The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Junk Food should be banned from schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,848 times Debate No: 90179
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (104)
Votes (1)




Full Resolution: Junk Food should be banned from schools

My side: Pro

What is Junk Food?

Junk food: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar

Examples: pizza, donuts, fast food, hamburgers, sausages, hot dogs, cakes, frosting, etc.


1. No forfeiting: if you forfeit, it is a loss of conduct.

2. First round is mainly acceptance, and the rest is arguments, rebuttals, and defense. The 3rd round can have additional arguments, though the second round is for most arguments. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals and defense.

3. The Burden of Proof is mainly on Pro. Con has a slight burden.

I thank my opponent, famous, and hope for an exciting debate!



Debate Round No. 1


I thank famous for accepting my debate.


The BoP is mainly on Pro, a bit on Con. I will be making about 2 arguments,

••PLAN••/ Argument 1: Other things that are better than junk foods.

There is not much of a need to eat junk food. Kids get lured in junk food. But there is a much better plan. In three articles, mostly the same, there are 13- 16 foods that are more tastier than junk foods. I’m going to skip some.

1. Strawberries: “They are an excellent source of vitamin C, manganese, folate and potassium, as well as various antioxidants and plant compounds. Eating strawberries has been linked to improved heart health, better blood sugar control and cancer prevention. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]”

2. Blueberries: “It also contains high amounts of many vitamins and minerals including vitamin C, vitamin K and manganese.

Blueberries are an antioxidant superfood. They may protect against oxidative damage and chronic diseases, and have also been shown to improve memory in older adults [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]”

3. Dark Chocolate: Dark chocolate is loaded with fiber and antioxidants, as well as minerals such as iron, magnesium, copper and manganese [11]. Plant compounds in dark chocolate have been shown to lower blood pressure, protect against heart disease, improve brain function and protect the skin against the sun’s harmful UV-rays [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

4. Almonds: “Almonds are packed with antioxidants. They also provide large amounts of fiber, protein and several vitamins and minerals such as vitamin E, manganese and magnesium.

Almonds may lower blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as reduce the oxidation of LDL-cholesterol. All of these are risk factors for heart disease [18], [19], [20], [21].”

5. Pistachios: “As a source of powerful antioxidants, pistachios have been linked with health benefits such as improved blood fats, decreased oxidized LDL-cholesterol, decreased inflammation and reduced blood sugar levels [22], [23], [24].”

6. Cherries: “Cherries are low in calories, but high in various nutrients like fiber and vitamin C.

They also contain many antioxidants and plant compounds.”

7. Mangoes: “They are relatively low in calories and have glycemic index values ranging from low to medium, which means that they should not cause major spikes in blood sugar levels.

Mangoes are high in plant compounds and antioxidants, and may contribute to a reduced risk of oxidative damage and many chronic diseases, such as cancers [25].”

8. Cheese: “It is highly nutritious as well as rich in several vitamins and minerals like calcium, vitamin B12, phosphorus, selenium and zinc.

Cheese and other dairy products are linked with improved bone health, and may be valuable in the battle against osteoporosis, a disease characterized by bone loss and an increased risk of fractures [26], [27].”

9. Avocados: “They are also a great source of B-vitamins, vitamin K, potassium, copper, vitamin E and vitamin C.

Eating avocados is very beneficial for heart health, as it may reduce blood cholesterol and triglycerides up to 22%, while raising the “good” HDL cholesterol [28], [29].”

10. Popcorn: “Not many people know that popcorn is actually a whole grain. Whole grains may also be useful for weight loss, and may help with weight maintenance [30], [31].”

Just make sure to avoid the unhealthy popcorn varieties that are loaded with refined oils.”

11. Sweet Potatoes: They are a great source of vitamin A (from beta-carotene) and contain decent amounts of vitamin C, as well as other vitamins and minerals.

Sweet potatoes also contain several antioxidants and may reduce oxidative damage in the body, potentially helping to reduce the risk of cancer. One white variety may also help moderate blood sugar levels [32], [33].”

12. Yogurt: “Consumption of yogurt has been associated with both improved bone health and reduced blood pressure [34], [35]. These probiotic bacteria are linked with many health benefits such as an enhanced immune system, lower cholesterol, improved digestion and synthesis of various B- and K-vitamins in the digestive system [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

13. Watermelon: Watermelons and watermelon juice may lower blood pressure, increase insulin sensitivity and reduce muscle soreness after exercise. [41], [42], [43], [44].”

Conclusion of Plan: I showed you 13 different healthy, and tasty foods which are better than junk food. Because of these foods, there is no need to eat junk food. Lets think of some. Yogurt with bluberries, strawberries, and almonds in! There are many healthy ways to eat in these foods, and they are much more tasty then junk food [45]. (Quotes are ally from the source [45].)

Argument 2: Junk Food is bad for children’s health

A lot of studies show that junk food is bad for your health. There are 20 foods that you should avoid [46]. These are the following:

Sugary Drinks (Sodas); Many sodas have artifical flavor, sweeteners, and carbonated water. ”The sweetener may be sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, fruit juice, sugar substitutes (in the case of diet drinks), or some combination of these. Soft drinks may also contain caffeine, colorings, preservatives, and other ingredients [47].”

