The Instigator
Debatequeen1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

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 1 vote the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,925 times Debate No: 62573
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Debatequeen1

Pro

I don't think students should be allowed to eat during class. School already gives you a break and a lunch time where you can eat. You shouldn't be hungry during class at all. If people are so worried about childhood obesity, then why are teachers still letting kids eat in class? One of the main contributing factors to obesity is snacking. It's also distracting to other students.
MonetaryOffset

Con

I accept. Pro is advocating for a chance in the status quo, so it follows that the burden of proof is on him.


Pro says, "School already gives you a break and a lunch time where you can eat." This is true, but utterly irrelevant and non-topical because it doesn't address the resolution unto itself. Students may have a lunch break -- his remark is deceptive, as it suggests that schools give two breaks, and I know from experience that this is not the general rule -- but this doesn't address at all the subject of whether they ought to be allowed to eat in class. What if they're hungry at an earlier or later time and cannot focus on their studies unless they eat? Lunch time, really, is an arbitrary line that suggests that all students have similiar eating patterns and their hunger will emerge at the same time, but clearly this is not the case.


Pro says, "You shouldn't be hungry during class at all." He makes this nonsensical assertion which he utterly fails to substantitate. Why shouldn't you be hungry during class? Why shouldn't you want to eat after an hour-long Calculus class? Moreover, why should Pro be able to dictate your eating patterns and disallow you from eating, removing the choice to do so from you? Even if Pro thinks you shouldn't be hungry, why should he able to say that you cannot eat?


Pro says, "If people are so worried about childhood obesity, then why are teachers still letting kids eat in class?" This point is absurd for a number of reasons. First, he is conflating two issues: childhood obesity and teachers allowing kids to eat in class, when these are clearly two completely separate issues, and he hasn't shown to us any link between the former and the latter. Until he does that, any conceivable connection should be discarded. Childhood obesity is a problem, but how is snacking during class the cause? You could eat carrots, for goodness' sake, or something light and healthy. You don't need to eat a Big Mac.


Pro says, "One of the main contributing factors to obesity is snacking." He provides absolutely no evidence of this claim, so we ca discard it outright."


Pro says, "It's also distracting to other students." He provides no evidence of this claim at all. Even if it were distracting, how is that a justification for disallowing students to eat? Other students are allowed to eat, as well, so this is in no way unfair to them.



To recap my case:

(1) Eating in class doesn't hurt anyone

(2) Breaks are good, natural and conduvie to learning

(3) Students have different eating, so imposing one universal standard is unwise and offensive

(4) Pro shows no link between obesity and snacking

(5) Snacking in class could even be a way of encouraging students to eat healthy.


The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Debatequeen1

Pro

First, let's get something straight- I am a girl.

Back to the argument...

Eating in class distracts other students because it's very hard to pay attention while you're listening to someone chew. Most students eat snacks like chips, goldfish, etc that are in bags. So you're also hearing the student constantly put their hand in the bag and pull their hand out of the bag.

In reply to your comment about how students don't always eat unhealthy snacks... Most students do eat unhealthy snacks. For example, was in a class where this girl pulled out a great big family size bag of goldfish! She ate it the entire class. And when students do eat foods like carrots, that doesn't solve the tire problem. Carrots are probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat.

Now, back to how you shouldn't be hungry during class. School starts fairly early. Usually between the hours of 7 to 8. As long as you eat breakfast before you go to school, you shouldn't be hungry for your morning classes. Break is also fairly early in the morning. So that's giving you another opportunity to eat. I know everyone doesn't have a break time. Even if you don't have a break, you still shouldn't be hungry. I have been at school for a very long time now, and I've never even eaten lunch at school. For more than 10 years now, I've brought one small snack to school. (ex: pretzels). I'm still alive! Moving on now... After break, you go to a few more hours of classes. A then, you have lunch where you have another opportunity to eat! After lunch, you have a couple hours left before you go home and can eat again. That's more than enough eating time if you ask me.

Another note: There is a time and a place for everything. Class time is for learning, not eating.
MonetaryOffset

Con

Thanks, Pro.

"First, let's get something straight- I am a girl."


My apologies.

Pro says, "Eating in class distracts other students because it's very hard to pay attention while you're listening to someone chew."

