The Instigator
IWillTumblrShameYou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Junk Food be Sold in Schools?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,144 times Debate No: 118758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

IWillTumblrShameYou

Con

Many children today acknowledge that junk food isn't good for you. But yet kids are still eating all this junk food every day. At least 18. 5% of kids in America are obese. Why is this? This can be credited due to the fact that schools serve junk food too much. Many parents, Teachers, And doctors say that a way to reduce these obesity rates is by removing junk food from schools. This is a large debate that has all doctors, Kids, And teachers wondering if junk food should stay in schools or be replaced with healthy foods. In my opinion, I think that schools should STOP selling junk food and promote healthier foods, Here's why.
One reason junk food should be removed from schools is that the rates of childhood obesity have continued increasing in the past few years. In Mississippi at least 26. 1% of kids are obese! That's a lot of obese kids! Even with Utah having only 8. 7% of child obesity, That's still a lot. This is thanks to fast food and other unhealthy foods. Most are sold in schools. Take this example. Every Friday kids have pizza in schools, Chocolate milk is always available. They sometimes have grilled cheese, Garlic bread, Burgers, Chicken dumplings. Heck, Most schools meals are unhealthy. My school has two vending machines! So this shows how most school meals are unhealthy. This is what helps increase child obesity. It's an easy way for kids to get junk food at school.
The second reason why junk food should be removed from school is that it's simply not healthy for us. It's common knowledge that junk food is unhealthy. But we still eat so much of it. . . This can be credited to schools serving it. Even though schools are constantly trying to promote healthier eating, Child obesity is just getting higher and higher. Why? Well, Junk food has high levels of fat, Trans fats, Calories, Sodium, Sugar, Other harmful additives. Also, You cook them in oil and fry them. Junk food has little to none fibers, Proteins, Vitamins, Or minerals. Those are just SOME of the reasons why junk food is unhealthy. Don't even get me started on the issue of diabetes and the fact that obesity around the world has DOUBLED.
The final reason for why junk food shouldn't be sold in schools is that it's slowing down progress in schools. Obesity can affect a child's physical health and sometimes the mental image of themselves. Obesity can lead to low self-esteem anxiety and even depression. Schools don't really help considering the fact that they are serving us crap food almost every day. Consider that schools are always in need of money, Our health system is really doing so good. Plus, Obesity rates are always rising and just getting worse. What are some ways to lower this? Well, One way to do this is REMOVING JUNK FOOD FOR SCHOOLS.
So in conclusion, Junk food should be removed from schools because it causes childhood obesity. It's just unhealthy in general. Finally, It slows down progress in schools and can affect a child's mental image of themselves leading to many problems. Including psychical problems. Thus, This concludes my reasoning for why junk food should be removed from schools.
omar2345

Pro

"Many children today acknowledge that junk food isn't good for you. But yet kids are still eating all this junk food every day. "

I don't think they do. Children do not know right from wrong. It is mostly the fault of the parents if pre-pubescent children are eating junk food. Who buys the junk food? The parents. If the parents cared about the children's health then they can decide to keep junk food to a minimum as a reward or explain to them why they are not allowed. Children do not know right from wrong but it their parents job to teach them and it should not be blamed on schools if the parents are not teaching them valuable lessons like what to eat and what not to eat. Banning something does not solve the problem. Murder is illegal why is it still going on in every country? It is not junk foods problem that children eat it since as far I know Junk food cannot force anyone to eat it.

"promote healthier foods"

I think this would be the best option. To incentivize it. The reason why is you are not annoying children who would buy the junk food and you can allow an healthy alternative for people who want to eat more healthier. Banning something does not work. If a child is not served junk food in school he can just get his meals from home. Banning does not stop obesity. Education help reduce it. If you educate people on why obesity is bad and say you will die or something that causes a reaction can wake them up and make a change in their life. By educating them you are not forcing the child to do what you want instead you give them an option and they choose. Forcing is not helpful in the child's development. You should always help the child understand what is good and bad. Reason is they can make their own mind which does help children become adults and not dependant on parents.


"Obesity can affect a child's physical health and sometimes the mental image of themselves. "

You are right. We should allow people to make mistakes and face the consequences. They will learn not to do it again.

