The Instigator
Lord_Logic
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Rune
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should ban junkfood

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 6 votes the winner is...
Lord_Logic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,705 times Debate No: 19914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

Lord_Logic

Pro

Hello all readers. In this debate, Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 through 4 is for arguments. Round 5 is a wrap up. No new arguments made. Thank you to anyone who accepts this debate.
Rune

Con

I accept this debate. Happy Holidays!
Debate Round No. 1
Lord_Logic

Pro

Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate. Sorry. There are only three rounds! Never mind. We shall move on because Round 2 is for arguments:

1. Definitions

We- the government
Should- you should know that
Ban- destroy
Junkfood- Candy

2. Candy Leads to Obesity

Candy has been proven to cause obesity in many states in the United States. A 2010 statistics show that 21.0% to 30.3% of people in the United States are obese or are at the edge of obesity. Candy, loaded with calories, are eaten by millions of people throughout United States. Though candy is not the only factor of obesity, candy is the cause of obesity. 30% of the obese people are obese because of the candy factor. According to http://caloriecount.about.com..., there are 160 calories in just a Laffy Taffy. Eat three of those and you already hit 480 calories, which is a lot to the 2000 calorie diet. Plus, there is always steak, rice, corn, chicken, vegetables, apples, spinach, and whatever you eat. Therefore, candy should be banned to help stop some obesity problems.
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.todaystmj4.com...

==> Conclusion

Thus, candy should be banned by the government. Besides, would you want to be obese?
Rune

Con

Due to my homework and the SATs, I will try to make this quick.

> If ban candy people will lose jobs.

> Candy is tasty and is loved by many people.

I'll try to spare some time to elaborate on them. Happy Holidays!
Debate Round No. 2
Lord_Logic

Pro

Ouch. Sounds like you have a lot of homework.

1. Definitions

It seems like you agree to my terms.

2. Counter Argument: Candy is tasty and is loved by many people.

Exactly. People are tempted to eat more and more candy until there literally full and have eaten, I don't know, a thousand calories? People don't burn the calories off because people are becoming more sedentary and sitting down in front of a computer or TV screen. Thus, candy should be banned to defeat that temptation.

3. Counter Argument: If ban candy people will lose jobs.

The factories can sell a different item like sugar-free treats. Not candy, but sugar-free treats. Sugar-free treats aren't candy. According to www.dictionary.reference.com , candy are any of a variety of confections made with sugar, syrup, etc., often combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts, etc. Since sugar-free treats do not contain sugar, these treats could be sold and therefore will not be banned. People will still have their jobs. Thus, if the government bans candy, people will not lose jobs.

4. Elaboration: Candy Leads to Obesity

Candy, as we all know, is the main factor of obesity. Because of Halloween, children eat many candy. Because Halloween usually lasts at night, they wouldn't have time to burn off the surplus of calories. Because they sleep, the calories stay.
Rune

Con

> If we ban candy, people would never have the tasty candy that they love.

> Sugar-free candy is not tasty. The government should not make the people mad.

> No. Nobody likes sugar-free treats. People will lose jobs

Sources:

Logic

RUBRIC

Agree before: Con
Agree after: Con
Conduct: Con
Spelling: Tied
Convincing Arguments: Con
Sources: Pro

Happy Holidays! I still have a lot of homework...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Lord_LogicRuneTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's "logic" was, uh. Yeah. Go pro.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Lord_LogicRuneTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had poor arguments. and all that 'tuff
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Lord_LogicRuneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: read the debate
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Lord_LogicRuneTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case and arguments lacked structure and support.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Lord_LogicRuneTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Well PRO used far more sources, and CON used none... Overall, I believed that PRO's arguments were superior, even though I disagree with his position. CON - Try to plan ahead before you accept a debate xD
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Lord_LogicRuneTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with con, pro had the stronger arguments.