The Instigator
tyty43
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
JohnW
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

should we ban unhealthy foods in school cafeterias?

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...
tyty43
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,883 times Debate No: 25334
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

tyty43

Con

I personally think that no, we should not ban unhealthy foods from schools because its our choice on what we want and what we don't want to eat and i think that we are old enough to make our own decisions wisely and not the government.
JohnW

Pro

I'll start by clarifying two key points to the subject of this debate, as I've interpret them from your description:
A) By "we", you are referring to the United States of America (government, citizens, etc.)
B) We will be exclusively discussing public (i.e. government-funded) schools.
Assuming I haven't misrepresented your challenge, I'll try to keep my opening response as terse as possible.

In a democratic society, " the government" is essentially synonymous with "we the people." All laws, ordinances, and policies put into place by our local, state, and federal governments are merely reflections of the decisions we make as voters; therefore, any laws put into place restricting the availability of certain foods in schools would essentially be a choice made by "we the people"—after all, this law would have to be enacted by a group of legislators (representatives) whom WE elected.

Let's also consider the financial ramifications:We live in a society in which the government provides numerous social programs, paid for by taxpayers, with the goal of benefitting its citizens in a specific way. Two relevant programs to this debate are Medicare and Medicaid.

In our country, the poor, disabled, and elderly are entitled to government-provided healthcare coverage. This means that, when a citizen of one of these demographic groups becomes sick or injured to the point of seeking medical treatment, the government covers a significant portion—if not all—of the medical costs to the individual. For obvious reasons, these are incredibly popular programs that enjoy massive public support. The resulting implication, however, is that people are no longer completely responsible for themselves in terms of health matters. This isn't any sort of qualitative statement on the merits of public healthcare; this simply means that, because we (as taxpayers) are paying for the medical bills of the elderly in this country, we are essentially signing a social contract in which we agree to share the responsibility of good health.

I understand and appreciate your libertarian-esque argument, but I think it is based on a false premise. As long as you live in a system in which others will be paying for the consequences of your unhealthy decisions, it becomes much harder for you to effectively demand that others not have a shared say in those decisions.
Debate Round No. 1
tyty43

Con

I think that yes, you may make a good point BUT we are responsible for what we put into our mouths so just because we may have a few kids in our grade who are obese and overeat that doesn't mean that the rest of us who know how to actually control our eating habits have to suffer from others making bad decisions. Another reason that we shouldn't ban food from schools would be that that would be the Government dictating us on what we can and can not eat which then would make us a dictatorship. Look at North Korea, go look at China. Would you like the Government telling us what we can not do every second of the day? no. Thats why if we let Government take over we might be giving them more power than necessary and that would then lead to the Government stepping over its bounds and thinking thats it is okay to walk all over us.
JohnW

Pro

I'm afraid you're misusing the term "dictatorship." All governments "dictate"; some dictate based on the views of the people, and others dictate based on the views of the leader alone. As long as the government is acting in accordance with the wishes of its electorate, it doesn't matter how "big" the government gets; it's still a democracy. China and North Korea are dictatorships in that the views of the public are irrelevant to policymaking; in the US, the views of the public DETERMINE policymaking.

As to your first point, we ARE, in fact, suffering for the bad decisions made by your classmates. You may make very educated and healthy decisions when lunchtime comes around, but if your friends load up on chocolate cake and Mountain Dew, there's a very high chance that you'll one day be paying for their medical bills. If even one of your classmates lives to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, which (as of 2009) nearly 30% of Americans do, your tax dollars will be wasted on paying for their gastric bypass surgeries and insulin shots, instead of being spent on improving education and infrastructure.

We aren't discussing making unhealthy food illegal. You can still buy it in a convenient store and bring a snack to school. But in public schools, where food is paid for by taxpayers, I'd rather not spend our money feeding children unhealthy meals that will eventually cause us to spend even more money for the medical consequences down the road. If we're paying for your meals (as taxpayers), we should be allowed to have a say in what the meals consist of (as voters). Next time you see someone filling up on pudding for their entire meal, don't think "Well, it's his/her problem—not mine," remember: one day, when you're having hard-earned money taken out of your paycheck, a portion of those taxes are going to pay for that classmate's bad health decisions. It's our responsibility not only as individuals, but as a society, to be healthy and responsible.