This is nothing more than Pro's opinion based on anecdotal evidence. She may find chewing distracting, whereas I, and many others, won't, or I would be so focused on the lecture material and on taking notes that I wouldn't pay any mind to whether or not my classmate happened to be chewing. If eating in class *is* distracting -- and that's a big "if" -- then it would follow that it's distracting for the students who are eating, as well, and therefore that they would refrain from doing so regularly so that they could pay attention to the lectures. Again, though, whether or not eating in class is distracting is utterly irrelevant, because even if it is, this is not a case for it being disallowed. You can eat and still pay attention to the lecture material. Teachers can set up during their classes lax periods where they're not throwing material at you, but rather engaging studies in discussions and allow them to, in the process, casually respond whilst eating. Speaking from experience, which is valid in this case because that's all Pro has provided, I've taken seminars where eating was allowed -- and in fact encouraged, as we had a set time for eating, but continued our discussion anyway -- and it wasn't the least bit distracting to anyone. We were all so engrossed in the material that it hardly made a difference to us.


"Most students eat snacks like chips, goldfish, etc that are in bags. So you're also hearing the student constantly put their hand in the bag and pull their hand out of the bag."

This argument is positively laughable. First, she doesn't even demonstrate that most students are eating X, Y, and Z foods; this is nothing more than a nonsensical anecodotal example, and I can balance against this my own anecdotal example, where people whom I know and associate with eat fruit, which is not carried in individual bags. Second, putting your hand inside a bag is *not* categorcially distracting. I don't consider it distracting at all. As I said, if you're so engrossed in the discussion, as you should be, there are few things that will actually detract your attention from it. Moreover, even *IF* we could consider a hypothetical where ths is distracting, that's utterly irrelevant because it is not a proper argument for imposing one's will on another student. Eating in class doesn't harm anyone, but telling children that they must starve DOES, not only because it will destroy their focus and thinking if they're particularly hungry or anxious, but also because it could create in them utter resentment such that they ignore the lecture or create DISTRACTIONS out of spite. Pro's proposal is more conducive to classroom distractions than mine.

Pro says, "In reply to your comment about how students don't always eat unhealthy snacks... Most students do eat unhealthy snacks. For example, was in a class where this girl pulled out a great big family size bag of goldfish! She ate it the entire class. And when students do eat foods like carrots, that doesn't solve the tire problem. Carrots are probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat."

Pro provides nothing more than a baseless anecdotal example stating that most students eat unhealthy snacks. Again, even under a hypothetical where we grant this -- and let me be clear that I'm not granting it because Pro has provided no basis for it -- this would stll be irrelevant, because this would provide a framework for teachers, parents and fellow students to encourage one another to eat healthier foods. Pro does grant that students eat carrots, but claims that carrots are the "probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat." This is nothing more than her subjective opinion, and we can discard it outright if I balance it out with my own subjective opinion that carrots are NOT the most annoying food to hear someone eat.

"Now, back to how you shouldn't be hungry during class. School starts fairly early. Usually between the hours of 7 to 8. As long as you eat breakfast before you go to school, you shouldn't be hungry for your morning classes."

What if a student wasn't able to eat breakfast? What if there are hostile conditions at their home? What if they are poor and cannot access breakfast foods, and would only be able to eat during the classtime if the teacher or school were to provide snacks? What if a student is running late and does not eat breakfast? More important, why should Pro's subjective assessment of what *SHOULD* be the case dictate the choices of others? Why should Pro be able to impose her will on others simply because she doesn't think they should be hungry? She speaks of morning classes. Let's say you awake at 5 a.m. and eat breakast -- and I did this whilst I was in high school every day -- and have class from 8 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. That's six and a half hours later, so it follows you'll be hungry. For me, my lunch break wasn't until 1:30 p.m. on most days, so that's about eight and a half hours later. Naturally I'm going to be hungry.

Pro says, "break is also fairly early in the morning. So that's giving you another opportunity to eat. I know everyone doesn't have a break time. Even if you don't have a break, you still shouldn't be hungry."

Pro defeats her own argument by conceding that not everyone has a "break time." I never had a break time. But her argument is ludicrous, because she merely ASSERTS that you shouldn't be hungry. Given the example I just provided, why wouldn't you be hungry?

Pro says, "I have been at school for a very long time now, and I've never even eaten lunch at school. For more than 10 years now, I've brought one small snack to school. (ex: pretzels). I'm still alive!"