Pizzas: Pizza is high in salt [48]. Total Fat for a 1107g pizza is 118.67 g. This is over 10% [49]. Pizza is a fast food.

Fruit Juices: “Many fruit juices are actually little more than fruit-flavored sugar water. In fact, fruit juice contains just as much sugar as a sugary drink like Coke or Pepsi, and sometimes even more [50].

Vegetable Oil: There are many serious concerns with these oils. They are highly sensitive to oxidation and cause increased oxidative stress in the body. They have also been linked to increased risk of cancer [51], [52], [53], [54], [55].”

Maragine: “It is loaded with artificial ingredients, and is usually made with industrial vegetable oils that have been hydrogenated to make them more solid. This increases their trans fat content significantly.”

Cookies, Cakes: “They are generally made with refined sugar, refined wheat flour and added fats, which are often disturbingly unhealthy fats like shortening (high in trans fats).”

French fries, Potato chips: These foods are very high in calories, and it is easy to eat excessive amounts. Several studies link consumption of french fries and potato chips with weight gain [56], [57].”

Ice Cream: “Unfortunately, it is also one of the unhealthiest. Most commercial ice cream is loaded with sugar.

Ice cream is also high in calories, and it is very easy to eat excessive amounts. Eating it for dessert is even worse, because then you’re adding it all on top of your total calorie intake.”

Candy Bars: “They are high in sugar, refined wheat flour and processed fats. They are also very low in essential nutrients.”

Processed Meat: “Studies show that people who eat processed meats have a higher risk of many serious diseases, including colon cancer, type 2 diabetes and heart disease [58], [59].”

Processed Cheese: “Cheese is healthy. However, processed cheese products are nothing like regular cheese. They are mostly made with filler ingredients that are combined and engineered to have a similar look and texture as cheese.”

Fast Food: Here are the bad things of fast food that can harm your body [60].

High Calorie Coffee Drinks:

However, because this debate is about schools, we need to remove the ones which students don’t eat. Like Maragine, I never even heard about it. I heard butter though. So many people don’t actually eat it. Here is the list of what children mostly eat:

Sugary Drinks, Pizzas, Fruit Juices, Cookies, Cakes, French Fries, Potato Chips, Ice Cream, Candy Bars, Processed Meat, Processed Cheese, Fast Food.

10/12 of these foods are fast foods. Cheese is a ingredient of a fast food, also meat, because first, they are bad, when actually need to be healthy. Also it goes in hamburgers. (All quotes are from [61])

There are other reasons why Junk food and Fast Food are bad, like Depression, Sodium, Diabetes, etc. [62], [63], [64].


As I proved that Junk Food should be banned from schools, vote for Pro! My third argument will be in the next round.

Sources in following link:;




I will be presenting a counterplan to the resolution that will still allow me to meet my burden however it will involve minor changes to the status quo. The counterplan is as follows:

P1: Junk food will not be banned in schools (thus fulfilling my burden)

P2: Schools will be limited to allowing children to bring in 2 items of junk food per day.

P3: Schools with canteens will only allow children to purchase a maximum of 2 items of junk food per day.

C1: My BOP is fulfilled since banning junk food is still allowed in schools.

C2: Children will not be as likely to overeat, come obese and find themselves prone to complications a a result of junk food.


The BOP primarily lies on Pro as his 1st round highlights.

Voters ought to be weighing this framework as a framework of the greatest produced happiness (comparable to the ideology of utilitarianism). We need to be viewing this debate in regards how happy the children, adults, government, etc. would be because if there is a net decrease in happiness involved then suffering will be created which is illogical - which is something that Firewings must concede because his case hinges on suffering being a bad thing and moral realism existing.

Utilitarianism must be accepted because happiness is key to learning and this is a discussion regarding schools and whether junk food should be banned from it. Happiness and learning are greatly interconnected and optimum learning is contingent on happiness [1]. This shows that the greatest happiness for the students should be considered.

If the students are unhappy then the parents will most likely be unhappy, once again resulting in more suffering [2].

If parents and students are unhappy then complaints will increase [3]. If complaints increase then the government will be unhappy as funding for schools will have to increase to combat these complaints and resolve these issues [4].

Ergo, happiness is extremely important regarding these issues and if I am able to prove that there is more happiness caused as a result of the status quo then I win this debate as I have successfully proven that happiness is extremely important. Given that Pro has already provided his initial arguments he cannot provide an alternative framework since a late framework creates debate complications. This means that Pro’s only realistic choice is to accept the framework of utility and try to argue that under it his case is preferable.

Applying the Framework

Now that the framework is set we need to see who’s side it goes in the favor of. Studies from Science Daily strongly suggest that junk food causes happiness in both children and adults [5]. This means that if children are allowed junk food they will be happier and will ultimately achieve better in schools.

Teenagers in schools almost always need to feel like that they have control over their own lives [6] or else it can be unhealthy as teenage hormones as well as upbringing (both nature and nurture) increases their craving for control as they will soon be adults and control over your life is necessary [7]. If they are restricted by schools, the government or their parents then they lose this sense of control which can lead to severe unhappiness and depression which directly contradicts the framework [8].

