The Instigator
Jacob60rt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheCommonMan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

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...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,305 times Debate No: 42163
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Jacob60rt

Pro

I came across this debate topic and I strongly wanted to debate it. It is open for anyone to debate.

Round One- Acceptance (only!)
Round Two- Opening Arguments
Round Three- Rebuttal and arguments
Round Four- Closing and any final rebuttal, cross-examination, or thoughts

I do ask to whom may accept this debate will not forfeit any round thus loosing the conduct point(s)

Let the fun begin!
TheCommonMan

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacob60rt

Pro

I am for students eating in the classroom as long it is done in a respectful manor for several reasons:

1) If students are hungry they are thinking about food and not on the topic or assignment on hand.

2) If students do not have time to eat in the morning this will gave them the needed food and energy to get through the day.

3) What good is a student distracted and hungry not doing the work, and not gaining any knowledge.
TheCommonMan

Con

Here are my opening arguments.

Argument Number One:

Food in the classroom would be a huge distraction. The main distraction that would occur is kids being distracted when eating their food. Kids who eat food in class would most likely not pay attention to what the teacher is saying, leaving them behind those who do not have food to eat during class. Falling behind would lead to lower grades. Therefore, food in classrooms would hurt, not help, a student"s GPA/Academic achievement.

Argument Number Two:

Another reason why food shouldn"t be allowed in classrooms is because of the potential mess it could cause. If given the opportunity, some kids will carelessly dispose of their food of an improper way (ex. throwing it on the ground somewhere instead of throwing it in the garbage). This is the same reason why some students (mainly in middle/high school) will graffiti on the walls. If there"s no authority around to see them doing it, they will do it. Likewise, if there"s no authority around to see them litter, and there are also no garbage cans around, they will simply throw it on the ground. This would cause unnecessary cleanup for the janitors in the schools and schools to be unsanitary.

Argument Number Three:

Simply enough, food in classrooms is unnecessary. There are plenty of ways that students can get food outside of the classroom. For breakfast, students could eat at their homes or they could eat the school provided breakfast in the cafeteria. If they cannot afford to eat breakfast, they can get breakfast free from the cafeteria as well. For lunch, the school provides lunch for all students. If the students can"t afford lunch, the school can provide it free. Dinner time isn"t within school hours. Therefore, there"s absolutely no way that students can"t supply food for themselves before, during, and after the school day. To conclude, since there"s always time to get food during school without having food in classrooms, then there is no point in having food in classrooms.

Conclusion:

I have explained how food inside classrooms would be distracting and would cause messes throughout schools. I have also explained why food in classrooms is unnecessary, because there"s many other ways to get food outside of the classroom. Therefore, I have established that allowing kids to eat in the classroom wouldn"t be a wise move.
Debate Round No. 2
Jacob60rt

Pro

Rebuttal: You are prepared to state that, "food would be a distraction in the classroom " This is actually false because I had class were you can eat in and it was never a distraction. And in fact it does help grades in one case study that my Science teacher did was 3rd period Earth Science was the control group and 4th period was the variable both had a C average and about 20 high school students on any given day and this experiment lasted for 2 months. She let the students in 4th period bring in food and eat quietly and do not share with anyone else. The grade average rose from a C average to a C plus average and the control group stayed ruffle the same so it can be concluded that eating can help students GPA.

Rebuttal Two: You Prepared to state that " That food will cause a mess" This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools k-12, urban and rural schools, colleges and in all these classrooms I have seen a trash can in every single one of them. This is equipment that the schools are granted with. And also there is authority in the classroom: the teachers. If there is litter around a desk the teacher can tell the student to properly throw it away in the trash can. So your argument is false.

Rebuttal Three: You are prepared to state that "There are plenty of ways that students can get food outside of the classroom." There is always a contrition to that. Some students can't make in time to eat breakfast at home or school and they go through five or so hours before lunch and those happen to be more of your academic classes and after lunch you are more likely to have a few electives these classes are not as important as to the academic class. Also some schools are just turning a blind eye to students who need a free lunch, i.e Richard is a 8th grade who dad makes 90,000 dollars a year no need for a free lunch but his dad is a major drunk/ gambler spending so much money on his addiction that he can't afford for Richard to eat the semi-frozen junk that most schools give now a days. But if Richard can get a dollar or two somehow he can buy a small snack versus a $5.00 meal in the afternoon.

In statement: I disproved all of your opening statements, and I wait for your rebuttal(s).
TheCommonMan

Con

Here is my first response to my opponent"s claims.

Rebuttal Number One:

"This is actually false because I had class""

Stop right there. My opponent defends his position by citing personal experience. In fact, he does so multiple times.

"This is actually false because I had class""
"This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools""
"in all these classrooms I have seen""

There is a huge problem with this logic. In the same way, I could cite my personal experiences defending my position. That doesn"t mean that I"m telling the truth, or that what I have experiences should be the only contributing factor to make a general conclusion of what should/shouldn"t be done. For example:

Your claim: "This is actually false because I had class were you can eat in and it was never a distraction."
I could claim: "But I had a class where you could eat and it was a distraction."

That wouldn"t mean that I would be right. That would simply mean I made a claim with no logic, evidence, backing, data, etc. It would be okay if my opponent used something other than his personal experience to defend his claims. However, he only uses personal experience in two of his rebuttals. That makes his claims very weak.

Rebuttal Number Two:

My opponent describes a study that one of his teachers used.

"And in fact it does help grades in one case study that my Science teacher did was 3rd period Earth Science was the control group and 4th period was the variable both had a C average and about 20 high school students on any given day and this experiment lasted for 2 months. She let the students in 4th period bring in food and eat quietly and do not share with anyone else. The grade average rose from a C average to a C plus average and the control group stayed ruffle the same so it can be concluded that eating can help students GPA."

