The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This House would ban junk food from schools.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 78235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello today our topic is that This house will ban junk food from schools.
There are 3 rounds.
1. Acceptance/ Introduction/ No information of arguements allowed.
2. Body
3. Conclusion
First I will give you my status quo.

Junk food is defined by Segen’s Medical Dictionary as “A popular term for any food which is low in essential nutrients and high in everything else—in particular calories and sodium. Junk foods are often highly salted—e.g., potato chips/crisps, pretzels—high in refined carbohydrates (empty calories)—e.g., candy, soft drinks—and high in saturated fats—e.g., cake, chocolates”. Individual school governing bodies are however likely to come up with their own definitions of what exactly constitutes junk food for their ban.

Childhood obesity- defined as a body-mass index at or above the 95th percentile for children of the same age and sex, was diagnosed among approximately 15 percent of children and adolescents in the United States in the period from 1999 through 2002. According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight children doubled between 1976–1980 and 1999–2002. Although the prevalence of overweight among blacks, Mexican Americans, and Native Americans exceeds that of other ethnic groups, obesity has increased among both sexes and among all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.

Childhood obesity is associated with a variety of adverse consequences. Type-2 diabetes now accounts for up to 45 percent of all newly diagnosed diabetic disorders in pediatric patients. Conditions associated with excess weight, such as sleep apnea and gallbladder disease, tripled in children and adolescents between 1979–1981 and 1997–1999. Although childhood-onset obesity accounts for only 25 percent of adult obesity, overweight that begins before age eight and persists into adulthood is associated with a mean body-mass index of 41 in adulthood, as compared with a body-mass index of 35 for adult-onset obesity.1

Researchers and public health officials are currently at a loss to explain the rapid rise in weight problems among children and adolescents that began in the 1980s. Concerns about the long-term health consequences of being overweight have ignited a debate about school policies that make junk food available to students in school.

The proponents of the idea that school lunches are inexorably linked to the childhood obesity epidemic rally behind much publicized campaigns, such as the one initiated by the first lady Michelle Obama called “Let’s Move”. Even though this seems to be a popular and intuitively appealing notion, there are two important questions being raised by its opponents: is the notion correct and are the schools, or rather school lunches, really the ones we should be targeting?

In September 2006, partly influenced by the campaigning activities of celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, some schools in the United Kingdom implemented a new approach to preparing and sourcing pupils’ meals. This policy requires that caterers ensure that high-quality meat, poultry or oily fish is provided with each meal, alongside at least two servings of fruit and vegetables.

Another approach to banning junk food is also the banning of vending machines with junk food. The new dispensers in the UK, through a government funded project, switched from sweets and junk in the vending machines (which is present in 95 per cent of secondary schools) to milk, fruit, water and other healthy products to buy.

Such an approach, where the government takes care of the meals and also preventing the offer of junk in schools is a way how to do it also in other countries.

Next I will go on my definition.

Junk food: Pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value.

Schools: An institution for educating children

Ban: Officially or legally prohibit (something)

Please Accept!




I believe that giving children the food that's good for them, and will be beneficial to their education and long-term effect on their body physiques.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for making your argument HaloH.
I believe that junk food should be banned because of 3 main reasons. My first reason was that Schools need to practice what they preach, my second argument is that schools are the best place to creating lasting lifestyle changes, and my third argument is that better nutrition leads to better students.

Now I will move on my first argument which is that schools need to practice what they preach.
Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias.
Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago. School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home.
While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up, revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher.
With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policymakers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic, especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.

Now I will move on my second argument which is that schools are the best place to creating lasting lifestyle changes.
Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that they’re being tasked with not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis on teaching students how to apply their knowledge.
Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices that would go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point for lawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles.
The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schools and the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also the traditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves and therefore hold immense potential for behavior modification.

Now I will move on my third argument which is that better nutrition makes better children.
There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average.
This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.
The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students.




HaloH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I am sad that my competitor could not rebut and make new arguments. This means that he should lose because he didn't have arguments, no conduct because as I said no arguments in this final round. However you can conclude you arguments.

My first argument was that schools need to practice what they preach.

Schools teach you to not eat junk food in health but if they let you eat it, it is just plain odd...

My second argument is that Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes

So if you don't eat junk food at school it is a good habit and probably won't eat junk food.

My third reason is that better nutrition leads to better students

If you eat more like "My plate" then you will be healthier which is for better students.

Also I think I will win because he Con forfeited.

Vote for PRO


HaloH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dmussi12 1 year ago
You should probably add a narrower definition for schools, since your current one includes private schools and, arguably, colleges.
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
I had to copy-paste status quo because if make own words it is not the status quo.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F