Everybody has the basic right to freedom of choice [9]. Freedom of choice is largely applied to many laws as it is a philosophy that many countries uphold and base their core principles on, particularly in regards to issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, legality of smoking and the legality of alcohol [10]. Denying people of bringing in or purchasing junk food at schools is to deny children of their freedom of choice. Again, to re-link it back to the previous point. If children do not feel as though their rights are being upheld then they do not feel as though they have control of their lives as they are being subjected to situations that potentially violate their core philosophies. This, as we have already concluded results in a net decrease of happiness which violates the framework once more.

To summarize, I believe that it is quite clear that the framework of utilitarianism goes in the favor of Con. Since Pro has already presented his initial arguments it would be a demonstration of poor conduct for him then to initiate another framework in the rebuttals round as it disrupts the flow of the debate and matters as crucial as a framework (arguably the most necessary part of a debate) to be introduced in a round superseding the arguments round would be a demonstration of a poor attitude to debate and a poor demonstration of conduct. This means that Pro’s only viable option here is for him to try and prove that the affirmative case can win under the framework of utilitarianism which will require him to disprove each scenario I present before you in this contention, as well as providing more arguments to additionally prove his burden under the framework.

Benefits of Junk Food

The resolution states that junk food is food that contains large amounts of fat or sugar. So I will attempt to prove, in this contention, that junk food can be bad but it isn’t useless and it is, in fact, necessary for us.

It is a large misconception that fat is bad, unhealthy and unnecessary. It can be bad for you if you have too much of it, however this is the same for any food (excluding celery) [11].

Furthermore, fat is necessary for our diet. Fat is considered to be a “lifeline” for vulnerable organs such as the liver and kidneys [11]. Without it we can fall extremely ill and potentially die [12]. There are countless diseases associated with fat deficiencies and they can cause a number of extremely negative effects such as learning difficulties, eczema, suicidal tendencies, poor growth, poor memory, poor wound healing, etc [12]. These diseases cause pain and pain causes a net decline in happiness - once again violating the framework [13].

Sugar is also something that the definition of fat references to. Studies show that sugar not only significantly increases the happiness in children [14], but it is also good for environment since it’s a natural resource (free of pesticides and other harmful products) [16]. It is also necessary in our diet as it increases the production of enzymes in our body, most notably insulin [16].

Hypoglycemia is a common sugar deficiency that many have heard of (due to the increasing views that sugar is bad). Alongside hypoglycemia are many other sugar deficiencies too. Symptoms of these deficiencies are shakiness, nervousness, confusion, hunger, etc. Discouraging sugary foods in schools means that children will logically receive less sugar daily and will ultimately be more likely to experience complications such as these. [15]


For many the banning of junk food in schools will raise sugar and fat complications and deficiencies as my contention above highlights. However by analyzing the odds we can conclude that the ban will be ineffective to fulfilling the aims that my opponent wishes to achieve and will also be detrimental. I will provide a syllogism of the events that will occur if junk food is banned in schools:

Possibility 1: The child receives less junk food and is therefore susceptible to sugar and fat deficiencies and could receive them [12][15].

Possibility 2: The child will continue to eat junk food at home and the ban will be ineffective and pointless.

Possibility 3: The child will have less junk food and no negative effects will occur.

Possibility 4: The child will be safe from complications from an overdose of junk food.

These are the 3 major possibilities. Possibility 1 goes in my favor. Possibility 2 also goes in my favor. Possibility 3 is neutral as it does not mean that a ban is good and it doesn’t mean that a ban is bad. Possibility 4 does initially seem to go in my opponent’s favor however as my counterplan explains, there will be limits so therefore, this possibility goes in my favor too since my plan will also prevent the child from the overdose of junk food without having to impose a larger change to the status quo (as my opponent’s larger burden is a concession of). Ergo, the possibilities of success in my opponent’s plan compared to mine are very slim (given that there are many more extremely unlikely possibilities that weren’t considered) however the major possibilities clearly indicate that my burden is much more preferable and ideal.


The resolution is clearly affirmed, I have presented a strong and clear framework alongside clear arguments. I will be rebutting my opponent’s case in the next round however I believe that the more feasible plan at the moment is clear. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals.

















Debate Round No. 2


I will be making my rebuttals in my opponent's arguments, and possibly my additional arguments in this round. I will briefly rebut my opponent’s arguments, because I am short in time.

Con's Framework/ My framework

BoP is mostly on Pro, a bit on Con.

Con says that we need to view this debate in regards of how happy the children, the adults, and the government. I accept this. If I succeed in having 2 or more, I win, if my opponent succeeds in having 2 or more, he wins.

My opponent says that Utilitarianism must be accepted because happiness is the key to learning. I accept that happiness is important in learning, but not the key. The key of learning is concentration, which I will argue in this round that junk food does not make you concentrate. However, I do accept that happiness helps learning, but you need concentration more.

My opponent says that if the children are unhappy, then the parents will most likely be unhappy. Not quite. My opponent's second source was about the children being unhappy with friendship, and with academic learning. My opponent’s source was not about the children being unhappy about their lunch. I think that the parents should care first about the child’s health and safety then whether the child are happy or unhappy about their lunch.

My opponent says that if he proves that there is more happiness with junk food, then he wins. However, I believe that after he has proved that happiness is the most important, then I accept his framework. I do believe that happiness is important, but then I am saying that it is not the main problem.