"Finally, It slows down progress in schools and can affect a child's mental image of themselves leading to many problems. Including psychical problems"

If the parents see this and they are negligent of their children then it should not be blamed on the schools. It is the parents job to look after the child. How is an obese child in anyway a good way of taking care of the child? No child should be obese.

Debate Round No. 1
IWillTumblrShameYou

Con

"It is mostly the fault of the parents if pre-pubescent children are eating junk food. Who buys junk food? The parents. "

This is a great point Omar, But schools aren't helping considering that they as I stated
"This is thanks to fast food and other unhealthy foods. Most are sold in schools. Take this example. Every Friday kids have pizza in schools, Chocolate milk is always available. They sometimes have grilled cheese, Garlic bread, Burgers, Chicken Dumplings. Heck, Most schools meals are unhealthy. My school has two vending machines! So this shows how most school meals are unhealthy. This is what helps increase child obesity. It's an easy way for kids to get junk food at school. "
Now, Most parents DO pay for children school meals and they should teach more about junk food. But, It's the SCHOOLS that are severing it. So schools yet are still contributing to this problem. Thus, Still increasing child obesity rates.

"If a child is not served junk food in school he can just get his meals from home. "

I agree but I also must respectfully disagree with you. If he is getting an unhealthy meal from school and home. If the school just serves healthy food that means he would just get one unhealthy meal and one healthy meal.

"Banning does not stop obesity. "
If you're in a position of high power, Like a principal, Where people have to follow your rules. Banning sometimes does work.

"We should allow people to make mistakes and face the consequences. They will learn not to do it again. "

Well, This is a bit rough. Shouldn't we prevent it before it even happens? Wouldn't that be smarter? That's like saying if someone was working somewhere like a bank, And you see them making a mistake that could mess up the whole bank. But then you think "Hey. We should allow people to make mistakes and face the consequences. They will learn not to do it again. " Doesn't make much sense, Does it? Your letting they screw up on purpose. So they can "learn a lesson".

"If the parents see this and they are negligent of their children then it should not be blamed on the schools. It is the parent's job to look after the child. How is an obese child in anyway a good way of taking care of the child? No child should be obese. "

Very good point Omar, You have got me there. I can't actually think of a way to get around this.

Anyways good argument Omar. It's your turn now.
omar2345

Pro

Thank you for the response. My informal tone to most of what I am saying is lack of a better way of saying it or it would be simpler to just say it simply.

"So schools yet are still contributing to this problem"

If what you said is the case about the example then the school are at fault for not doing a better job at tackling obesity. I think the best option would be to add a blanket rule like for every unhealthy meal there should be a healthy alternative. This will make sure it is balanced.

"If the school just serves healthy food that means he would just get one unhealthy meal and one healthy meal. "

One less unhealthy meal is better but I still think he should understand and accept the change before it is forced. It sets bad precedent if you force the students to eat healthy food. Eventually people will realise when they make mistakes and we shouldn't force them to change even if it is for their own good. Yes their are exceptions like suicide but I don't think obesity should be in the same boat that you have to force students to change. Obesity is a gradual change and does allow the student to come back to a more healthier stage, Suicide does not. Obesity is a problem but if you force them to healthier alternatives it does not help with student morale. Yes it is for the best but they should acknowledge that they are making mistakes instead of someone else telling them they are. It is up to the individual to realise where he can improve. If we make it more of a collective issue like ban all junk food then we put the group think over the person who takes longer to adapt to a more healthier approach.

"If you're in a position of high power, Like a principal, Where people have to follow your rules. Banning sometimes does work. "

Rules must be followed but students are rebellious. This should be a gradual change which allows the students to cope with the difference in the menu. Nothing I can think happens in an instant. It takes time for people to change and people should not affect it if it is immediately threatening their life because people change in different times. Something to you was simple to understand the first time around but others who are not so technically gifted would find it difficult to understand the first time around.

"Well, This is a bit rough. Shouldn't we prevent it before it even happens? Wouldn't that be smarter? "

Yes in a sense it would be smarter but to you it would be simple but to an obese child it would be difficult to adjust. Take for instance the vegan diet. I highly doubt the day anyone starts the diet they would go 100% vegan. It would be a gradual change. Reason is the body needs to cope with the difference in calories or the lack of carbs found in foods. If you force it in the body it might reject it or as a minimum tasks would be more difficult to complete due to the difference in the food a vegan has chosen to eat.

