The Instigator
CarlaJMena
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,879 times Debate No: 26045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

CarlaJMena

Pro

In a while i havent done a debate.. so i decided to argue even more :PP
This time i am debating about eating food/snacks during classes or periods.

First round acceptance.

Rules -

No cursing
No spamming
Source's a MUST

Good luck to my opponent.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

I accept.

=======Resolved=======

"Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes."

As con, I will be arguing against this resolution.



=======Burden of Proof=======

Pro will have the BOP as she is the one arguing against the status quo.


=======Definitions=======

1. Student: A person who is studying at a school or college

2. Lunch: A meal eaten in the middle of the day, typically one that is lighter or less formal than an evening meal.*

* Obviously pro will be arguing that lunch should be eaten at non-noon times, so this definition is just a guideline.

=======Rules=======

I accept the rules laid out by pro and I will add a few others.

1. No Semantics: Nuff said

2. Water bottles: Water bottles don't count as being part of lunch. Most teachers allow and even prefer the use of water bottles, so long as they contain only water.

That should be everything, so I wish my opponent luck. I'll see you next round ;)
Debate Round No. 1
CarlaJMena

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate

May the best debater win.

Concentration and Health -

Everyone knows breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but when a student is stuck in school for about 8 hours, what is their other choice? Studies shows that the average school is open from 8:30 " 3:30 Resulting in almost 8 hours, right? Lunch is only available after 5 hours. (1:00 pm).

Food can help a child's concentration, as well as boost their energy. Schools in general these days open extremely early, so that leaves practically no time for a child to eat breakfast in the morning.

Your body is supposed to take in food every few hours. Students, like adults, need to be in charge of their bodily functions - this includes eating, as well as using the restroom.
Students are growing and need to eat several times per day IN ADDITION to meals. Not eating puts the body into starvation mode, which increases the production of adrenaline. Increased adrenaline is a causal factor in lack of concentration.

Also researched, 20% of high school students fall asleep in class averagely. 99.9% of those students fell asleep because of lack of concentration. Which goes back to increase of adrenaline. Which goes back to not eating enough, right?

Sources -

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.jhsph.edu...
http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com...
RyuuKyuzo

Con

I thank my opponent for her response. I will not rebut her arguments.

=======Counter Arguments=======


-----Concentration and Health-----
My opponent states that students should be allowed to eat snacks during class time because school starts so early and lasts almost 8 hours, which makes having breakfast difficult. First things first, the school day lasts for less than 7 hours so my opponent is simply factually wrong here [1]. Secondly, my opponent, herself, sourced an article talking about how high schools are starting at later times to allow teens more sleep time, which in term allows more time for breakfast [2].
Thirdly, she states that lunch is only available after 5 hours (1:00pm). This is also wrong. Most schools have lunch time start between 11 and 12 o'clock, which is a 2.5-3.5 hour stretch assuming an 8:30 start time [3]. Some schools even have lunch time-slots scheduled as early as 9:50am [4]. Besides, a 5 hour stretch is not unreasonable. It's fairly common practice to require 5 hours a work before a break is offered [5], so even if it were true that students had to go 5 hours in between meals, the worst you can say this does is prepare students for the real world, which is what schools are meant to do in the first place.

Pro then contends that the body is meant to eat every few hours. Firstly, I've already established that the meal-time gap is much, much shorter than my opponent made it out to be, but even if we grant the 5 hour gap to Pro (which isn't even all that long), students get breaks in between classes. Elementary students get recess every couple classes and high school students get roughly 10 minutes of break time in between each class -- more than enough time to eat something if needed. I, personally, ate a sandwich between every single class back when I was in high school. This is just a personal example, so take it as you will, but it establishes that there is time to eat during the school day if you're willing to take it. The fact of the matter is, a break between each class plus a lunch break after only 3 or so hours of total class time is plenty of time to eat. There's no need to take up class time with such things. It will only distract others and keep the student occupied on something other than their school work.

