The Instigator
tyty43
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

should unhealthy foods be allowed in schoools?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,375 times Debate No: 25332
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

tyty43

Pro

My three main reasons why unhealthy foods should be allowed in schools:

Reason 1: This is America and we are a FREE COUNTRY not a DICTATORSHIP we do not need to take unhealthy foods away because that would be dictating us on what we can and cannot eat.

Reason 2: This will not stop us from consuming these foods at home; we still have acess at home, and they are only affecting one meal of the day.

Reason 3: Parents may not want their children changing their diets and think that their children are fine the way they are either skinny or fat.

Thank You very much my opponent is wished luck
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for his challenge, and I myself am glad to have accepted. I think is a really big issue, that does as much news coverage as it should. I will begin by refuting my arguments and then stating my contentions.


Rebuttals


I would like to point out that my opponent's case is not backed up by any sort of evidence. So as the great intellectual, writer, and fellow debater would say: "That which is stated without evidence, can be refuted without evidence."


Refutation 1

Most students are under the age of 18, and therefore are not subject unto the same laws and rights as the average adult. However, if they do not want the food served at school they are perfectly free to bring whatever their parents want them to have from home. However, when it comes to schooling, the life of students should be dictated because that is what schools are for. They teach kids, they tell them how to act in public, and in this case, they teach the, what to eat.


Refutation 2

My opponent states a claim, and yet it is rather empty. It brings me to a question. If it's not going to effect you, then why do you care?



Refutation 3


If that is the case then the parents should doone of two things:


1. Pack a lunch.

2. Switch to a different school.


With my opponent's case refutted, I will no proceed with my own set of contentions.

Contention 1: The Purpose of Public Schools.

My first contention will deal with what schools are actually for. So what are they for? They are meant to train the next generation of American citizens for their everyday lives. They train the future civil servants, engineers, scientists, soldiers, etc. They do this by supplying classes on all the key subjects in History, Science, Math, Literature, Language, and in this case Health. All schools teach health, and by placing healthy foods in school lunches it would be furthering their health education by showing them what foods they ought to eat so they can carry out healthy lives [1].

Contention 2: Healthier School lunches increase good grades.

It has been proven that the more healthier school lunches get, the higher the students grades become. Consider if you will the case of Appleton Central Alternative High School. In the 13 years after itembarked on a program to improve student nutrition by removing soda machines and replacing heavily processed, prepackaged lunches and snackes with fruits, vegetables, and fresh cooked whole foods, the school has seen dramatic changes in students' behavior and academic performance [2]. And a study published last year in the Journal of School Health, a journal published on behalf of the American School Health Association.To establish a link between diet and academic performance, University of Alberta (Canada) researchers evaluated the lifestyle and performance of some 5,000 children. Students who ate an adequate amount of fruit, vegetables, protein and fiber, with less calorie intake from fat, did better on their literacy tests than those eating foods high in salt and saturated fat [3]. So, obviously this can be as a good case to make it mandatory for all public schools to be healthy.

I will if I must, state another contention later however, I think this is sufficient

I will now await my opponents response.

Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.care2.com...
[3]http://www.chicagotribune.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tyty43

Pro

tyty43 forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
tyty43

Pro

"we should move to other school or pack lunch" what if you cant pack your lunch because the school has banned them as well? What if you can't move schools because your parents don't have the money? See where does the government stop? They will first ban unhealthy foods from the cafeteria and then from our lunch boxes to make sure that we aren't eating unhealthy foods. And your going to tell me that that's not a little overboard? It should be up to the parent on what they want their own children to eat, not some random man whose sitting in some office chair. Have you ever thought that maybe parents don't want their children on a diet? That they think their children are fine just the way they are whether they're skinny are fat? One meal out of three meals a day is not going to change someones diet. We still have access to the unhealthy foods at home. Ultimately the decision to force kids to abstain from what they prefer dietary wise should be the decision of the parents alone, not the school. School is not just a place of learning, it is a place of preparation. Kids are essentially being given the skills needed to survive and thrive in the real world. The real world contains lots of unhealthy foods. By being exposed to things that exist in the real world, they can be taught how to make dietary decisions wisely.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

what if you cant pack your lunch because the school has banned them as well?

That is not what this debate is about, however then buy the food. Healthy food is good for people, and gives students and advantage in school.

What if you can't move schools because your parents don't have the money?

Then eat the lunch for the reasons I have already state above.

See where does the government stop? They will first ban unhealthy foods from the cafeteria and then from our lunch boxes to make sure that we aren't eating unhealthy foods. And your going to tell me that that's not a little overboard?

The government's job is to both protect peoples liberties, but at the same time the common good. A unhealthy next generation would have devistating effects on the nation and other generations after ours and the next has passed. Parents send their children to learn and it doesn't matter if the parents don't like the food or health lessons, if they don't it then they don't have to have them go to a Public School.


It should be up to the parent on what they want their own children to eat, not some random man whose sitting in some office chair. Have you ever thought that maybe parents don't want their children on a diet? That they think their children are fine just the way they are whether they're skinny are fat? One meal out of three meals a day is not going to change someones diet. We still have access to the unhealthy foods at home. Ultimately the decision to force kids to abstain from what they prefer dietary wise should be the decision of the parents alone, not the school.

It has been ruled in numerous court cases that one a parent drops of their kids to a public school they give up their parental rights [1]. Furthermore, my opponent has yet to state why the state should care about what parents want in the first place. After all, it's not doing a bad thing in this case. It is protect the children, increasing their learning capabilities, and protecting society.

School is not just a place of learning, it is a place of preparation. Kids are essentially being given the skills needed to survive and thrive in the real world. The real world contains lots of unhealthy foods. By being exposed to things that exist in the real world, they can be taught how to make dietary decisions wisely.

I agree that school is a place of preparation also, however my opponent seems to be forgeting that preparation is the whole reason for the banning of unhealthy foods. By being taught and 'forced' to eat healthy foods, they are learning the benefits of it and being prepared to live a long healthy life.

My opponent's case has been refuted.

Thank You for reading.

Sources

[1] http://news.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tyty43

Pro

tyty43 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tyty43

Pro

tyty43 forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I guess I win then.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
OK, cool. lol
Posted by tyty43 4 years ago
tyty43
i mean unhealthy foods in school cafeterias.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Do you mean foods that are served in public school lunches? Or do you mean unhealthy foods in general?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tyty43DeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
tyty43DeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Self Explanatory, i knew as soon as i saw it was tyty43 how this would end. Multiple forfeitures by Pro and 1 measly speech with no relevance past personal opinion. Good strong points by con however.