Rebuttal 1: Applying the Framework

I will just put this in a separate rebuttal rather then putting it in the framework.

My opponent says that junk food makes children and parents more happy as he showed a source. However, when I read the source, it never said of the parents being happy, it only said of the children. And in this source [65] it never said that the parents were happy, but it sounded like they were unhappy, and more worried about the children’s health. Because worrying is more unhappy that happy, and because most parents worry about their child’s health, and about junk food, this makes the parents more unhappy, so you ought to vote for Pro instead.

Next, my opponent says that teenagers want to go over their own lives, which I agree that most do, and if the schools are restricting them, they would most likely be unhappy. This is true that they might be unhappy, however, because they are older, they should know that it is for their own good.

Next, my opponent says that all people have the freedom of choice. My opponent says that if we restrict them, then they would be more unhappy. I do believe that they should have a freedom of choice, but then also, the parents have the right to tell them what to do unless it severely harms them, however, not eating junk food is not. Also, I believe that before freedom of choice, we have to know what has better effects that worse effects. Banning junk food has better effects and worse effects.

Rebuttal 2: Benefits of Junk food

My opponent says that as long as you don’t eat much, junk food isn’t bad for you. However, this is hard for children to not eat it, because junk food is very addictive.

“Howard Moskowitz runs a consulting firm for the bigwig junk food companies, and he’s responsible for a lot of the delicious foods we eat. The secret, Moskowitz told Moss, is something he calls “the bliss point”—that specific balance of flavors that isn’t too much, but isn’t too little, and leaves your brain craving more. The product can’t be too flavorful, or it creates what’s called “sensory-specific satiety”—a big flavor overwhelms the brain and dampens your desire for more. By contrast, boring flavors don’t engage the brain enough, and no matter how much you eat, it never feels like enough. For most companies, reaching the “bliss point” is a simple process: just add sugar.

Other junk foods trick us into eating more than we ever should with something called “vanishing caloric density.” Steven Witherly, a food scientist and the author of Why Humans Like Junk Food, told Moss that Cheetos are “one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.” The puffy snacks melt in your mouth, tricking your brain into thinking there are no calories in it and convincing you to keep eating it forever. [66]”

That quote explains and shows that junk food is addictive, and why. Many other sites agree to this [67]. Some sites says that junk food is as addictive as drugs [68].

Because of addictions, it will be much harder to not eat much junk food, so I believe that we should just ban junk food as a whole.

Con also says that fat is necessary for your diet. Pro says that you can be ill without fat. However, this is irrelevant. We are banning, junk food, not any sort of fat. Con also says that cancer makes you not happy, which contradicts the framework. Then, Con is contradicting his framework, because he says that cancer makes you unhappy, and in my second argument in my second round, I showed that junk food can make diabetes and cancer which makes you unhappy in Con’s words, which means that you should vote for Pro.

Rebuttal 3: Ineffectiveness

My opponent gives 4 possibilities

“Possibility 1: The child receives less junk food and is therefore susceptible to sugar and fat deficiencies and could receive them [12][15].

Possibility 2: The child will continue to eat junk food at home and the ban will be ineffective and pointless.

Possibility 3: The child will have less junk food and no negative effects will occur.

Possibility 4: The child will be safe from complications from an overdose of junk food.”

My opponent says that there are these 4 possibilities. I agree that 1 and 2 are my opponent’s side, however, what is the most frequent? It is mostly two and four. My opponent says that the possibilities of success of my plan is very slim when my opponent’s side is not. However, we can see in the parent’s and the government’s side.

If the parent’s don’t want junk food, which is more likely because they want their child to be healthy. The government will probably take the parent’s side then the child’s side because they think children are too young to know. Then, there is another big possibility which goes to my side.

And to conclude this argument, it doesn’t show why junk food is ineffective. It just says the possibilities. However, because I said few more possibilities, you ought to vote for Pro.

Argument 3: Concentration/ Education

This is my additional argument in this round. My argument is that junk food does not help your concentration and your education. As I said that concentration is the key to education, junk food harms your concentration, which means that it harms your education.

Many studies says that junk food makes you very energetic, which means that you won’t concentrate in your work [69]. However, the energy is spent quickly, and live strong says, “This can lead to bouts of focus loss, fatigue and a loss of concentration. [69].”

Many other sites says that junk food can be worse for your education, and grades, such as [70], and [71].

Because junk food stumps your concentration, which stumps your education, which gives you bad grades, which your parents will be angry, which you will be unhappy, which negates my opponent’s framework, this means that you should vote for Pro.


I showed that it is happier for there parents, because their child will be healthy, happier for the child’s future, but not now, because even though they complain, in their future, they will be healthy, and will have no diabetes or cancer, which can be happier, and the government is happier because they don’t need to listen to complaints. I also showed in this round that junk food does not help your child’s concentration, the key to education. As for this, vote for Pro!











Thanks Firewings!


I will be using this round to refute my opponent’s constructive case. I will leave the final round for a defense of my contentions in the form of a counter rebuttals.

My opponent opts in to forming no debate framework other than a framework of burdens which is unnecessary since it’s specified in the first round. This means that my entire framework ought to be bought by voters automatically. Voters ought to ignore my opponent’s criticisms on the debate framework that my opponent makes in his rebuttals as whilst he may mitigate the impact of the framework - he has no framework of his own meaning that votes are ultimately weighing my framework vs no framework. Voters need a framework so logically they must opt in to mine as opposed to no framework.

My opponent commits the fallacy of what is simply referred to as source spamming. His use of 64 sources is ridiculously excessive and is often used by those that wish to make their arguments appear more credible. The overuse of sources does not make his argument any more credible it simply looks like he’s trying too hard to receive authenticity of his arguments. Providing 7 sources to show that dark chocolate is good is ridiculous.

My opponent provides his sources in an external link. In the rules that my opponent set up himself, the debate character limit was set at 10,000 characters. By providing his sources in a separate link he gains additional characters to formulate his arguments as well as additional characters to source his arguments as, in essence, his characters for sources are infinite given that he’s providing them externally. This is largely unfair because in my constructive case I provided my sources in reasonable quantity but more importantly, I provided them within the rules and within the characters of the debate. This gives my opponent an unfair advantage which judges should not dismiss. I have abided by the debate rules, sadly my opponent has not chosen to do so himself.

Given that my opponent’s sources are not contained within the characters of the debate and are instead contained within a broken link (the fixed link is in the comments section), I ask voters to penalize this lack of conduct by viewing his arguments as bare assertion and as unsourced content.


My opponent makes a long and unnecessary list of alternative foods. He makes the grammatically incorrect as well as subjective claim that these foods are “more tastier”. It isn’t surprising that my opponent fails to source this claim as there is no way to very that certain foods can be considered as objectively tastier than other foods. Taste and tastiness, in particular, are completely subjective and it is under my opponent’s burden to prove otherwise.

Now some clarification may be needed. I never prohibited students from eating healthy foods as well as unhealthy foods. My counterplan never mentioned that I was going to ban healthy foods. Like I mention in my initial arguments, fats and sugars are necessary however I never said that healthy foods aren’t.

My opponent provides no reason to suggest that healthy and junk foods aren’t compatible. To put this more simply view the following official image which is frequently used to show children the balance between foods:

As you can see here. Foods high in fat or sugar are still necessary - just in smaller quantity (hence why I formed a counter plan with limitation on junk food). Given that we can clearly see that both healthy and unhealthy foods are needed banning junk food is not the solution. I completely agree with my opponent that fruits and vegetables and all the foods he lists as alternatives are good but they I disagree that they should be used as alternatives. I believe that they should be eaten in a balanced way - which is scientifically the best way to keep healthy [1]. This is how schools are currently set out [2]. Children have both junk and healthy food. My opponent wishes to ban junk food and just give children healthy food. Whilst at first this may sound like the best option but if we refer back to source [1] and the image above then you’ll once again realize that a balanced diet (which is the status quo) is scientifically the best diet.

Furthermore, this is all excluding the fact that we already have a debate framework. The only framework in this debate is about utilitarianism and freedom of choice. By forcing children to only have healthy foods and not have junk foods you are violating the framework so even if you don’t buy the objections above, all that is needed to take into account here is the framework and this argument is negated as the freedom is choice is lost.

Let us now put this into a syllogism:

P1: The status quo promotes a balanced diet of both healthy and junk food.

P2: My opponent wants to remove junk food from the status quo.

P3: It is scientifically proven that a balanced diet with junk food is better than one without.

C1: My opponent’s case is negated because it creates a worse scenario than the status quo.

P4: The framework of this debate regards utilitarianism and freedom of choice.

P5: Forcing children to not have junk food violates the framework.

P6: Forcing children to have only healthy foods also violates the framework

C2: My opponent’s case does not coincide with the debate framework and is negated.

Children’s Health

My opponent’s comments are all true. However it doesn’t take the counterplan into consideration. I am putting limitation of 2 items of junk food per day on so that these children overdose on junk food.

A lot of my opponent’s examples do not count under the definition of junk food. Junk foods have to be high in sugar or fat according to my opponent’s definition. Vegetable oil, margarine, French fries, processed cheese and high calorie coffee drinks are not high in fat or sugar. They may be unhealthy but my opponent’s definition does not count them as valid items of junk food.

For the items that do count it is important to re-look back onto the multiple complications that junk food deficiencies can cause. Like I said previously, fat deficiencies can cause learning difficulties, eczema, suicidal tendencies, poor growth, poor memory, poor wound healing, etc. making fat necessary [3]. As I also said, sugar deficiencies can cause shakiness, nervousness, confusion, hunger, etc. [4]. I am aware that my opponent has made objections to these points however since this round is only for rebuttals I will defend them and counter my opponent’s points in the final round.

My opponent’s sources and diagram regards whether or not you have TOO MUCH junk food. Given that the counterplan states that there will be a 2 item limit, it’s relatively clear that there won’t be any overdosing (unless my opponent can prove that 2 items of junk food is too much) - which he hasn’t done thus far.

Also, once more, my opponent violates the framework. I will now re-form a similar syllogism to the one formed in response to the previous contention:

P1: Unhealthy foods are good for your diet in small quantity.

P2: My counterplan states that unhealthy foods will be allowed in small quantity.