It's also worth mentioning that new scientific studies are beginning to show that eating every few hours may actually be incredibly UNhealthy. What we have found out is that keeping your blood-sugar levels constantly elevated results in constant sugar-protein binding to occur. This process also happens when you cook meat. It's called the Maillard Reaction, and if this reaction is occurring within you at a constant rate, you are effectively slow-cooking yourself from the inside out which can result in kidney disease, joint deterioration, stiffening of connective tissues, cataracts, and atherosclerosis [6].

Finally, Pro states that 20% of students fall asleep in class and should therefore be allowed to eat in order to boost energy. In this case, Pro is guilty of equivocation. Fatigue brought about by hunger is not the same thing as fatigue brought about by sleepiness. You can't out-eat a poor sleep cycle and in fact in many cases eating will only make you more tired, not less [7].


=======Sourcing Issues=======

Pro has not conducted her sourcing as per the DDO norm. As the result, I can't be sure which of her sources back up which statements, if any. As of now, it appears that that Pro's sources are largely unrelated to the argument that she has presented. Unless my opponent wants to lose the sourcing point in this debate, I recommend that she tie her sources to her claims to allow for easier verification.

I don't like having to hunt through my opponent's sources, especially if I'm not sure what argument the source is meant to apply to.

=======Conclusion=======

I have, in a point-by-point manner, dismantled Pro's argument for why students should be allowed to eat during class. She has exaggerated several factors of her argument, exaggerated on the implications of these factors and drawn conclusions that are unsupported even by these exaggerations. Also, she delivers many of her points in the form of a question, suggesting that she either does not fully support her own argument or that she doesn't fully understand the implications of her arguments. The fact of the matter is, students already have a great deal of time to eat both meals and snacks at school. Meals before and after school are matters that come down to the students time-management ability -- this problem should not burden class time. Teachers are there to educate, not to supervise over an unnecessary and perpetual lunch program.

I look forward to your response.


1. http://nces.ed.gov...
2. http://www.npr.org...
3. http://www.pvnccdsb.on.ca...
4. http://www.weightymatters.ca...
5. http://www.afl.org...
6. http://www.t-nation.com...
7. http://www.drmirkin.com...
Debate Round No. 2
CarlaJMena

Pro

Con states that 'First things first, the school day lasts for less than 7 hours so my opponent is simply factually wrong here'. Not at all. Research by Nation Household Education proves that half of middle schools start at 8:00. Resulting in 7:30 hours. In which cases older students dont have enough time to eat breakfast. Nor sleep with all of their priorities in school. As i mentioned before, especially older kids need to digest more food as they grow.

Another thing con stated was that 'Thirdly, she states that lunch is only available after 5 hours (1:00pm). This is also wrong. Most schools have lunch time start between 11 and 12 o'clock, which is a 2.5-3.5 hour stretch assuming an 8:30 start time'
Another opinion suggesting that 'most' schools. Not all. But i just have a question. Did those schools have low obesity rates? Children now are affected by obesity in schools. Con is very wrong with his mathematics. The lunch begins 4 - 4:30 depending on grades. My nephew is already in 7th grade and he starts lunch at 12:30. But next year when he goes to 8th grade, he'll have ONLY 15 minutes to eat and lunch will start at 1:00. Average middle or high schools starts lunch AFTER 12:00. Most grades start roughly at 11:30. But were not really talking about little kids right?

Not every school lets kids have breaks in classes.

Oh and one thing Con didnt check was that his first source ONLY shows the average hours in school from 2000- 2004. Its almost 2013. Dont you think it changed just a tiny bit? ;)

Now, im gonna go leave for school :3

Sources -

http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu...
My nephew's school ^^
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Let's get right into this.