Pro's example is not only ancedotal, but heavily egocentric. She assumes that her position is absolute, and because X is true for her, X is objectively true. That is far from the case. Not to mention, she defeats her own case by stating that she brought pretzels as a snack to school. She HAD a break before lunchtime, but many students in her place did not. Also, being alive is NOT a measure of happiness, but of existence. You can be alive, but unecessarily miserable. The utilitarian case, of course, is to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, and everything about my proposal to allow students to eat in class achieves this end.

Pro says, "After break, you go to a few more hours of classes."

This is false; Pro has already conceded that not everyone has a break.

Pro says, "then, you have lunch where you have another opportunity to eat!"

Obviously her use of "another" is deceptive and false, per own admission. Also, so? My lunch period was late in the day. I was hungry before then.

Pro says, "After lunch, you have a couple hours left before you go home and can eat again."

This of course depends on timing, and even if you're not hungry after lunch, you could be hungry before lunch, so my proposal still stands. Also, some students may have an earlier lunch, perhaps at 11:30 a.m., and would be hungry later on in the day. Pro's problem is that she wants to stick a rigid, universal proposal when the real world is nothing like that.

Her next comment reflects the rigidity of her proposal. She writes, "That's more than enough eating time if you ask me." She admits outright that this is nothing more than her subjective opinion. The problem is, her opinion is not universal. Her opinion is not a reason to deny students the right and the option to eat in school, especially since they are not harming anyone. Give them the choice to do so, acknowledging that people and circumstances are different, and let them sort out the details themselves. Let them decide for themselves what is best for them.


Pro basically drops the five ponts I laid out in my last round, so I'll extend all of those.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Debatequeen1

Pro

You seem to be contradicting every little thing I say... Instead of picking apart my points of argument, why don't you lay out some better points?

Now back to this debate.

Many other students and I both find it very hard to concentrate when people are eating in class. It's very hard to concentrate on what the teacher is saying while you're hearing someone chew next to, behind, or in front of you. Before you try and tell me that not everyone finds chewing annoying, I'm going to tell you that I already know that. I'm just speaking from personal knowledge. Many students do find listening to someone chew extremely annoying.

As I said before, I find it very distracting when I have to constantly listen to people pulling their hands in and out of bags. You just gave me your opinion and said "I don't consider it distracting at all." I find it odd you said that, because I thought we weren't giving out opinions on here? You certainly keep calling me out on that.

You said, z"What if a student wasn't able to eat breakfast? What if there are hostile conditions at their home? What if they are poor and cannot access breakfast foods...." Let me just say that it shouldn't be the school's responsibility if students aren't able to eat at home. (That's a completely different argument though, so I won't get into it.) But back to the being hungry part... If you don't eat for 6 and a half hours, you're not going to die. A you're not even going to pass out. Almost people don't eat for that long. If you're constantly eating, you will become obese sooner or later. (Again, this is a completely different argument. So I'll just leave it there.)

All of you're comments are just contradicting my arguments... You need to state your own points next time :)
MonetaryOffset

Con

Pro says, "You seem to be contradicting every little thing I say... Instead of picking apart my points of argument, why don't you lay out some better points?"

Pro CLEARLY has not read any of my arguments. I laid out five better points in my last round, and all five of those points were DROPPED. Those points were:


-Eating in class hurts no one
-Breaks are good, natural and conducive to learning
-Students have different eating habits, so imposing one universal standard is unwise and offensive
-Pro shows no link between obesity and snacking
-Snacking in class could even be a way of encouraging students to eat healthy

All five of these points were dropped AGAIN. I'll extend them through and ask that you vote Con merely in light of the fact that my case remains completely untouched, while Pro's remains in shambles.

In addition to these points, I provided contentions within my rebuttals. I discussed utilitariaism last round, for instance, and Pro has completely dropped it. The point of a debate with a shared burden of proof is to lay out and defend your own case whilst ripping apart your opponent's. I have done that thoroughly.

Pro says, "Many other students and I both find it very hard to concentrate when people are eating in class. It's very hard to concentrate on what the teacher is saying while you're hearing someone chew next to, behind, or in front of you. Before you try and tell me that not everyone finds chewing annoying, I'm going to tell you that I already know that. I'm just speaking from personal knowledge. Many students do find listening to someone chew extremely annoying."

