The Instigator
Majikku7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JackofSpade
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Smart Snack Law does not promote "smart snacks".

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 290 times Debate No: 73990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Majikku7

Pro

The Smart Snack Law, also known as Michelle Obama's infamous "school lunch menu", has actually made school lunches less healthy. The law has banned caffeinated sodas, replacing them with their diet counterparts, which generally contain aspartame, an extremely toxic substance which has been known to cause numerous health issues, and may damage brain cells as well as cause seizures. Does this sound beneficial for our students? Additionally, Arizona Tea, which contains zero calories and all-natural ingredients has been replaced by Brisk Tea, which is stock full of artificial ingredients and harmful dyes. Instead of the vending machines having pop-tarts, which are more nutritional than candy bars, they are now filled with cookies, neon-red artificial chips, and sugary cereal treats. Instead of selling natural fruit snacks or healthier alternatives to candy bars, the law would rather have schools sell sugar-coated gummy worms, artificially dyed foods, and "low-fat" ice cream. Most of the snacks in vending machines are excellent sources of high fructose corn syrup and caramel coloring. These are what the government calls "smart snacks"? This doesn"t even begin to address the fact that the Smart Snack Law is blatant government overreach. The tenth amend states that state governments have control over public schools, not the federal government. The law is a direct violation of the concept of federalism, as is the dreaded Common Core (which benefits the corporate monster Pearson, but I will not go into that). In summation, the Smart Snack Law is promoting sugary, artificial snacks and regulates certain foods not based on whether or not they're natural, but based on calorie, sugar, and fat content. The law is misguided and does not actually require schools to sell natural, healthy foods.
JackofSpade

Con

Well in order to bring the United States as a super-power in the world,meaning respected instead of skyrocketing downward with 80,000 homeless people in New York.They're making tactical budget cuts which appeal to the public but only the kids witness it so they can't attest.
Debate Round No. 1
Majikku7

Pro

Actually, it costs aproximately $1.50 more to eat healthy food. I fail to see what the economic state of the U.S. has to do with state's rights, federalism, education, or health, but spending has risen billions and billions of dollars in the past decade, causing the U.S. to plummet further into debt. Regardless, this law has absolutely NOTHING to do with spending or cutting spending, it simply requires schools to follow ridiculous and utterly wrong guidelines. It has not given schools more money to provide students with healthy lunches and snacks, but it should have since healthier food costs more than junk food.
JackofSpade

Con

I disagree if they eliminate that $1.50 factor they're actually making more profit for there own governmental personnel interests.
Debate Round No. 2
Majikku7

Pro

Majikku7 forfeited this round.
JackofSpade

Con

JackofSpade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JackofSpade 1 year ago
JackofSpade
The USA is in so much grievance right now they have to resort to these tactics to keep tax money
No votes have been placed for this debate.