=======Counter Arguments=====

-----Start Time-----

Pro opens by claiming that half of all middle schools start at 8 a.m. which equals a 7.5 hour school day. Note that she has tempered her claim from "almost 8 hours" down to 7.5. She says that this early start and long day take away from the older students' ability to sleep and eat, but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes;

"Elementary schools started at 7:30, middle schools/junior high school started at 8:15 and senior high schools at 9:00. While elementary school started earlier, they also get out earlier, at 2:25; middle schools at 3:10 and senior high schools at 3:55.All school districts establish their own times and means of transportation within guidelines set forth by their own state." [1]

It should be noted that, in all three cases (elementary, middle and high-school), the school day is less than seven hours, according to my sources. Yes, Pro's source points at certain states that have earlier start times, but then again Pro's own source also states that;

"The average length of the school day in the United States is 6.6 hours, so 9:00 a.m. start times would coincide with 3:30 p.m. dismissal for most districts (NCES 2007–2008)." [2]

Finally, the argument pro is putting forth here seems to suggest that we need to push back the start time for school. That's fine and all, but that has nothing to do with letting kids eat during class. This argument is moot.

-----Lunch Time-----

Pro argues against my claim that there is only a '2.5-3.5 hour stretch between the school's start time and lunch time' by saying that this is only true for most schools, not all. This isn't even a counter argument. Yes, there are schools with longer stretches, and there are also schools with shorter stretches as I outlined in round 2 with my 9:50 a.m. example. What's your point?

Pro also asks the question of if those schools have low obesity rates. I don't see the relevance of this question and Pro moves on from this question without developing whatever point this was supposed to make further, but since you've brought it up -- roughly 33% of youths ages 2-19 are considered overweight [3]. This clearly proves that "not eating enough" is not a problem by any means for our students. In fact, just the opposite is true. Students are eating too much.

Pro then goes on to assert that there is a 4-4.5 hour stretch between the beginning of school and lunch time, not 2.5-3.5 as I've shown. Note that she has reduced her original argument of 5 hours down to 4/4.5. Pro can assert her position all she wants. I've sourced my claim and she hasn't. That's all there is to it.

I'm sure Pro could point out one or two schools with longer class-stretches than the average 3-hour stretch, but then all she would have accomplished is predicating an argument on cherry-picked data. It's actually rather ironic that the only reason why pro is not guilty of cherry-picking in this debate is because she hasn't actually sourced her argument.

-----Outdated Source-----

Pro criticizes my first source by pointing out that its data is 8-12 years old. My response to that is that a decade old source is better than the no-source offered by pro in that same round. Besides, I've posted an updated source in this round.

=======Dropped Arguments=======

-----Slow-Cooker-----

In round 2, I made the argument that eating every few hours is actually unhealthy because it effectively slow-cooks you with your own blood. Pro did not address this in any way, meaning she concedes this point. Since I've now established that eating every few hours is actually unhealthy, Pro's argument that students should be able to eat in class for health reasons has been completely defeated, which, given that this was her only real argument for her resolution, means that she has effectively lost this debate. Even if she manages to establish that the average student doesn't have enough time to eat every few hours at school, the assertion that eating every few hours is a good thing has been debunked and therefore, so has her following argument.

=======Sourcing Issues=======

Pro has once again failed to link her claims to her sources and it appeared that most of her claims aren't supported by her source whatsoever. Given that this is the second time this has occurred, I appeal to the voters to dock Pro on sourcing points.

=======Conclusion=======

Pro's argument has been defeated on all levels. Once again, her claims are exaggerated (although, not as much as in round 2 since Pro seems to be backing down somewhat from most of her claims made in round 2) and mostly unsourced, her conclusions don't follow from her arguments, but even if they did, her conclusions don't support her resolution (as I've shown eating every few hours is not desirable). At this point, I recommend that Pro concedes the debate in the final round so she can at least receive some conduct points.

I look forward to your response.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... (pg. 10, prgh. 2)
3. http://www.healthiergeneration.org...
Debate Round No. 3
CarlaJMena

Pro

No problem.


Con states that as i mentioned school almost equaling to 8 hours is not the same as 7.5. Like i said i mentioned ALMOST. It was always less than 8. I never said it was FULLY 8 hours.

' She says that this early start and long day take away from the older students' ability to sleep and eat, but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes'

Con has failed back up the average sleep time for teens. But what he doesnt realize is, according to NFS Studies, the average teen neds 8 - 9 hours of sleep on school nights. But only 15% of students admitted they had this much sleep on weekdays. Doesnt matter if in most schools, highschool classes start 1.5 hours later.

