The Instigator
crackofdawn
Pro (for)
Losing
57 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Soda Drinking In Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,555 times Debate No: 6038
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (19)

 

crackofdawn

Pro

I am for soda's to be allowed in school.

Some might argue that some kids can't help themselves when it comes to sweet treats. I however believe that it's up to the parents to determine whether or not a child drinks soda. If it's not allowed then don't give your child money for school. If he has to pay his own money to get a soda they'll not only appreciate the value of money but also be less likely to splurge themselves.

It's not fair that just because a select few can't control themselves (although above I've already mentioned how to fix that) that the rest should suffer. There are plenty of kids out there who can handle soda drinking responsibility and for lack of a better word are getting "screwed" by those rules. A select few should not determine the outcome for all.

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate and look forward to it.
solo

Con

Thank you for creating this debate, crackofdawn. I appreciate your position, but completely disagree with it.

<>

According to law, children cannot consume alcohol, even with a parent's consent, so they should not have a say in this matter when they are clearly not present to monitor their child's behavior.

<< If it's not allowed then don't give your child money for school. If he has to pay his own money to get a soda they'll not only appreciate the value of money but also be less likely to splurge themselves.>>

Some children have the means of generating their own incomes (i.e. newspaper route, babysitting), so that won't eliminate the problem.

<>

By this argument, illegal street drugs should be legal to all because some people can handle their drug usage responsibly. This logic is unacceptable. It is better for all to restrict the consumption of soda during school hours.

Students should not need chemical stimulation during the school day. More often than not, caffeine boosts and sugar rushes cause young students to be disruptive in class. If a class has thirty students, it is unfair for a teacher to maintain order within his/her classroom while one student acts out as a result from drinking soda.

Also, drinking soda is not conducive to good learning habits. It is no healthier to drink soda than it is to drink water. There is no evidence that drinking soda improves any aspect of importance in the learning process.

Soda drinking can be done after school hours, where underpaid teachers do not have to babysit the hyperactive children of others. There is no call for it during school hours.

I look forward to your rebuttal, crackofdawn.
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent and congratulate him on his professional rebuttal. Although I do disagree on some points.

<>

Kids can make money on their own and can use that to buy sodas but in today's world a newspaper route for kids in surburban, rural, and even most cities areas is unrealistic. Babysitting is common and produces a good income but most are lucky to get one babysitting job a month. From that they get say around $40. That's about a soda a day. One soda a day is not that much and nobody get's obese from one soda a day. It's not a better alternative than water or milk but it is not going to hurt you that much. Other jobs include lawnwork which is a job that you have to work to get money. The work you do for that will normally almost cancel out the calories from soda that cause obesity.

<>

Soda has very little relation to drugs. In your next argument please give me some examples of people handling drugs responsibly (not medical or perscription drugs). Soda is not an addiction and kids who do it do it because it taste good, not because they have a mental need for it. The argument that some kids can't help themselves and this causes obesity is baloney. Yes some kids without rules will take advantage of soda but once again as long as the parents aren't funding them it is not financially possible for the majority of kids. My personal opinion is that most obese kids are somewhat lazy and won't do much work to get the money.

<>

Students don't drink soda for the chemical stimulation. They do it because it tastes good. There are more ways to get a sugar rush than soda and many easier and cheaper (i.e. candy, chocolate, other sugar high drinks). Plus, almost every class has a trouble maker and honestly the difference between one disruptive student and 4 is almost nonexistent. If a teacher can't keep a class under control that's her fault, not soda's.

<>

Yes soda does not help a student's learning processes but it also doesn't hinder them. An average student with little soda drinking is under control, and those who drink it a lot are used to it and don't get out of control that often because of it. The biggest point I'm trying to make is soda is drank for the simple reason of taste, not for a sugar high, to annoy teachers, or to be "cool".

<>

Teachers are underpaid but that is not this debate. Plus, teachers are still paid more than the average babysitter. Sure they have to deal with some hyperactive children but that's their job. They have good and bad students.

Parents should be able to impress their ideals on the child. Any child who is "addicted" to soda as you try to put it is an absolutely wrong proposition in my opinion, although I do see somewhat where your coming from. Children become what their parents make them. You find one kid who isn't affected by his parents. If a child has a problem with soda it is probably because of the parents. One shouldn't ruin it for the all. Is it fair to say that if one person does chemotherapy for a high that nobody should be able to use that? You might as well ban pizza from school too as that isn't the healthiest food either. And cookies, and smoothies, and chocolate milk. I don't see

a) why should people who can control soda drinking be punished for those who can't?

b) why are other kids blamed for the upbringing of other kids?

I look forward to your response.
solo

Con

<>

Yes, but that is only speaking (in your favor) of kids that have to earn their own money to buy soda, which is not widely the case. Also, you note the one job may be physically demanding enough to burn the calories from the soda, but you are not addressing the classroom disruptions caused by those who cannot metabolize the sugar and caffeine without drawing attention to themselves and away from the lesson plan of the classroom.

<>

A chemical response is a chemical response. Throughout my 20s I managed to use illegal drugs recreationally without allowing it to disrupt my professional life. People do it everywhere. It is only when they allow the drug to control their lives do others take notice. Should everyone be allowed to do it? Of course not, because the majority of people do not understand the concept of moderation.

<>

You cannot speak for all of them, and in this case you are wrong. I've heard many people (including kids) complain that once they are accustomed to having soda everyday, if they do not have one they get a headache. The remedy for the headache is caffeine. It is habit-forming, which gives them "a mental need for it".
http://www.drlwilson.com...

<>

This argument works for Judge Judy, but you are not providing any proof that suggests otherwise. The consumption of sugary drinks is habit-forming and doing this regularly causes obesity. It is a scientifically proven fact.

<>

Not all children have parents like your parents and you cannot speak for the majority. However, I do appreciate that you recognize that the abuse does/will take place, which is reason enough to ban children from drinking soda during school hours.

<>

Then I suppose it is reasonable to assume the you also refer to them as "fat kids" or "fatso's" and taunt them? I know many hardworking obese people that are not lazy, they work hard for what they have and simply enjoy every aspect of eating food. I find your personal opinion offensive and I apologize to the obese members of this site on your behalf.

<>

There are many caffeine-free and sugar-free beverages that taste good. Why must soda be the beverage of choice?

<>

You are not a teacher, therefore you cannot make such a claim. There is strength in numbers and one disruption is more easily controllable than four. It is basic mathematics.

<>

Some would blame neither, but instead the unfit, child-neglecting parents that did not impart good manners and proper upbringing on their children. It comes down to a matter of opinion, which could easily be dismissed if soda were not allowed to be consumed during school hours.

<>

You've defeated your own argument here. By admitting that it happens is just cause to ban it entirely. Teachers are paid to educate, not babysit. It is inappropriate to expect an educator to tolerate childish antics brought on by chemically induced behavior.

<>

This is completely relevant to this debate because the teachers are a significant reason as to why children and not allowed to drink soda during school hours in the first plance.

<>

They are paid to educate, not correct the horrible job that parents are doing by allowing their kids to drink soda during school hours. It is not your place to add to their job description because you feel they make enough money to tolerate poorly raised children.

<>

The consumption of soda during school hours does not help them in any way perform their job.

<>

Yes, and students should not have their educations disrupted by other students as a result of drinking soda during school hours.

<>

One is hardly the case here. Kids are not as responsible as you would have us believe.

<>

Chemotherapy always makes cancer patients sick and causes their hair to fall out. Please provide an example of someone using chemotherapy as a high, as I have never heard of this before now.

<>

You're absolutely right in this instance.

<
a) why should people who can control soda drinking be punished for those who can't?>>

What about people that can drive well even after having a 12-pack of beer? Should they be allowed to drive drunk because they are exceptional drivers? No. It is too disruptive to others to allow.

<>

It is the way of the world. Why are peaceful Americans blamed for the War on Terrorism? It is because we are Americans, one and all, just as kids are kids.

I look forward to your response. You are doing a really good job, so far. Keep it up!
Debate Round No. 2
crackofdawn

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a very concise and interesting response.

<>

I apologize for my statement that this commentary derived from. It was poorly worded and I'm sorry if I have offended anybody. I was merely pointing out that a lazy mindset can and usually will lead to obesity. Although you are correct in saying that this is not always the case and I would like anyone reading this to know that I know that too.

