The Instigator
Jacob60rt
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
josealways123
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The "No Lunch Left behind" is a good Idea

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
josealways123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 40859
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Jacob60rt

Con

Round 1- acceptance (only)
Round 2- Opening arguments
Round 3 Cross Examination
Round 4- Closing Argument

If you want additional information here is something from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com...
josealways123

Pro

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacob60rt

Con

I will like to thank the Contender for accepting this debate. The no lunch left behind program sounds like a good idea but flawed since we will need 27$ Billion dollars a year for this program and we do not have enough money for this. The program was made to help stop childhood obesity, but as if school lunches are the blame for childhood obesity. We have school lunches since 19th century, but the Childhood obesity sky rocketed in the 1970's when the women went to the workforce and no longer had time to make the home cock meals so the microwave dinners, fast food restaurants, and other convenient foods to subsidize home -cooked meals. But as time went on obesity kept climbing so concerned parents took action, and did the American thing to do we sued the bastards. And the court settled the matter, and the schools were forced to provided "healthier" choices for the students, but a vast majority of these students will just throw them away compiling about the taste. So how would a 29$ Billion dollars fund will help end obesity? That is why the whole thing was created and advocated for. We have such a push for a healthier diet at schools but really it starts at home. Instead of spending money on a pointless and hopeless venture lets spend it on more important matters. Due to the lack of time I have at the moment I will site all of my resources at the end of this debate.
josealways123

Pro

josealways123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jacob60rt

Con

Ugh! Why did you accept the debate if you won't actually debate with me.
josealways123

Pro

Sorry,for not posting the arguments for the second round.Some problems with my computer and connecting to net.So here i will say what i wished to say in the second round.Hope you will understand it.....

SECOND ROUND

As you have said let me open up my arguments.So we all know what is food waste and many of its greater impacts.The food waste can lead to many problems in our world such as that of global warming because these food waste gets converted into a new type of gas called methane gas.

http://ecowatch.com...

So this is just one of the many problems of food waste to our economy.So it is clear that food waste should be removed from our world.So how can this be done?This cannot be done very simply.So this is where the programs and the other acts come in.These would tell the students not to waste food and would make it a strict order among the children.It would at least make one children understand about defects and practice by not wasting food.As this is promoted it is a fact that the number of children who follow this would increase day by day.So why not they make a try.Why if this is successful?If we do this some money is wasted but the world is saved.But if we does not do it some money is saved but it is the world we are wasting.So it is better to go for the first option and save the world................................

THIRD ROUND

So as you have said i am using this round for crosschecking and i am going against your arguments.In your first round you have said that it is a hopeless job and there is only wastage of money.But as i have said above if these money is wasted it would be helpful for the world.Please read a portion of the link you have displayed in the first round.......................

{
It could be done for about $5 per child, or roughly $27 billion a year, plus a one-time investment in real kitchens. Yes, that sounds expensive. But a healthy school lunch program would bring long-term savings and benefits in the areas of hunger, children"s health and dietary habits, food safety (contaminated peanuts have recently found their way into school lunches), environmental preservation and energy conservation.
}

So this also says the same thing.So you cannot say that it is a hopeless job.Also the children should be only given what they need.This program does not say that children should eat a lot of things.It only says that students should eat their full lunch and does not make any left overs.If a student has obesity problems then he or she can control the food.The act does not say anything about it.And so we can say that it is not the fault of this program.So why are you going against this?

I hope that you would hope that you understood my arguments both in second round and third round.I think that the people must be on the pro side and i am hoping that my con would be back with arguments for third and fourth round.Wish you good luck............................................
Debate Round No. 3
Jacob60rt

Con

Jacob60rt forfeited this round.
josealways123

Pro

So you have forfeited your fourth round and i am here in this round to conclude my points as you have said in the first round.I cannot argue with you much since you have not posted your arguments for third and fourth round.So here i am forced to conclude the true fact that "The no lunch left behind" is a good idea since it has much more advantages than that of disadvantages.This program can make students practice to control food waste in their educational institutions.Thus it can indirectly help to make our world better.So this program is indeed a good one............................

So i enjoyed this debate with you.Once again sorry for not posting my arguments in second round.But i have posted it in the third round.So i thing the voters would check it out and vote accordingly.So i think that i have provided enough arguments that marks the benefits of this act.So hope that everyone would be in the pro side in this debate.............
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
@Fight4RightsLyla11 That is simply the name of the debate. The name of the debate does not shows my stance of the issue. Only when do I decided pro or con on the issue shows my stance of the issue.
Posted by Fight4RightsLyla11 3 years ago
Fight4RightsLyla11
Just curious but this says that you are against this, but you said you think this is a good idea. ?
Posted by Jacob60rt 3 years ago
Jacob60rt
Thanks to Lover_Of_Life for his comment and I am looking forward for a good thought-provoking debate.
Posted by Lover_Of_Life 3 years ago
Lover_Of_Life
This is going to be an interesting debate. I am looking forward to seeing both sides of this argument. This issue is important and not talked about enough. I wish you both good luck!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Jacob60rtjosealways123Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that food would be wasted was sound, Pro's rebuttal on the value of methane was poor. Recycling to methane is extremely rare, and there are much cheaper ways to get fuel. schools once had real kitchens, but students wouldn't eat healthy food and the costs were too high. Neither side used relevant references, which would have been extremely useful. As it is, it's left to the reader to imagine which assertions were correct. Since Pro was advocating a change in the status quo, he had the burden of proof and failed to meet it. Pro's failure to put a space after each sentence was annoying and interfered with reading the debate. Conduct penalties for forfeiting cancelled.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Jacob60rtjosealways123Tied
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: Good Job to both debaters. I think Pro showed more long-term benefits, since it can save money, Obesity, and time.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Jacob60rtjosealways123Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to con because there were a few mistakes in pro's argument. Sources to pro because he was the only one to use them. Arguments also go to pro because his were more organized, and had sources to back them up.