Con has ALSO failed to realize that in his source, it states -

'School days start early in the morning. According to the National Household Education Survey (NCES 2001), roughly half of middle schools start at or before 8:00 a.m., and fewer than 25 percent start at 8:30 a.m. or later. High schools start even earlier. Wolfson and Carskadon (2005), surveying a random sample of public high schools, found that more than half of the schools reported start times earlier than 8:00 a.m. In 2005, two thirds of high schools in Kansas started at 8:00 a.m. or earlier, and more than 99 percent started at 8:30 a.m. or earlier. In the school year 2010–2011, roughly 10 percent of high schools in New York City started at 7:30 a.m. or earlier and more than 80 percent started at 8:30 a.m. or earlier.'

And as he states, ' but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes;'

Notice how later is boldy underlined ;)

'Finally, the argument pro is putting forth here seems to suggest that we need to push back the start time for school. That's fine and all, but that has nothing to do with letting kids eat during class. This argument is moot.'

I do realize that this debate is about allowing kids to eat during class. But have you realized that i am sourcing that kids dont have enough time to eat breakfast, and you actually got really into the schedule's not me ;x. And so i later started to disprove your false information and sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lunch Time.


'Pro also asks the question of if those schools have low obesity rates. I don't see the relevance of this question and Pro moves on from this question without developing whatever point this was supposed to make further, but since you've brought it up -- roughly 33% of youths ages 2-19 are considered overweight [3]. This clearly proves that "not eating enough" is not a problem by any means for our students. In fact, just the opposite is true. Students are eating too much.'

As youv'e said, 33% of youths ages 2-19 are obese, right? And wanna know something? 20 - 30 percent of children skip breakfast, which goes back to obese kids. Obese children cannot stop eating food. Especially going through, like i said 4 hours of eating nothing.

'Pro then goes on to assert that there is a 4-4.5 hour stretch between the beginning of school and lunch time, not 2.5-3.5 as I've shown. Note that she has reduced her original argument of 5 hours down to 4/4.5. Pro can assert her position all she wants. I've sourced my claim and she hasn't. That's all there is to it.'

Again i was talking about average. It is much different from my nephew's school. If you need more information on it and think im not telling the truth go ahead and ask. Patricia A. DiChiaro School. Located in ny :)

'Pro criticizes my first source by pointing out that its data is 8-12 years old. My response to that is that a decade old source is better than the no-source offered by pro in that same round. Besides, I've posted an updated source in this round.'


Having very little source does not compare to 8 years of left source. Atleast i had the correct and con had very false information.


My arguement has not been defeated on all levels. I have pointed out on your mistakes and have corrected them.





Very interesting debate. I look forward on debating more with Con

Vote Pro.



Sources -

http://health.usnews.com...

http://dichiaro.ypschools.org...

http://pewresearch.org...

http://www.healthychildren.org...



RyuuKyuzo

Con

=======Counter Arguments=======

-----Opening Remarks-----

Pro opens by criticizing me for not backing up the average sleep time for teens. I never made the claim
that I would, nor is it necessary for me to do so because this debate is about why kids should be allowed to eat during class. How much sleep they get is irrelevant. If a lack of sleep is getting in the way of eating, then these student needs to go to bed earlier, wake up earlier, or eat during the numerous opportunities to do so during and after school. The high obesity rate suggests that kids are doing just that already.

Pro then presents a quote and says that it proves me wrong on school start times. I don't know which source it's from, where in the source it's located or how this quote shows that students should be allowed to eat in class because Pro never outlines or develops any of these things (I guess she expected me to piece her argument together for her), but I do know that this quote is about high-schools in Kansas and New-York city specifically and therefore is not representative of the North American high-school system by-in-large. This is cherry picking. -- Note, this quote also talks about middle-school, but this is irrelevant to the argument about high-schools starting later on average.