The specific study that you cite has many flaws. First off, it said that the average for the class who was allowed to eat in class rose from a C to a C Plus. However, exact percentages aren"t used. So, that means that the class could"ve previously had a 76% average, and the average changed to a 77%. The class with no food could"ve gone from a 74% to a 75% as well. That would imply that each class had the same gain, but the letter grade only changed. That doesn"t show that allowing kids to have food in school gave those kids an edge. Second off, the experiment my opponent cites doesn"t explain any of the other factors that might"ve been different between the two classes. Third off, the increase could"ve been for any reason (perhaps it was slightly easier material in the 2 month period than it was before that). Fourth off, there are no repeat experiments that would back your claim, which means the results could"ve been pure coincidence. Therefore, the results from this experiment are not that impressive and don"t prove my opponent"s point.

Rebuttal Number Three:

"You Prepared to state that " That food will cause a mess" This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools k-12, urban and rural schools, colleges and in all these classrooms I have seen a trash can in every single one of them."

My opponent claims that just because trash cans are in every classroom that kids won"t litter. This is simply false. That be like saying that just because laws exist that people will always follow them. We know that to be false. In the same way, trash cans can be in rooms and kids will still potentially litter. Whether it is laziness, misbehavior, or carelessness, if there"s an incentive to dispose of food/trash in a wrong manner, it will potentially occur.

For example, let"s use graffiti. As previously mentioned, many school kids graffiti the school walls. There are rules against it. However, people do it. Littering is very similar to this. If kids want to do it, they will still do it, whether or not a trash can is in the room.

Rebuttal Number Four:

"Some students can't make in time to eat breakfast at home or school and they go through five or so hours before lunch"
My opponent claims that some students have no time to eat before school starts. While this is might be true, there are better alternatives to solve this problem other than allowing kids to eat in school. For example, the kids could go to sleep earlier and wake up earlier. The kid will have the same amount of sleep and will have more time to eat in the morning. It would be unnecessary to allow kids to have food in schools for this reason.

Rebuttal Number Five:

"i.e Richard is a 8th grade who dad makes 90,000 dollars a year no need for a free lunch but his dad is a major drunk/ gambler spending so much money on his addiction that he can't afford for Richard to eat the semi-frozen junk that most schools give now a days. But if Richard can get a dollar or two somehow he can buy a small snack versus a $5.00 meal in the afternoon."

This example shows that the kid might only have money to afford small snacks. However, that is a separate issue from the one we are debating. Whether or not one can afford a lot of food doesn"t have to do with whether or not kids should be allowed to eat in school. If the kid can only afford a small snack, then there"s no reason he can"t eat it at home/before school. Schools shouldn"t allow students to have food in classrooms for this reason.

Rebuttal Number Six:

"1) If students are hungry they are thinking about food and not on the topic or assignment on hand.
2) If students do not have time to eat in the morning this will gave them the needed food and energy to get through the day.
3) What good is a student distracted and hungry not doing the work, and not gaining any knowledge."

Once again, all of these three claims are just claims. They don"t have any reasoning or reason why they are true. Plus, all my claims in round two and three have shot down these claims. Based on what I have said, these claims really don"t do anything in proving his point.

Conclusion:

I have responded to everything my opponent has stated in round two and three and showed why everything he claims is flawed. Also, I have reaffirmed my points. My opponent still hasn"t responded to my round two claim that eating in classrooms is unnecessary.
Debate Round No. 3
Jacob60rt

Pro

Resolved: That I in fact have supported my claims and provided good evedince to surport these clams.
TheCommonMan

Con

Since my opponent gave a round 4 argument that doesn't really need to be responded to, I will give a short conclusion/summary of this debate.

I responded to all of my opponent's round two arguments and showed why they are illogical. I also responded to everything my opponent said when he responded to me. Once again, I showed that his argument was illogical. So, I shot down everything my opponent said.

On the other hand, my opponent didn't respond to some of my round two claims (ex. my round two claim that eating in classrooms is unnecessary). He also didn't respond to any of my round three argument.

I shot down all of my opponent's claims, while my opponent didn't respond to most of my arguments. My arguments were also stronger, considering I was able to show why my opponent's claims were unwise.

I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who took the time to read/vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 3 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
American I guess?
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
Thank you.
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
Thank you.
Posted by ScrinTech 3 years ago
ScrinTech
@Jacob60rt Touch`e
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
Is it better to have a kid starve and think nothing but food and not on the lecture.
Posted by ScrinTech 3 years ago
ScrinTech
Why should they?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Jacob60rtTheCommonManTied
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 have awarded the more convincing argument points to Con as, he made a final statement and concluded the debate. In contrast Pro just asserted he had given irrefutable evidence which was not true. The experiment he cited was personal, so why should I believe it? No sources were cited, which could have helped this debate, as there have been studies conducted on this topic. Conduct is drawn, and I would suggest the debaters be more courteous in future debates.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Jacob60rtTheCommonManTied
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 wins the rebuttles 2 and 1. As for the alternative, it is a little weak. Pro exploited this weakness by arguing that hunger is detrimental. This part is a bit of a toughie. Con argued that there was no link between hunger and distraction. If Pro had responded by demonstrating why being hungry would cause poor grades, I would have picked that arguement up, but Pro did not. I understand Pro that you think you had good analysis, but that was a waste of a round deliberately refusing to give further explanation. Additionally, because food has been shown to be distracting, the hunger argument would be counteracted anyway. Something to think about in the future would be to argue that refusing food is somehow cruel. As it stands,Con has demonstrated distraction with food (personal experience was not a good justification), and Pro demonstrated that Maybe distriction without food, but refused to give analysis. Con wins. Close debate. Great job on both sides.