The Instigator
rethinkbans
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

school food bans

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 2 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 68130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

rethinkbans

Con

Can schools effectively enforce strict peanut bans (no peanut products on school grounds at all)?
Debate Round No. 1
rethinkbans

Con

So are schools going to check all the pockets, bags, and bookbags of everyone who comes in the school? That is the only way such a ban would be effective. Other than that schools are giving parents empty promises.
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

My adversary has failed to understand the resolution

The resolution is *can* schools enforce this ban, not should they. Can means is there a possibility or is it reasonable to assume that this ban can be enforced. Schools most definitely can enforce the ban by doing full on checks as students walk in to school, or doing scans as they walk through detectors. It would take two seconds to do this. They could also just say it's banned, and not worry about checking for it as much. Issuing a ban does not mean the ban will be effective either

My adversary is trying to debate whether they should issue a ban, not whether they can. They most certainly can issue a ban.
Debate Round No. 2
rethinkbans

Con

The question is can schools enforce this ban effectively, not whether or not they can just say it is banned. I work in my local school system. Schools do not have the personnel to check all bags and all pockets of everyone all day long. Where will schools get that kind of money? And where are these "detectors" you are talking about? What school has a peanut detector?
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

A ban is a prohibition on all products. If people ban guns in the US , people could still get guns in. That does not mean there is a ban. A ban would represent consequences for having the product in said location. So yes a school could just verbally and officially declare a ban even if it is not effective. Again my adversary is arguing about the effect of the ban which is not the res. The res is about whether a ban *can* happen, and it easily could just by them saying there is a ban.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you could just not eat it
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
rethinkbansValar_DohaerisTied
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 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: More semantics from Pro. That's just great. Way to destroy every debate you enter. Pro wins arguments due to showing that schools *can* do what the resolution implies.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
rethinkbansValar_DohaerisTied
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 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: Dem semantics... Anyway, really, CON didn't prove his point. Schools *can* ban things, it needn't be effective. I mean that was a gey tactic, but PRO really fulfilled the actual resolution... A ban in name only is still a ban :/