would be bad if a child that almost had diabetes ate junkfood at school. The school would be responsible for the diabetes that's why they shouldn't sell junkfood."

That's...not how diabetes works. There's not a specific tipping point, nor is the school responsible for food provided by the parents.

"A lot if kids are fit but some are a little unhealthy. It's ok to eat sweets sometimes but to much is bad for you."

Certainly, I can agree with that to a certain extent. But that's not the motion under consideration. Pro is arguing for a complete prohibition.

"And could get you diabetes if you don't exercise so it's better if schools just didn't sell junkfood."

Pro stated in the comments, in response to my question:

Me: "Also: define "ban". Are we talking "Schools should not allow junk food in them" or "Schools should not sell junk food"?"

Pro: "Both of them they should do both"

This debate is not about schools selling junk food. I would not have taken it if it were.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
loveu157:

Can you please give an RFD that explains your vote?
Posted by PonyGirl 4 years ago
PonyGirl
I really don't care if u decline or not just hurry.
Posted by PonyGirl 4 years ago
PonyGirl
Junkfood as in chips, soda, candy, etc.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
I'll accept this if you clarify that second question.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
And our definition of "junk food"? Not just candy, right?
Posted by PonyGirl 4 years ago
PonyGirl
Both of them they should do both
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Why did you challenge me to this?

Also: define "ban". Are we talking "Schools should not allow junk food in them" or "Schools should not sell junk food"?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jordansshuler 4 years ago
jordansshuler
PonyGirlbladerunner060Tied
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 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: Con's arguments were very well done.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
PonyGirlbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pretty easy win, as Pro attempted to change the range of the argument (an easy mistake), and con not only disproved pro, but also added his own solid points.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
PonyGirlbladerunner060Tied
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: Pro did little to back up her assertions, and didn't have time to counter her opponents refutations because she chose to make this debate only two rounds long.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
PonyGirlbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Then give a better RFD Loveu157
Vote Placed by loveu157 4 years ago
loveu157
PonyGirlbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought it was close.