<>

You assume that most kids don't earn their own money to buy sodas. This is generally correct. So where do they get the money? The parents! The parents have almost complete control over a child's life. Of course that can't watch over them all the time but without working for their own money most kids simply don't have the assets to acquire a large amount of soda all the time. As for classroom disruptions I believe all the teacher has to do is send him outside of the classroom. If the problem persists call in the parents. The parents can enforce good drinking habits (of soda) at home. If the child is being disruptive in class the teachers tell the parents, the parents ask if the child is drinking soda, then the child either tells the truth or he lies. If he tells the truth the parents punish him until the disruptions stop. If he lies he's still being disruptive so the parents punish him until the class disruptions stop. Either way the teacher gets her way and the student doesn't have a problem.

<>

Although this comment is interesting it does hold some weight. If you tell me the drugs had no effect whatsoever on your life you're lying. Whether it be socially, personally, or financially it did have an effect however little or small. It may not have been bad but it did have an effect. The concept of moderation and other principles should be enforced by the parents. Of course the government should have laws against some things just to try and take out the temptation but in the long run the parents make you who you are going to be.

<>

Kids will lie if they feel it will take the blame off of them. If you ask me it seems much more likely that kids are doing that to excuse their soda drinking and try to make it okay to continue. I have many friends who drink soda a lot. When we go on long trips (i.e. boy scouts) they suffer no headaches. People can get addicted to it yes, but as far as I'm concerned that is a low percentage of the soda drinking population. Once again I come back to the argument that what a kid eats and drinks is his parents responsibility, not the governments.

<>

Yes that is a fact. Kids can help themselves though and although I have no internet sources I know this from my own social experiences. Soda is not a drug, it may be addicting but it isn't a drug. When parents see their child get obese they should change the child's diet and schedule. Lower the kids time on the computer, TV, and inside in general. Let him play outside, send him over to friends, and eat and drink healthier. If something happens to a parents child they have the power to fix it at home.

<>

You are right that my parents aren't the same as everyone elses parents. Not everyone's parents has the same values as mine do. However, as I have already stated and you mentioned above with "Yes, but that is only speaking (in your favor) of kids that have to earn their own money to buy soda, which is not widely the case." the parents are the one's funding the child. If a parent doesn't want his child drinking soda then don't give him money. Now only stop the money if ,as I stated above, the soda drinking is causing some problem like obesity, classroom disruption, etc.

<>

First of all most sodas are caffeine free in the U.S. Some examples are Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and the list goes on. This argument also moots out your point about chemical addiction and stimulation caused by soda. As for sugar-free beverages that taste just as good, yes there are some of those out there. I can't think of one though that is liked universally just as much as soda. Some soda in fact, is sugar-free and is not a diet soda. One such example is Jones Soda which in my personal opinion is one of the better sodas out there. Soda is the beverage of choice because it tastes good, generally doesn't have caffeine in it anymore, and to be honest most supposed "healthier" drinks like Sunny D for example has about 31g of sugar per 8 oz serving (http://health.yahoo.com...). Around 12 oz of Coke on the other hand has 40g of sugar, Sunny D's sugar output then comes too about 46.5g of sugar a bottle which is more than Coke http://www.usc.edu...). Why is Sunny D not under attack? If you say they should be banned too then your going to have to ban a lot of other foods and drinks. Such a change is too radical and won't hold much weight when you think about. Taking away soda is just pushing the first domino on a long chain of sugary foods that are extremely common in america.

<>

You didn't argue this part of my point which is something you should have to answer to win this debate. As for the next part of my statement you cannot apply mathematics to a social environment. One trouble maker could make less of an effect than 4 yes, but the punishment of one compared to 4 is no different. The teacher either says "You young man/woman go outside," or "You 4 young men/women go outside."

<>

I have admitted nothing of the sort.

Kids have to deal with their own decisions, the parents have a great affect on them. No characters left, Vote Pro Choice (for soda).
solo

Con

You did a good job as an opponent, crackofdawn. I'll wrap up my end and we can see how the voting goes!

<>

I disagree. Parents can watch their kids all the time, if they home school their children, in which I think soda drinking is acceptable, but only in this case.

<>

Yes, but why should any teacher have to go through this trial period with every student? Soda is not necessary for students to make it through the day. The potential for disruption is much too high to ignore, as it is much easier just to ban soda drinking during school hours.