C1: My counterplan is ideal.

P3: My opponent states that junk food is bad and should be banned.

P4: No junk food can lead to fat and sugar deficiencies.

C2: My opponent’s argument leads to suffering which contradicts the framework.

P5: My opponent’s constructive case must coincide with the framework to win this debate.

P6: Both of his contentions violate the framework.

C3: My opponent has lost this debate.

With that, I hand it back over to Pro. The resolution is negated.






Debate Round No. 3


I will first rebut the counterplan of my opponent's. I will rebut my opponent's third round in this round. I will first start with his observations.


My opponent's counterplan is that we should limit 2 junk foods per day. It won't work. Did you ever think that schools will even care? It would be a waste of time to count two junk foods, when you can just ban them, which is much easier. And, kids would bring more. Do you think that kids will follow the rules when they don't check? No. Even though they might check, there are hundreds of students, so they can't do all. Because of this, my opponent's plan fails.


1. My opponent says that it is Con's framework v.s. No framework. My opponent says that voters should not care about my crticisms on the framework. I actually made my framework when doing that and said that concentration is the key to education, saying that happiness is not the most important, and if one of us prove that 2 or 3 people, children, parents, or the government are happy, then we ban or don't ban junk food.

2. My opponent says that it is uneccesary and spam. It's actually is not.

3. My opponent says it is unfair to put it in the comments. I never said to my opponent to not put it in the comments. Also, almost everyone does it. I can put it in this round to make it fair. But it is fair to do it.

Alternatives (Plan)

My opponent says that he never banned healthy fodos. That wasn't the point of the argument. The plan was that junk foods are not neccesary the main point of junk food is the taste. However, I showed 13 foods which are tastier that junk food, meaning that junk food is uneccasary.

My opponent shows a plate on what we need to eat, and the percentage. He says that there is still a small part for high in sugar and fat. Is junk food the only one with them? No.

My opponent says that children mostly eat both junk food and healthy food. He says that is how schools are set out. All 3 schools when I was in America, the children only brought brownies for snack and hamburgers, which is fast food, and junk food. The 2 schools I went in Korea also did this. Now in France, they still only bring mostly junk food. Even my brother who is in 11th grade agrees. All the schools he went, which is 7 (one more than me) he had the same things. So, most schools actually let children eat all junk food. That is why we should ban junk food. Schools aren't doing this well, and they will never do it.

My opponent suddenly says a balanced diet of both. It is more healthy foods in the plate.

Children's Health

My opponent says that he will limit 2 junk foods per day. He concedes that junk food is bad for a child's health. I do think that the list was wrong, put french fries are fast food, and fast food is junk food. high calorie coffe drinks are high in sugar.

My opponent says that fat definciences cause many bad things. However, I showed you much more things of what happenes to you if we permit junk food, and my opponent fails to rebut that.

I already told 3 times that they won't let children only eat 2 items. And as I said, junk food is addicting, so it is basically, lots of junk food or no junk food. I prefer no junk food.


There are 3 ways this goes like.

1. We ban junk food

2. We permit 2

3. We permit all we want.

Choice number two is very low in standards. Choice number 3 is very very very unhealthy. Choice 1 is the best. Fat isn't only in junk food. It is also in many other foods. Therefore, voters must decide 1, because it is the best, and most justified point.

For these reasons, vote for PRO!!!!



Thanks Firewings!


OBV1: Pro makes a rule violation. In the rebuttals round (ie. R3), he fails to address the counterplan. He then leaves it to the final round to address my counterplan. This is another demonstration of poor conduct from him as well as violating the rule stating that no new arguments can be made in the final round. I will not be able to defend the counterplan this round because that would make me violate the rules too. This means that Pro gets the final word on this contention when in reality it should have been I (in this round).


Pro must concede to the framework as he has no alternative framework to offer. A debate onset is better than no debate onset. Nevertheless, I will address his mitigation on the framework.

Pro concedes that happiness is important to learning but states that concentration is key - not happiness. Voters should NOT buy this argument as it is a lately applied framework in the form of a rebuttal. Frameworks are new arguments which must be applied in the initial arguments round as it is crucial that they are established as soon as possible (as this is the judges debate onset). Voters should not buy his argument that concentration is key (even if you do not buy this rebuttal bare in mind that my framework was sourced, my opponent’s assertion that concentration is key bares no weight regardless).

Pro’s next concern regards my sourcing regarding the parental claim that they would also be unhappy. He blatantly lies here. My second source is NOT about children being unhappy with friendships. It is about children being unhappy at school and the impact this has on parents. It provided the example of children being unhappy with friendship but this is not the focus of the source and my opponent's rebuttal here is completely false. Ergo, the point regarding parental unhappiness stands. My opponent makes another completely subjective and arbitrary claim. He states that HE BELIEVES that parents should care about the health of their child before their happiness. There is no support for this claim and under the framework this is a direct contradiction to what he concedes (utilitarianism).

Pro’s overall rebuttal to the framework is poor and misguided. He makes no attempt to refute it with objective evidence at all. He makes claims such as “ do believe that happiness is important, but then I am saying that it is not the main problem.” My response is simple. Why should voters buy what you subjectively believe as opposed to the objective evidence that I present in my initial framework?