"They will learn not to do it again. " Doesn't make much sense, Does it? Your letting they screw up on purpose. So they can "learn a lesson". "

The difference between a school and a bank is that the bank is paying you to do a job. If you are not doing the job correctly your boss is within his rights to fire/suspend or not pay you until the job is done. School is meant to be a time of learning (whether or not it helps children prosper is another debate) where mistakes are tolerated to an certain extent. It is okay to get the wrong answer because it would be likely it would be the first time learning about Pythagoras Theorem or something. Most job's have a day 0 before you work were they make you informed what is expected from you.

Think of everyone else as a person who wants to give you information. Some people give bad information and some give good information. It is best to see both sides and make a conclusion on your own. This helps you understand both sides and the earlier you pick this up the better it will get later on in your life or at least you would be more tolerant of a viewpoint that is completely wrong.






Debate Round No. 2
IWillTumblrShameYou

Con

IWillTumblrShameYou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I think with alcohol banning it to a certain extent makes it more wanted for teenagers. I am not saying we should no ban it but there is a need to outweigh the positive and negatives of all ideas. Cigarettes should never have been made, But now they are we have to educate people on the consequences not make it exaggerated only what is realistically going to happen (Lungs failing, Bad breath instead of showing people who are addicted to multiple substances).

Food I don't think have the same effects. Fast food is not as bad as cigarettes or alcohol. Which is why it tends to be less of problem. Given by the increase in obesity it should not be looked over and everyone should try their best to not eat fast food at all if they can.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Similar reason we ban alcohol or cigarettes according to age? But food lot less extreme I suppose.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Do they have the ability to understand what will happen if they use it?

Yes go right ahead. If they know the consequences why would they buy it?

No. If they do not have the ability to understand I don't see how you can explain it to them is a bad thing so ban it.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
So you'd probably be fine for high school vending machines, But not first grade vending machines?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

If children are tempted that is their own fault if they are properly educated. If they are not educated then I wouldn't allow schools to have junk food since the children do not know the consequences.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Hmm. Not a bad point, Though it still seems a bit leading someone into temptation if a school made buying junk food at school easy. Not meant in religious way, Though phrase may be from.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

I don't think we ought to put dangers in front of people. Instead we should make people fully aware of the consequences in life. This is because we should allow people to make mistakes rather then restricting them in what they are able to do. Restriction for the most part does not stop the thing in question from affecting the person. The kid and walk 5 minutes in whatever direction and use his money to pay for fast food.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
-mean that we ought to put dangers and trials everywhere that people learn not to touch them and through that learn how to overcome negatives. I know that a lot of what I said and my reasonings weren't in the debate. But they just didn't seem like good arguments to me. If Con had said the flaws (That I see), Maybe I would have voted for Con to win.

At least that's the way it all seemed to me. I sometimes worry though that my judgement isn't all there. . . Ah well, Doesn't really impact day to day life of function.

My eldest brother was in Boy Scouts when he was younger. Once he and all the other scouts kept telling the Scoutmaster too often how they wanted to eat hotdogs for meals. So during a weekend/week/ couple weeks of camping, I don't actually know how long. The Scoutmaster only let them eat hot dogs. They were able to prepare them any which way they wanted, Grill, Flamb", Boil, Cheese? But the way my brother told it, They got awful sick of hot dogs.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
What is the junk food we eat really?

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3z-_6JgMiwA&t=28s

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cm5Cdy4-KtU&t=36s

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=YpllomiDMX0&t=23s
Posted by IWillTumblrShameYou 3 years ago
IWillTumblrShameYou
Thank you Omar
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
IWillTumblrShameYouomar2345Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically Con makes argument I think that schools should not make it easier for kids to be fat. Pro basically makes argument I think that people must find their own paths to be truly motivated to stick to them. Saying that parents shouldn't buy the food or comparison f murder seem poor arguments to me. Murder happens less often when people are not put in situations where it is easy or they grow up in the habit of not murdering people. Con also said vending machines and the school selling junk food. So the kids are the ones buying it at school, not the parents, though the parents do give the kids an allowance I assume. It's the parents responsibility to look after the kids health. Also not great argument. The debate title itself is what the parents would be considering. Still, Con didn't rebuttal any of these arguments or drive home his own initial arguments. So eh, tie, I'd think. Conduct not deducted due to giving reason and apology. People should learn from mistakes, but doesn't

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.