Pro goes on to say that I was the one who "got really into" scheduling, not her. This is an outright lie. Her very first argument in the very first round of debating was on this exact topic of school start times, end times, and over-all length. I'm not even sure what else to say. At this point I could end my argument here and I would already have enough to win, but I'll press on none-the-less.

-----Lunch Time-----

Pro argues that 20-30% of students skip breakfast, which goes back to obese kids because obese children cannot stop eating food, especially when they have to go through 4 hours of not eating.

This may just be the most-wrong statement I've ever read. It's analogous to saying that 'because squares have four corners, they are round'. I'm not sure how to argue against this because I can't see how it's supposed to make sense prima-facie to begin with.

No. Just... no.

Pro defends herself from my claim that she lacks sources by saying she was talking about the average. Talking about the average doesn't excuse you from sourcing your claims, so that excuse isn't going to fly. She then says that if I don't believe her I should ask people at her nephew's school personally. It's not my job, as con, to validate your sources for you.

I think I'm being trolled.

"Having very little source does not compare to 8 years of left source. Atleast i had the correct and con had very false information."

I had to actually quote this because I don't understand what she's saying here well enough to paraphrase it. 8 years of left source? I'm not saying Pro had "little source", I'm saying she's made various claims with no sourcing whatsoever and this claim is one of them.

=======Dropped Arguments=======

Once again, pro dropped my argument on how eating every few hours is unhealthy. I've given her fair warning on this now, so there's no excuse for this.

=======Sourcing Issues=======

Same issue that I've been outlining this entire debate.

=======Conclusion=======

This was a very frustrating debate. I get the feeling that Pro secretly conceded right from the get-go and proceeded to troll me throughout this debate. I will not be debating Pro again in the future.

Conduct: Con. Pro lied, cherry-picked, and repeatedly dropped the same argument.

Spelling/Grammar:
Con. Pick any random one of pro's paragraphs to read. You will find at least one grammar/spelling mistake.

Arguments:
Con. Pro was all-over the map with argument so nonsensical that I actually spent more time trying to figure out how these arguments were supposed to make any sense in the first place than I did to come up with rebuttals. Also, dropped arguments.

Sources:
Con. Pro failed to tie any of her sources to her claim despite being warned about it in literally every single round. Many of her sources didn't seem relevant to anything she said at all (which says something because many of her arguments were irrelevant too) and, to put the final nail in the coffin, many of her arguments were un-sourced all-together.

Thank you for your time.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
@ DeFool.

I don't think you actually read the debate thoroughly. I established that the school day is LESS than 7 hours and that there are multiple breaks in between class time to eat anyway. Also, I've established that eating every few hours isn't healthy to begin with -- a point that Pro consistently dropped. I urge you to rethink your vote.
Posted by CarlaJMena 4 years ago
CarlaJMena
Whew long debate ;X
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
"It's fairly common practice to require 5 hours a work before a break is offered" -- at a job.

Just in case it wasn't clear what I was talking about here.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
CarlaJMenaRyuuKyuzoTied
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 and Sources to Con, Arguments as well. Overall what the debate dumbed down to was the BOP, which rested upon pro. Pro began with an extremely weak argument, which Con successfully refuted (Concentration and Health). Con proceeded with the standard case, which pro failed to adequately address (Simply saying "Thats not right" Isn't enough, elaboration is necessary in refutations. Con's points stand, Pro's Original Case falls (1 point case) Thus It's an easy Con Decision
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
CarlaJMenaRyuuKyuzoTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I was more convinced by the strength of Cons arguments, but he wasted time trying to convince voters why he should win, that's our job Con, don't bother, so i gave conduct to Pro and arguments to Con. gg
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
CarlaJMenaRyuuKyuzoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I am certain to please nobody with my scoring. Unbiased going into the debate, I was greatly swayed by Pro's argument that an 8-hour workday (or 7.5 hours) is too long to remain focused without a few opportunities to refresh. This is the case at university, after all. Spelling and grammar went to Con, as did sourcing. I will likely incorporate Con's bold 'scoring suggestions' into my own debates - an attention-getting gambit that I felt was influential.