<>

It did have its effects, but there were no negative ones. Especially not in my professional life. People manage this all the time. It's the same with any other thing, like food for instance. If you eat a healthy diet, you don't experience negative consequences as a result from it.

<>

That was never in dispute for me.

<>

I agree. A law against drinking soda during school hours is not necessary, but a school rule definitely seems reasonable.

<>

Kids will also lie to get what they want.

<< If you ask me it seems much more likely that kids are doing that to excuse their soda drinking and try to make it okay to continue. I have many friends who drink soda a lot. When we go on long trips (i.e. boy scouts) they suffer no headaches. People can get addicted to it yes, but as far as I'm concerned that is a low percentage of the soda drinking population. Once again I come back to the argument that what a kid eats and drinks is his parents responsibility, not the governments.>>

Is a government not responsible for its citizens? Yes, it is. It's why the Surgeon General makes warnings on harmful products.

<>

You are not a parent, nor have you raised any kids, so you cannot make such a statement. Not all parents are like your parents.

<>

This is just WRONG. Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper all have caffeine. Lots of caffeine.

<>

No, it completely supports it. It's habit-forming and you acknowledged it in your own argument.

<>

See? You admit it is the first domino. One kid falls and the rest follow suit. All falling into bad behavior, one after another.

<>

That is still a disruption to the education of the disruptive students and to the education of the non-disruptive students. Then the teacher has to re-teach the disruptive students, when s/he could be doing something more productive to help the class in general.

<>

Yes, and choosing to drink soda during school hours is the wrong decision. I am glad you are able to see things my way in the end. You did a good job and I appreciate your ability to agree with my side of the debate. I look forward to debating you in the future, crackofdawn. Better luck next time!

Vote Con, it's the right decision.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
I see. So, your real point is that there are caffeine free varieties of soda, which could be used to solve the caffeine issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with the sugar issue unless you limit it to caffeine-free diet sodas, and even then it doesn't deal with the lack of nutrition in school diet programs in general.
Posted by crackofdawn 5 years ago
crackofdawn
I was and sorry for not being specific.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
First 4 Google hits:

http://wilstar.com...
http://www.overcaffeinated.org...
http://www.healthcastle.com...
http://www.diet-blog.com...

Where are you getting this idea? Coke, Dr. Pepper, and Pepsi have always had caffeine. Only Coke offers a non-caffeinated option via Caffeine Free Coke. Unless you are referring to manufacturers rather than the products. If so, you should be clear about that.
Posted by crackofdawn 5 years ago
crackofdawn
Coke, Dr. Pepper, and Pepsi do have caffeine SOMETIMES. You would've found that the newer releases do not have caffeine if you had taken the time to check for that yourself.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie - Pro was kind enough to apologize for a remark pointed to by Con. Both sides seemed to debate fairly.

Spelling and Grammar - Tie - Both sides were easy to read.

Convincing Argument - Con - Con supported his position with more hard data whereas Pro appealed to personal experience. There is data that conclusively shows that eating healthy improves child demeanor (a notion I was first exposed to in the documentary Super Size Me). I'm surprised this didn't come up in Con's argument.

Reliable Sources - Tie - Both sides cited sources of similar reliability.
Posted by solo 5 years ago
solo
LOL! Thanks for voting impartially for yourself on EVERYTHING! :D You're hilarious, crackofdawn.
Posted by solo 5 years ago
solo
HE didn't concede to any of your arguments, but you conceded to many of mine. :D

Also, you're not going to campaign for votes now in the comments are you? :P
Posted by crackofdawn 5 years ago
crackofdawn
I believe that one of the reasons I should win is that she even conceded to some of my arguements.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 11 months ago
birdlandmemories
crackofdawnsoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 11 months ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
crackofdawnsoloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 4 years ago
Pyromaniac
crackofdawnsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by numa 4 years ago
numa
crackofdawnsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
crackofdawnsoloTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
crackofdawnsoloTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by marin24 5 years ago
marin24
crackofdawnsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 5 years ago
RacH3ll3
crackofdawnsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by jamielynn 5 years ago
jamielynn
crackofdawnsoloTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 5 years ago
Labrat228
crackofdawnsoloTied
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