Applying the Framework

Pro begins by making the claim that I never proved that junk food makes the parents as well as the children happy and he shows that my source never mentions that the parents are happy from junk food. My source did, however, as he concedes, manage to prove that children are happier as a result of this. As I managed to prove in the initial framework, parents are happy when children are happy so if we apply this logic to the scenario we can conclude that the parents and the children are happy with junk food. Which under the framework of utilitarianism, works in my favor. Next he attempts to refute the claim that junk food makes parents happy by citing a source that one families parents said that junk food is bad and they are unhappy about it. I managed to prove that generally junk food causes a net positive rate of happiness in children and therefore parents. He attempts to negate this with one family's experiences. This is insufficient as we are looking at an overall trend in happiness as opposed to individual experiences.

Pro once again makes extremely weak and subjective claims. I managed to prove through the usage of basic psychology that teenagers need a sense of self sufficiency and restrictions are extremely negative for these children (thus leading to depression which results in a net decrease in happiness, thus violating the framework). His only response to this was that children should know that it’s for their own good. This is again, subjective and unsupported; it contradicts the framework, etc. I provide scientific research which he concedes to, and his only comment is a subjective one regarding what he believes that they should be thinking. Just because pro believes that teenagers should know that it’s for their own good, doesn’t mean that they will or are doing so.

Pro’s next point is baffling. His poor grammar here makes it unclear as to what his point are however it appears that he is saying that our freedom of choice (once again in his opinion) is inferior to an analysis of the situation as an ‘on balance’ debate.

The application of the framework is pretty clear. Objectivity proves that an increase in happiness will occur if we remain under the status quo. It also proves that there is will be a net detriment in happiness if we do otherwise. His subjective beliefs are clearly insufficient in negating objective, scientific, psychological facts. If you are buying that the framework goes in my favor then you ought to vote Con right here as this is sufficient to negate.

Benefits Of Junk Food

Pro says that it is hard for children not to eat too much junk food as it is addictive. This is besides the point. My counterplan is very clear in restricting junk food access to 2 items per day. This is a limitation, though not a limitation that is as great as my opponent is suggesting (ie. no junk food at all in schools). He goes into extensive efforts to prove that junk food is addictive. I do not deny this (though his sources and quotations are somewhat questionable). That is why I initiated a counterplan on the resolution which allows me to bypass this potential dilemma.

Pro finally makes a very, very crucial error which could ultimately cost him the debate. In my contentions I proved that fat and sugar deficiencies exist if you don’t have enough junk food. He dismisses these arguments and ultimately concedes them by saying that the argument is irrelevant because it regards fat which is not the same as junk food. This is false. His definition clearly states that junk food is unhealthy food that contains high amounts of fat / sugar. So this debate is about fat and sugar as pro makes no attempt to give alternative sources of fat or sugar meaning that the deficiency point lies in my favor. Given that I have already proven that fat and sugar deficiencies result in unhappiness (which he also concedes). This point goes in my favor.

Pro picks up on the point that I said that cancer results in unhappiness (as sugar and fat deficiencies can and do lead to cancer - as my arguments stated). He attempts to point a contradiction as he managed to show that excessive amounts of fat / sugar do lead to cancer. This is true however the point is irrelevant since, once again, under my counterplan there are limitation and given that he never disputes the claim that these limitations will prevent overdoses of food this ultimately goes in my favor once more and the contradiction is refuted.


Pro concedes that points 1 and 2 go in my favor. He makes no attempt to dispute the tie on point 3. And I have already agreed that point 4 goes in his favor. Given that 2 out of the 4 possibilities go in my favor. 1 is tied. And 1 goes in pro’s favor this means that his plan is more likely to be ineffective than effective.

Pro attempts to look at this from the position of the parents. He once again makes multiple faulty and untrue assumptions. He states “if parents don’t want junk food, which is more likely because they want their children to be healthy…”. This claim is unsourced. I initially provided proof (that my opponent concedes) regarding the fact that children are happy as a result of junk food. I also provided proof that parents are happy as a result of children’s happiness and the same is applicable vice versa (ie. with unhappiness). He believes that based on one family's experiences regarding unhappiness as a result of junk food, all families will be like this. This claim is absolutely false and this can be confirmed by my data in my initial arguments. So it is actually more likely that parents will be unhappy as a result of a junk food ban than they will be happy as a result of it.

Pro says that the contention is negated based on the fact that there are other possibilities. I am aware of this and made note in my contention that these were the 4 major possibilities and my opponent does nothing to dispute this claim - ergo, this argument goes in my favor.

Concentration / Education

Pro makes another argument in this round which is permissible given that R1 allows it.

His opening claim is that junk food can lead to loss of concentration, focus loss and fatigue. What he fails to mention is that in the same source it also says, prior to revealing these statistics, that it is talking about people that have admitted to eating too much junk food. This is problematic as an argument since this is directly addressed by my counterplan as there will be limitations on junk food quantity.

The next claim made is that junk food can be bad for your education. He uses source [70] and [71] to back this up. Source 70 is in regards to the typical US diet. This is problematic once again since this debate is not specific to the US. It regards a generic approach to the subject. Pro lives in France and I live in the UK. I see no link between this debate and the US. 71 also references to the US diet and it also references to there being a lack of healthy food being eaten in the US diet. My complain for source 70 is applicable to source 71 too.