Source:
http://www.gallup.com... (30% of Americans on Medicare/Medicaid)
Debate Round No. 2
tyty43

Con

exactly my friend, banning unhealthy foods from schools would be absolutley worthless because it would only be affecting ONE and ONE ONLY meal of the day! As soon as we get home we have acess to ALL the junk food I want! and no one will be there to stop me! Anyways think about it, if i was obese and i ate healthy foods for 1 MEAL OF THE DAY its not going to affect my weight loss majorly! You have to enforce EXERCISE with a healthy diet if you want to lose weight NOT JUST HEALTHY FOOD. So when I get home NO ONE can control what I eat and what I dont eat.
JohnW

Pro

I don't think you've understood the full purpose of the proposed policy.

Ultimately, it will always be your decision as to what you eat. The point of this "ban" is to help create good eating habits from a young age. Maybe if we were to encourage all school children, from kindergarten to high school seniors, to have a healthy, balanced meal for lunch, they'll carry these practices over to the rest of their lives. This is a concept that applies in many areas: In many schools, Physical Education is a required class NOT because the class itself ensures that you'll live to be 100 years old, but it might instill healthy exercise habits that the students will continue even once they've finished the class.

Also, eating even a single healthy meal during the day can be extremely beneficial if it means replacing an unhealthy one. Even if a student is obese, if he/she chooses to eat fruits and vegetables (rather than cake and ice cream) for lunch, he/she has already improved a major portion (roughly 33%) of his/her nutritional intake for the day, which can make a huge difference in terms of bodily health.

You are mistaken in believing that it is impossible to lose weight without exercise. While exercise will certainly expedite the process, replacing a 6,000 calorie per day diet with 2,500 calories per day will certainly make a world of difference.

With regard to the final sentence of your argument:
"So when I get home NO ONE can control what I eat and what I don't eat."

I would certainly hope that this is not the case; surely you have some sort of parent or guardian who is responsible enough to monitor your food intake. Even if you truly are allowed to eat any junk you want when you get home, it would be even more reason to push for a healthy school menu, so that you could at least consume one meal with decent nutritional value.

Let me put this debate in proper terms: this proposition isn't really even a "ban." As citizens, we have a right to choose what food is sold in our public institutions. You can bring any junk food you want to the cafeteria—you just can't buy it there. That's hardly a "ban" at all—Papa John's Pizza doesn't sell Frosted Flakes to its customers, but it doesn't "ban" cereal; it just offers different food.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Al_Pal 4 years ago
Al_Pal
I think we should. It would give kids healthy eating habits and help prevent child obesity.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
I agree, it's ridiculous. I'm sorry for ever voting.
Posted by JohnW 4 years ago
JohnW
Really, guys? It's not your prerogative to determine what is and what isn't a vote bomb—but that aside, if you insist on manipulating the score, will one of you just lower your votes so that Pro and I are tied? It doesn't seem fair for me to be losing a debate just because you disagree with a voter who took my side.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
So in essence, your counter is actually an unjustified vote bomb against an innocent debater.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
If that were a true counter, it would only be for 3 points, as that is what I raised my vote to counter the counter. Your lack of intelligence is immense.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
My vote bomb was only a counter to a counter against my vote. This is getting ridiculous. Are you saying my vote shouldn't matter in the first place? Because that is effectively what you are doing.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
If you give 7 points I will give 7 points to the other guy in return. You must make your vote all tied or I will not stop doing this until someone randomly wins at the end.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
or I can just give 7 points
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
If you do not remove your counter vote bomb, I will counter your counter with another vote.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
edit: if it were a votebomb why wouldn't I just do 7 points? I read everything and that is the conclusion I reached. I do not need an extensive reason why I voted the way I did.
I did not vote bomb. And how I'm I a well-known votebomber? I vote-bombed once on someone because they copied things off the internet. I dislike this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
tyty43JohnWTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Coutner vote bomb
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
tyty43JohnWTied
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 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: More convincing and organized. edit: if it were a votebomb why wouldn't I just do 7 points? I read everything and that is the conclusion I reached. I do not need an extensive reason why I voted the way I did. edit 2: I am increasing points given to 7 for the time being to counter his counter. This is not a votebomb but a response to a counter votebomb against my not-votebomb
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
tyty43JohnWTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: No (real) justification on Dylan's part for his vote, plus he is a well known bomber. Therefore, I conclude that this is probably a votebomb; countered.