Pro starts out with nothing more than anecedotal example, and then CONCEDES that she is speaking only from personal experience and that this view is not universal. She conceded and dropped, also, the point that imposing a universal standard where there isn't one as a way of depriving people of freedom of choice is wrong. After this remark from her, you should vote negative. She is not responding to my points at all, but merely repeating the points of hers which were already rebuted. I also commented in the last round that if you're paying attention, chewing will likely not be an issue. She dropped that.

Pro says, "As I said before, I find it very distracting when I have to constantly listen to people pulling their hands in and out of bags. You just gave me your opinion and said "I don't consider it distracting at all." I find it odd you said that, because I thought we weren't giving out opinions on here? You certainly keep calling me out on that."

We're not GIVING our opinions. It's a debate, so we need to defend our opinions. Pro does nothing more than state her opinions here, as well. She doesn't respond at all to the point I made, and once again her point is not universal and does not merit action such as disallowing children to eat during school.

Pro says, "You said, z"What if a student wasn't able to eat breakfast? What if there are hostile conditions at their home? What if they are poor and cannot access breakfast foods...." Let me just say that it shouldn't be the school's responsibility if students aren't able to eat at home. (That's a completely different argument though, so I won't get into it)."

Pro doesn't at all respond to any of the points I offered, nor is there any context to her remarks. She said in the last round that students shouldn't be hungry during their early classes, and I brought up three scenarios where this WOULD be th case. Whether it's the school's responsibly if the students aren't able to eat at home -- mind you, Pro does nothing more than ASSERT this as opposed to actually back it up, and I think it is utilitarian, per my last round, for public programs of this nature to exist to feed the neediest amongst us -- is utterly irrelevant becasue I've adequately rebuted Pro's point and she makes no effort at all to counter-rebut.

Pro says, "But back to the being hungry part... If you don't eat for 6 and a half hours, you're not going to die. A you're not even going to pass out. Almost people don't eat for that long."

Pro once again completely drops my rebuttal. First, I noted that it could be far longer than six and a half hours in the absence of a break -- I pointed to eight in a half hours in my own experience -- and I rebuted her point regarding the fact that you're "not going to die" by noting a distinction between being alive and being happy, and pointed to utilitarianisn. Pro dropped that point. Passing out, also, is distinct from being happy.

Pro tries to say that almost all people don't eat for that long. Note that this is (1) unsubstantiated and baseless (2) non-topical, because we're debating "ought," not "is" and (3) irrelevant, because even under a hypothetical where it is the case, this doesn't mean those people are happy.

Pro says, "If you're constantly eating, you will become obese sooner or later. (Again, this is a completely different argument. So I'll just leave it there.)"

When did I say ANYTHING about constantly eating? I did not. I said that student sshould have the option to snack during the day, and disallowing it is depriving them of their freedom of choice when they're not harming anyone. Even under a scenario where they COULD put on weight by eating -- and, no, I do not accept that nonsensical premise as Pro hasn't at all backed it up -- it would be their choice to do so, or subject to intervention by their friends, teachers, or parents.

Pro says, "All of you're comments are just contradicting my arguments... You need to state your own points next time :)"

This is embarassingly, parently false. I made my own points in Round 1, which Pro droppeed in their entirety, and then made contentons within my rebuttals, most of which Pro dropped.



Conclusion

I have rebutted all of Pro's arguments and she dropped every single one of my contentions. It is clear that you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by HatterStein 2 years ago
HatterStein
snacking in class doesn't lead to obesity. its a snack. EATING A CRAP LOAD OF MCDONALDS LEADS TO OBESITY. and what break are you talking about. i dont get a break thats insane. i want a fricking break in school.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Lol.

<3 you too.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
This monetary guy really must have had his head under water when common sense was handed out.Some of the ridiculous answers to debates.He looks good on the outside, but is childish on the inside.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Debatequeen1MonetaryOffsetTied
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: Pro appears to be a new debater, not familiar with the formal style of arguing. She made plenty of assertions and arguments which were based almost exclusively, as Con pointed out, on anecdotal evidence, which is essentially no evidence. Debatequeen1, you would have done much better if you had done a little bit of research and quoted studies to back up your points. This debate is actually (to my knowledge) not one with a clear answer, but Con's rebuttals and arguments were on-point. I wish you both all the best with future debates.