This argument is negated. Even if you do not buy my rebuttals this argument is in contradiction with the framework meaning that it does not stand under it. Pro claims that this negates the framework. This is untrue. It is an attempt at a completely new framework being made in the middle of the debate. Voters should not buy this.

The resolution is negated. Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 4
104 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Cheers :)

To the debaters, I have abstained from awarding the conduct point due to VU standards.
Posted by TUF 2 years ago
Thanks for the vote tej!
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1):

"Junk food" is an unclear term, which is defined by Pro as being food that has, on balance, adverse effects caused by the presence of sugar and/or fat. Conventional definitions are assumed for the other terms. Pro's clarification of the BOP is particularly unclear: "the BOP is mainly on Pro, but Con has a slight burden." I'm unclear on what exactly this burden is. So this is how I interpret the burdens: I expect both sides to have positive offense for persuasion, but in the event of tied arguments, I presume Con.

Pro's case:

Pro argues two things: (1) junk foods cause adverse effects to the health of children, which could be replaced by alternatives, and (2) junk foods impair concentration which is harmful in education. Con's response is essentially providing a weighing mechanism, saying his offense outweighs Pro's first argument. Con also (implicitly) responds in R2 that children can still eat junk food at home and that disallowing them from consuming some junk food in school will make them want to consume more junk food at home - this severely mitigates the first impact, because there's a lot of uncertainty that Pro doesn't clearly elucidate. Pro's second point is more compelling.

But Con essentially drops the second point, because the response is in the final round - arguments aren't permitted in the final round. Even though Pro brought up the point in R3, Con should have addressed it in R3 along with the other offense. Con's response that children can eat junk food at home doesn't impact this point severely.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
(Pt. 2)

But Con essentially drops the second point, because the response is in the final round - arguments aren't permitted in the final round. Even though Pro brought up the point in R3, Con should have addressed it in R3 along with the other offense. Con's response that children can eat junk food at home doesn't impact this point severely.

Con's case:

(1) Con argues a counterplan, to impose restrictions on junk foods without banning them outright. Con says Pro's plan limits overall pleasure faced by children, since consumption of sugar and fat causes pleasure, and that the counterplan reduces health harms while not compromising on overall happiness. (2) Con also argues that "sugar and fat aren't necessarily bad," which is irrelevant because the definition of junk food is food that is bad. Pro correctly points out that not everything fat qualifies as "junk food," but "junk food" is defined by fat and sugar making it unhealthy. (3) Con has a compelling turn: that unhealthy foods are beneficial in small quantities, which I view as functionally separate from the previous point in that this is about quantities, and that some of Pro's examples are acceptable in small quantities.

Pro's response to the framework issue is somewhat compelling. Pro essentially argues that school rules should be based on what facilitates education most, as opposed to pleasure/pain calculations. Con's observation regarding frameworks is wrong, because Pro does offer a framework. Pro says: "I accept that happiness is important in learning, but not the key. The key of [sic] learning is concentration." But I still find Con's utilitarianism framework more compelling, because Con actually has a source proving that happiness is necessary for a good education.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
(Pt. 3)

This was a bad debate. Both sides often fail to clearly explain their arguments and drop key offense from either side. Pro's first argument (health harms) isn't compelling at all, and there's huge uncertainty on the effectiveness of the plan. Con's narrative there is much more compelling, for multiple reasons outlined above. Pro doesn't adequately address Con's offense regarding happiness either, since Con proves that happiness is required in education. I am left to weigh the offense from both sides: concentration and happiness. On this ground, Con's arguments are more compelling because Con actually justifies a link between happiness and education with a source, while Pro just assumes concentration is more important without justification. This minor lack of explanation costs Pro the debate. Con wins arguments.

Conduct also goes to Con, because Pro shouldn't have posted his sources outside the debate without asking Con's permission. There's a reason character constraints exist. Of course, I still considered Pro's sources, but Con wins conduct because exceeding the character limit is poor conduct.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
@tej, okay I will try.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
>I don't care if you vote on my debates or whatever.

You think I made that decision because of you asking me not to?

Lol...I made that decision in my own self-interest. I'd rather not vote on any debate involving you, because your conduct has been poor in response to my vote, and your criticism of voting in general was, as famous put it, an "overreaction."
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
@tej, I told you it was a mistake. I don't care if you vote on my debates or whatever.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
It's a bit of an overreaction to say that you won't debate or vote anymore because of the mods decision here. There are some instances where the leeway between sufficient and insufficient can be subjective meaning that there can be controversy however in this scenario the decision is very, very clear. Tej explained in extensive detail as to why he allocated the points that he chose to vote on. This was very clearly a vote that shouldn't have been removed and moderation got their decision correct in this instance.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Note: I refuse to vote on any debate involving Fire again, and will ensure that Fire doesn't vote on my debates either. He's behaving terribly and insulted the moderators for no justifiable reason whatsoever. I don't like calling out people like this, but Fire has consistently called me out on my votes (on this debate and on Hayd's debate with missbailey8), when either (a) he clearly lost the point in question, or (b) his RFD was poor.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
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: RFD in comments; this vote is from the Voter Union.