The Instigator
tyty43
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yep
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

should unhealthy foods be banned in 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 3 votes the winner is...
Yep
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,880 times Debate No: 25317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

tyty43

Con

I think that unhealthy foods should be allowed in schools because we should be able to make the decision of what we consume in our bodies and what we don't.
Yep

Pro

I accept! Good to be back on DDO! As Pro, I will be affirming that unhealthy foods should be banned in schools. Since no definitions were given, I will go ahead and clarify the resolution:

Unhealthy- Causing or conducive to poor health.

Foods- (As this is strictly School-Foods, we will be looking at common foods in schools, A.K.A No random foods/outrageous foods a child would not normally have, therefore this word needs no definition.)

Banned- A prohibition imposed by law or official decree.

School- An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age. (Grades K-12)

To better scope the resolution, I'd also like to add (with the permission of my opponent) that we make the "foods" foods found in school, rather than home-made lunches, we will be debating foods actually served and given out to students as school.

Without further adeau, let us begin! I wish the best of luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
tyty43

Con

Well i think that yes in most cases unhealthy foods do cause obesity BUT we should be responsible for what goes into our body so just because you might have a problem to limit yourself on what you eat that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer. I would also like to point out the fact that the government shouldn't be able to dictate us in what we should and should not eat because this is America which in defenition means we are allowed basic freedom and by taking unhealthy foods away it's also taking away our basic freedom and rights of what we can and cannot eat.
Yep

Pro

Hello everyone! Welcome back! So this debate doesn't have a traditional style, as such, I will just cleanly refute all of my opponents arguments. Let us begin! (I apologize for the sloppy structure of this case/rebuttal but I am quite busy)

First, I'd like to remind everyone of the resolution and give a quick topical analysis:

1) The resolution bases itself in a common School, therefore we are looking at children, between the ages of 5 and 18 (Grades K-12) As stated in the first round of acceptance.

2) As no definitions were given by my opponent, mine will stand.(No semantics/arguments about the definition of unhealthy foods)

Pro's case: (Against Con's points)

1- Obesity and Freedom of Choice

A child has not fully matured, therefore we can assume that the lack of restraint will be on high while the cognitive abilities of a child will be on the low point. Meaning any child, even a high school teenager, will easily give into "junk" foods without a second thought, and may continue a cycle of unhealthy eating until they become a full fledged adult, and soon suffer the consequences. By stopping the unhealthy eating habits at the source, Students will not only become healthier, but smarter as well. In fact, many schools nationwide have already begun banning unhealhy foods in schools, and as such have found great success in both the performance of their students academically, and physically, as all students' nutrion habits change, pulling away from the common bag of potato chips to instead a healthy bag of carrots. Over 5 years have passed since schools in California and New York had begun banning unhealthy foods. The results are quite astounding, Students are consuming less processed food, and consuming less than 100-200 calories every day. While that may not seem like alot, according to a New York Times study, researchers have proven there is a signficant weight gap between the average child, and children who cut down their caloric intake by 100-200 calories. [1]

2- Government interaction

My opponent doesn't seem to understand that it is not the United States Federal Government that imposes bans of unhealthy foods in schools, rather it is up to the State's government, and is held within the boundaries of the State's jurisdiction. The Federal Government cannot legally oppose a state's right without it being against a federal law or a legal document. Nowhere in the constitution does it state anything about a man having the freedom to eat what he wants, and we are dealing with minors here, not adult. Minors need guidance, and in no way is imposing a ban on unhealthy foods at school against anything that America stands for. It is legal to impose such a ban, and it is not depriving students of their rights, at school they are under a new set of laws, it is a new court of order by which they must follow. The perfect example of a school's laws would be the use of vulgar language and outbursts of protest. While the Bill of Rights allows such speech under the First Amendment, A school has the authority to punish those who use language, because as stated before, these are minors, not adults. They are new to the world, learning as they go, with no insight except what they are taught. Therefore, saying that we are taking away freedom by not allowing Minors to eat in schools is a Drastic Overstatement, if anything we are encouraging freedom, pulling kids away from unhealthy foods and allowing them to see the options they are given. A quick final point to go along with this case as well, we are not banning unhealthy foods everywhere, just in schools. Whos to say a child does not go home and eat junk food? Balance is key to a healthy diet, as is restraint.

In conclusion, we can clearly see there are A) No harms to banning unhealthy foods in schools, B) Only benefits to such bans as proven through many different schools, C) No deprivation of rights in any way, and D) Encouraging healthier eating habits that will help children better their future and possibly end obesity.


Sources:

[1] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...


Debate Round No. 2
tyty43

Con

tyty43 forfeited this round.
Yep

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the round, please extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
tyty43

Con

I think that the government should not force the upbringing of children(which is the parents job)upon the teachers. The teachers are there to teach math,social studies,English,and science NOT to teach us what's right and not right to eat
Yep

Pro

My opponents rebuttle to the points and valid arguments made,

"I think that the government should not force the upbringing of children(which is the parents job)upon the teachers. The teachers are there to teach math,social studies,English,and science NOT to teach us what's right and not right to eat"

There are a few problems with this statement.

1) In no way are teachers involved in the banning of unhealthy foods, as they are not the ones who serve the foods, teachers teach, they do not hand out food.

2)The teachers aren't TEACHING about what to eat and what not to eat (Unless your taking a health class) A ban of unhealthy foods in school is just what it sounds like, a ban. There are no ifs, ands, or buts involved, and once again, the state government is imposing these restrictions, the enforcement is carried out by all school officials, but in no way are the teachers teaching about unhealthy foods, just following the rules and regulations of the school itself (Basically, doing their job).

3) Assumptions- The upbringing of students is not solely what they eat in school. The parents job may be to raise the child, but a school may impose it's own reasons for wanting to increase a child's health. The school itself (and the State legislature) may in fact want higher test scores and therefore ban junk foods.(Look at the points from R2)

4) Extensions- Extend all points on round 2, there has been no comment on any of the attacks and valid arguments made by Pro.

5) BOP- As con fails to give any insightful information and simply uses arguments that are created from pure opinion, Pro's "Case" is the only thing in this round that is credible, and Pro has fufilled the BOP. Con on the other hand, just rambles on with assumptions and fails to give a reason for voting.

Conclusion- Vote Pro, the wording of the resolution, and the entire round say it all, one more round is left but the resolution is already affirmed as no new arguments can be made in the final rebuttal. Thank you all for taking the time to read this debate! I apologize for the sloppiness and the way the case was rushed, but I'm extremely busy right now! Thanks everyone!
Debate Round No. 4
tyty43

Con

tyty43 forfeited this round.
Yep

Pro

Another FF, Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tyty43 4 years ago
tyty43
Well i think that yes in most cases unhealthy foods do cause obesity BUT we should be responsible for what goes into our body so just because you might have a problem to limit yourself on what you eat that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer. I would also like to point out the fact that the government shouldn't be able to dictate us in what we should and should not eat because this is America which in defenition means we are allowed basic freedom and by taking unhealthy foods away it's also taking away our basic freedom and rights of what we can and cannot eat.
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
Been months since my last debate! Good luck :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
tyty43YepTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited twice, made weak arguments, and did not keep his arguments organized at all.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
tyty43YepTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tyty43YepTied
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: Repeated forfeits by Con along with relatively unsubstantiated arguments