Vending machines should be taken out of schools.
Debate Rounds (3)
Vending machines should be taken out of school at this instant. If their parents want them to eat junk food, then they would pack them some. But if a kid's parents give them money to buy lunch, they might use it to buy junk food. Rubbish I like to call it.
Yes, I agree with my opponent on that particular matter. But, even if you do not let them take money to school, he might start making deals with other students to get money someway. The vending machines are just ways for the company to earn money while feeding kids unhealthy snacks. If the vending machines were to stay, I would start a partition to put in healthier snacks. That way, kids can eat healthier.
She has yet to contest my argument that incarcerating children in a sterile environment is counterproductive to personal growth. As I stated before, there a far more opportunities to acquire snacks from places other than vending machines outside of the school authority. Banning school vending machines does nothing to address this.
yurock forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mirza 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit counts as loss of conduct. A few s/g issues on both sides, nothing major. No sources used on any side. Con established good reasons for letting vending machines stay at schools, despite Pro's objections. Pro tried to shift the debate course, which seems like a concession to Con's arguments. Pro should have tried to refute Con's strongest point, which is that a child should be exposed to some danger in order to create an immunity later on. Arguments from Con stand stronger.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate