CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I understand that everyone has the right to eat whatever they want, however the school boards need to understand that obesity and diabetes are not small issues.
Having junk food available to children at school is only encouraging the growing problem Americans already have, simply offering only healthy choices would force kids to begin a healthier lifestyle.
you say a few interesting words there..."needs", "encouraging", and "force"...these are all words that i assume you are using very annoyingly(my opinion) to state you and others understand that there is a problem and just have to force a better way onto kids for the betterment of a healthier lifestyle...i saw Jamie Oliver on tv trying to get healthier foods to schools and give the guy credit he really cares and is trying to do really good for the young generation of todays youth...that being said he was forcing himself and his ideals on people who just wasnt ready for this fast swift change....it takes time not force
I am glad it is your opinion, because I could honestly care less.
My opinion, and fact is that your grammar makes your run on sentences hard to understand.
force a better way onto kids for the betterment of a healthier lifestyle
What you must not understand is that kids need to be forced to do a lot of things or they never will. Tell them to clean their room or no television, they will most likely clean their room. However ask them politely to clean their room, and a good chance is that with no real reason to do it, than only please their parents, the job most likely will not get done. It requires some sort of force in order to get the kid to act on the task he/she is asked to do.
So if you force the ideals of a healthy lifestyle on a child, he/she will most likely lean towards a healthy lifestyle. Basic psychology.
The problem with your argument is that in the example, kids aren't being forced to clean their rooms, the parents are giving them a punishment, but there still isn't any forcing going on.
I am glad it is your opinion, because I could honestly care less.
If you could care less, then that means that you actually do care.
If you could care less, then that means that you actually do care.
Me caring is only me caring in the form of hardly caring, if I cared less I wouldn't of gone any further in his/her argument.
The problem with your argument is that in the example, kids aren't being forced to clean their rooms, the parents are giving them a punishment, but there still isn't any forcing going on.
Kids can still bring junk food from home as a school lunch, just not having it available to the general public will reduce the intake of it.
Children spend about 6.5 hours at school. The other 17.5 is spent at home. The children are only supposed to eat once at school for lunch. Assuming that all kids only eat once, then banning junk food for that one meal will not help very much if they go home and snack all afternoon and night.
17.5, with more than half of that number sleeping.
so more than 50% of the time they are awake, they are at school. I know many students that eat school breakfast as well as lunch, so if one meal is left at the end of the day then it is up to the parent to feed their children right.
banning junk food for that one meal will not help very much if they go home and snack all afternoon and night.
Thats like saying not to ban meth because if it can't be regulated everywhere why regulate it at all.
Whether or not they have the choice to eat what they want at home, at least the 50% of the time they are awake can be spent with meals that are consistently healthy.
You can't compare meth to junk food because you can regulate it anywhere. Although it is harder to regulate what someone does in their home, if they are caught doing meth, then they will get into trouble. If junk food is banned at school, and only at school, then the principal or teachers can't go to your house and tell you not to eat it.
Like I usually say to people when talking about banning things, they should teach kids about the dangers and teach them how to make healthier snacks. If you ban something in one place, then it won't help very much to just go home and "eat up the entire kitchen." I would say yes to banning junk food if it would actually work, but I just think about the amount of trouble that the educators would have to go through in order to keep the kids away from junk food at school. Would it really be worth it?
Don't make it available at school and it reduces the intake. If a child eats breakfast and lunch at school, he/she isn't going to skip two meals just to eat chips at home. They will succumb to hunger and eat what is available, and if it is healthy food then they will begin a healthy eating habit. Whether or not they have a choice to.
All educators would have to do is change their school lunch menu.
Its not a healthy eating habit if its not a choice. Their just consistently eating healthy because its all thats available. When they leave school, go to college, start working etc they likly would start eating the cheaper, better tasting junk food. Even if Banning junk food in schools stops childhood obesity and diabetics it would only be shifting the age which problems start making it less noticeable. Banning junk food in schools isn't a solution, its a cover up.
Your body starts desiring junk foods less as you slowly ween yourself from them, so by the time children have developed into adults they already don't have as big a taste for junk food as a child who has been eating it five days a week every week since kindergarten.
Banning junk food in schools isn't a solution, its a cover up.
Alternatively It gets old. Having chips everyday, the same type or a variety for awhile gets old. Its why you switch to cookies for awhile :) Coke tastes sweeter if you haven't had it for awhile and it becomes kinda bland if you have it everyday for a long time. Its why you have super sugary sweet tea instead! If you never have sweets or junkfood though, when you finally get a chance your likely going to gorge for awhile on it. Now replaced you with I and you'll have my experience of it. Admittedly most people don't have my metabolism and can't eat whatever they want, most people probably have less juice, milk, fruit,whole-grain and vegetables as me to. The trick is to find the right level of moderation for your body and activity level. This is best done by the individual and not by an external authority. Individuals start doing this for themselves with proper education.
Junkfood acquires a "fruit of the forbidden" appeal by banning it, making it more desirable.
Many children eat 2 meals a day at school, which mathematically constitutes for two thirds of their daily intake of food ( hypothetically ).
Now if schools only offered healthy choices that would make that "quarter pounder cheese burger" an essentially fine thing to eat once in awhile. I don't know how many people you know personally that eat out every night, in all honesty the painted picture is that every single family eats out every night. Which isn't the truth, especially now with the economy as it is.
So if children are subject to junk food at school and home, compared to junk food at home and healthy food at school. Would you really say that the first option is the better?
A lot of chemicals that reside in junk food are also responsible for hyperactivness, lack of concentration etc. and can be attributed to an increase of ADHD or w.e it is.
Now, why have junk food in schools, if junk food is being discouraged???
If coaches want there athletes healthy, banning junk food from school will
help athletes not eat junk food. . .
If schools care about their students, not just mentally, but physically...they will contribute to lowering obesity, even if that means just taking chili cheese fries of the menu or vending machines out the hallways.....
It mightsound ridiculous but the little changes help make a big difference
I should say it is the responsibility of the school as well.
Given that many parents are working (not at home for most of the time), they are less likely to mind what their children are eating. So schools should play their part in ensuring students eat healthily, through lessons, lunch breaks etc.
School is a place where students are taught what is right and wrong for them. The Biology classes in school teach us about the adverse affects of junk food on our body. So it's necessary that thing's should be implemented right from the basic level.
Ofcourse, children can take it when not in school but something is better than nothing.
Sure, you can ban junk food from public schools, but you cannot stop them from bringing junk food into the school, which most likely originates from external sources, i.e supermarkets. But I do agree that public schools should ban junk food.
all i half to say is childhood obesity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think kids like me should not be obeace by junk food shouch as chips, candy, and sugary snacks. ( I gotta atmit a hersys bar isent enought for me(; )
I strongly agree that junk food should be banned from school because it is bad for your health if you don’t eat healthy food and eat junk food instead you will be fatter than a elephant and won’t move fast like all the other kids can. Do you think anyone will like to play with someone who can’t move much or someone who is really slow?
yeah i think junk food should actually be banned from schools this would help in reducing the growing problem of obesity in many countries because our stomach takes a long time to digest junk food making us fat
I agree that it should be controlled, in England they tried to do it (check out Jamie's school dinners, link). The problem is in trying to change a huge system, this documentary gained massive support, it even went as far as Jamie Oliver having a meeting with the then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Like everything else it was only a matter of time before money was the deciding factor.
I believe it is the cheap mass processing of food that is the problem, it is easier and cheaper to buy frozen crap and serve it up to people that want it and not something more nutritious.
I also believe that there is a huge problem in how children are educated about food and how junk food is viewed as an alternative rather than a treat.
Stopping it outright will only lead to people bringing their own junk in or slipping out to get it.
Did I say it was completely the responsibility of the school? No, there is a problem with a lack of education where food is concerned and everyone responsible for a child's welfare needs to get involved.
Healthy eating is about balance and things like burgers and pizza and fries when made freshly are not nearly as unhealthy as processed foods which contain a fair amount of Hydrogenated fats and chemical stabilizers, flavorings, colorings, salt inhibitors, and preservatives as well as sugar and salt.
What I would like to see is a move towards educating children how to cook, and the same for parents and the professionals that are in charge of their welfare when not at home. This I would hope would lead to a more food conscious public, if schools had days where they offered burgers others with pizzas, etc, and these were interspersed with days where the food was more "healthy" then no one would be losing just sacrificing a little.
What I would like to ask you is why should schools not be responsible for healthy eating in kids? not as responsible as a parent I agree, but schools play a big role in preparing children for the world.
Schools are certainly entitled to encourage and teach kids how to live and eat a healthy lifestyle because well, that is what the purpose of school. However, they are not responsible for the choices that those kids make because that is impossible. Many of kids lives held in the balance of public school bureaucrats. No.
There are healthy choices at school, yet most kids choose the unhealthy. Why? It is their choice. Plus, in general, healthy food is more expensive than junk food. Why? Because if junk food was more expensive than healthy food, junk food wouldn't exist. So, many schools are forced into buying junk food because of budget shortcomings especially in this economy.
The biggest problem that always presents itself when talking about this issue is money, healthy food can be more expensive but this problem arises from the processes that are used to make the food and the fact that healthier food stuffs are in shorter supply, shorter because the demand is much smaller this makes them more expensive.
What I was talking about though is not completely cutting out Junk food, like you say young people will always go for junk food. The problem is that there is too much choice and I admit some terrible cooking going on.
I was a Chef for eleven years I know that it is quite possible to produce healthier food on a tiny budget. It takes a little imagination and a lot of education though to get people into eating healthier foods and respecting food as it should be. If junk food was more expensive I am sure it would still exist, people always need a quick fix. The state of the economy should have little impact on this topic though as this stuff was going on even during the better years.
Food needs to be a bigger part of the educational system as it has such a high impact on peoples health, happiness and well being, it is foolish to ignore this fundamental essential.
Agreed. The biggest problem with healthy food is that it is expensive due to the supply and demand of healthy food where supply is contributed to the inefficient processes that are used to make the food, and less people want to eat it. That is a problem.
As for young people, what is wrong with having too much choice? Wrong choices make smarter decision for the future.
Agreed. Food needs to be a bigger part of the educational system as it has such a high impact on peoples health, happiness and well being, it is foolish to ignore this fundamental essential.
But, it doesn't detract that food choices are educational only, and not coerced by banning.
As for young people, what is wrong with having too much choice? Wrong choices make smarter decision for the future.
This is undoubtable, the problem though is that young peoples bodies and minds are developing all the time, certain food additives (phosphoric acid comes to mind) mess with the homeostatic balance in their bodies which could lead to greater problems in life. The situation with the choice in this scenario is that it is the most commonly chosen is the worst offender.
But, it doesn't detract that food choices are educational only, and not coerced by banning.
Agreed, my stance from the start is not to totally ban but to control I realise now though my debate tags say otherwise.
Sure, there is the scientific evidence that proves what junk food can do to young developing minds, and may lead to greater problems in life. Isn't that a choice that they have to live with. For example, my friend in high school smoked and I didn't. Now, as you noted, he is paying the price for his choice. Due I feel sympathy for his health? Yes, but he made the choice to look cool in high school.
Isn't control as the same as banning? Where is the difference? Control implies restricting.
It is a choice they make, but children should not always be allowed to make their own decisions as they will mostly chose that which is bad for them, there is a big difference between smoking and eating though, eating is not seen in the same light, probably because every one has to eat and nobody has to smoke.
The situation where I come from is that schools ban smoking outright, but what food is ate is at anyones discretion. Schools supply food, they don't supply cigarettes.
Schools are seen as a place of positive guidance, students may not like them but schools as well as parents and peers form who a person becomes. It is up to an individual child's parents to uphold their end of the deal but I feel schools fail in this respect. I understand that it would be very hard to turn that ship around but I believe it is possible and could create a healthier public.
As for control being the same as banning, maybe. If the schools themselves stop serving junk everyday and had it (freshly made) twice a week then the kids will have to bring it in themselves, this is then thoroughly at the feet of the parents. This is where I think it should go.
Sure, some decisions should be made for children, but eating is not one. That must be learned through education.
In America, smoking is banned in schools as well, and all advertising is banned in general.
That is what wrong with America and public schools. Parents are being held accountable to upholding their end of the deal and cop out and leave all responsibility to schools for responsibility.
Well, if schools stop serving junk food at school, and serve healthy food, there probably be spike in kids bringing it to school instead.
This is where the biggest problem is, but I do think it needs to start somewhere and the kids of today will be the parents of tomorrow and hopefully would be able to realize through their education the difference and make more informed choices.
Yes, junk food should be banned. Healthy eating habits should be trained from young, so that students will continue to make better food choices when they are older.
Firstly, junk food is more expensive than the healthier food sold in school. If junk food is not banned, then students may eat them most of the time, they would spend much more money. Parents would have to give their children more for their pocket money. So it would be better to ban junk food in public schools.
As shown by much research, junk food can lead to obesity and many health problems, like high blood pressure and diabetes. Even though a child may appear 'healthy' now, he/she may experience obesity-related problems, then he/she will have to spend more money on medical treatment in the future. Being fat also makes one less confident in oneself.
Should be??? hahaha...that is the problem with debates, it's always about "should be this" or "could be that" or "but i think" come on man i applaud your fraudulent attempt at heroism here but the main topic should be do people really wanna change???? come up with that answer then proceed to this one...can i change my argument maybe?...cause i am such a donkey's ass for saying the same exact thing everyone has been saying on the whole left side of the arguement...ssshhh i know statistics are the golden rule...it must be upheld by our agree hero's!!!!...
I think it is a matter of what someone wants to eats but if they want to eat it they should bring it themselves. schools do not want to be responsible for obease children. I also think that schools should UPGRADE their healthy food, no wonder everyone wants unhealthy food because its the only edible thing.
Last time i checked America had a high percentage of kids suffering from obesity. Therefore the school boards should moderate how much junk food is avaliable to students. They shouldn't ban it but they should lessen the amount that is currently avaliable.
Prayerfails argues (of course) that daddy corporation comes to the rescue of these poor schools by giving them money so they should be allowed to sell garbage.
This however is false. Taxes pay for schools.
And there is another outdated and completely unnecessary thing that taxes pay for called farm subsidies. We should make as part of a guarantee of continued farm subsidies which have become completely unnecessary in today's super mega huge farms, we should insist they provide our schools with healthy food.
That way we don't increase spending, and reduce it on the cost of all the diabetes we have to treat when these fat kids get older.
Prayerfails: Plus, junk food companies donate millions of dollars to schools so they can operate.
Me: So they can operate? Hardly, schools are funded by the government. Whether or not the schools have unnecessary state of the art equipment is irrelevant to operation.
yeah, junk food should be banned from schools. students will never get a chance to get junk food for themselves if it is banned. at least they would be reducing a junk meal of every days diet of students. it will also help in reduction of the number of the obese children or fatties.
if you eat junk food at school, then you can't really control yourself as much as when you're at home because then no one is really watching you at school.
Schools have absolutely no authority to control what students should eat or not. Especially in high school, the students should be mature enough to take care of themselves. If they choose to eat junk food then let them; it is their own decision. Some people do not see it as ruining their health.
i think junk foods should be banned because in schools when authorities sell it and it is been eaten by students they are not fully digested and it disturbs the physic of the students and it slow adds on and on.sometimes,they cause diseases and bp, tension it will disturb them mentally also.i could surely opt for a expensive healither food than wasting /ruining a child's future which cause their death.
Banning junk food will be advantageous for the school in general. Due to the availability of junk food in schools the obesity rates in children are continuously increasing. Junk food can also cause various heart diseases as well as other diseases.
Limiting the childrens intake of junk food could help them to become more fit,healthy and active.If they want to consume junk food they can do so after school hours.The school's number one priority should be the student's well being which also includes their health.
Whether it is bad food or not, it is the choice of the person to pick what they want to eat. If they want to eat healthy they can pick the healthy dish
You can't use laws and rules to regulate a person into learning a life lesson. They must learn it of their own accord. Unless the junk food is distracting from schoolwork or classtime, it would be out of the purview of the school to regulate it.
You can't use laws and rules to regulate a person into learning a life lesson.
So we shouldn't have laws against drugs ... because having rules to regulate them wont teach anyone a life lesson.
They must learn it of their own accord.
Give the people cocaine, so that they can learn how bad it is!
Unless the junk food is distracting from schoolwork or classtime, it would be out of the purview of the school to regulate it.
Junk food is bad for the body, just the same as other illicit drugs, alcohol, etc etc. Children do not know what is good and bad for them, that is why they are taught. Schools can start them out early on a healthier diet so that a healthy lifestyle can be promoted from an early age. To allow junk food on the argument that kids cannot have rules set before them to teach them a life lesson is ludicrous.
Schools exist to teach. "junk food" doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, habits do. If I was a principle at a school i would want junk food in the vending machines if I was trying to teach the kids to have healthy habits. I could monitor if they are applying the lessons then, all that would be needed is a contract with the vender which states I have access to information on what is being sold and supplied to the students. Without that tool all i would have is hope that less profit coming in from the vending machines is worth not knowing if the kids are applying what they've been taught. If food habits are such a problem, lets deal with the habits then; throwing a minor obstacle in their way isn't going to solve anything.
People must learn not to use cocaine of their own accord. There is a reason a supply exists, its because there is a demand.
Rules do not teach life lessons, they just teach that the man behind the desk can tell the guy in the uniform to do whatever unpleasant thing you can imagine so you better listen when he tells you the first time...
So I guess you have never heard of physical education or HOPE.
"junk food" doesn't cause diabetes or obesity, habits do.
Which if a child has a habit why fuel it?
If I was a principle at a school i would want junk food in the vending machines if I was trying to teach the kids to have healthy habits.
In trying to teach them healthy habits you would make unhealthy food choices, well I hope I don't see you taking that position.
I could monitor if they are applying the lessons then, all that would be needed is a contract with the vender which states I have access to information on what is being sold and supplied to the students.
Kids are kids, if you make something that is bad for them that tastes good available to them they will buy it. Whether or not they were just told how unhealthy the product was. Your experiment will simply show that kids will be kids and do what they want whether or not it is good for them.
If food habits are such a problem, lets deal with the habits then; throwing a minor obstacle in their way isn't going to solve anything.
Taking away junk food from one of their main sources of food is not a minor problem. It will not solve the problem indefinitely but it will pack a punch, removing unhealthy food from the cafeteria is a move in a good direction not a bad one.
Without that tool all i would have is hope that less profit coming in from the vending machines is worth not knowing if the kids are applying what they've been taught.
Vending machines still exist, just with healthy choices...
People must learn not to use cocaine of their own accord. There is a reason a supply exists, its because there is a demand.
Making it available to the general public won't reduce the demand, it will only increase it.
Rules do not teach life lessons, they just teach that the man behind the desk can tell the guy in the uniform to do whatever unpleasant thing you can imagine so you better listen when he tells you the first time...
would the following be a good summery of your position?
Kids are incapable of making rational decisions. Therefore for their health others have to make decisions for them.
If so I'll say that children and teenagers can be surprising. Especially when taught properly. My 10 year old niece can play chess because her father sat down and taught her. She might not be able to beat me, but she makes some good moves and if she continues to play: it wont be long till I'm learning from her. Once when my nephews were being rambunctious I decided to make a game out of math, they now occasionally ask to play the game and do math without any prompting from me. My 15 year old friend is capable of deep philosophical discussion beyond most adults I meet. All of this is due to rational thought; without it chess, math, and philosophy wouldn't be. Given the proper environment exercising rational thought becomes desirable to kids, and they will indeed display rationality. If it is irrational to consistently pig out on junk food, it is completely possible to create an (non-coercive) environment where it becomes desirable for them not to consistently pig out on junk food. This would have its benefits to everyone. Kids wouldn't be obese or have diabetes due to food habits well they are in primary education and wouldn't develop it after they graduate. The problem wouldn't be covered up or postponed(which covering it up is not a step in the right direction, its passing the buck so to speak), it would actually be solved. If the decrease in the demand of junk food from proper education doesn't go below the hypothetical increase in non-junk food from withholding junk food then the school could make more money by selling junk food while at the same time not allowing children to become fat or diabetic.
Also, living in a democratic society(s)[assuming your from one] a persons level of Autonomy is something which should be made as high as possible. Education is an Autonomy increasing force and should be used as such. An educational institution would better serve society by focusing on increasing autonomy, not on taking it away. For by increasing autonomy they are teaching what is required in a democratic society. What is required is making informed uncoerced decisions. I have always found it ironic we expect people to vote on, debate on, etc issues and representatives in society after they have been put through an often authoritarian educational system during their developmental years. Ones where they have been treated as incapable of rational thought for years, and expected, to the point of almost being encouraged, to fail at rationality.
Though they both are quite capable of being surprising, many of them are not surprising in the aspect of what they like to eat.
game out of math
You made it a game, kids like games.
Kids like unhealthy food, it tastes good.
Everything you are saying is basic psychology, I know where everything you are saying is leading. It is however pointless, as a kid will still do what he/she wants if given the choice to do whatever he/she wants.
My 15 year old friend is capable of deep philosophical discussion beyond most adults i meet
Then the 15 year old is most likely with those in a genius level IQ range, which trust me isn't the norm as far as the population goes. Your following statement reiterates this. beyond most adults i meet
If it is irrational to consistently pig out on junk food, it is completely possible to create an (non-coercive) environment where it becomes desirable for them not to consistently pig out on junk food.
If parents are not teaching them good paths to follow, they will find it hard to follow the good paths.
Yes, it is basic psychology. Schools do not use it enough in their educational methods. That is a problem.
Hes not a genius, he is wrong as often as he is right. He is young though, I hope he'll prove me wrong. He isn't normal that I will give you. He isn't because of his environment, not only because of inherent properties of himself.
If parents are not teaching them good paths to follow, they will find it hard to follow the good paths. agreed. Educational institutions can effect children in a way that they will effect their parents. Marketing companies do it all the time by using basic psychology in their commercials. "Hey kids, tricks are for kids." -commercial "MOMMY MOMMY I want the fluffy bunny rabbit on my box of cereal."-kid "eh, ok honey."-mom. It could very well go something like this: "hey that has the food triangles on it mommy(referring to a healthy box of cereal)!", "ok...?" " I want it!". "what are food triangles?" "what! their triangles that tell you what amount of the different types of food you should eat based off of your body type..." "wow, ok honey".
I don't know about all schools, but my school doesn't offer junk food, actually, no other food outside of lunch. People get junk food because they bring it themselves and sneak to eat it during class.
Indeed a kid does not have the capacity to process and think actions like an adult if theres a candy bar and a salad and they costa a same i would buy the candy bar cause i do not think of what could happen later like an adult does, and if they sneak food in its the kids decision, the school is making is contributing to decrease obesity, besides if a kid sneaks food in its an example of the kids incapability to make the right decision.
Eating junk food is a matter of choice. Plus, junk food companies donate millions of dollars to schools so they can operate. THIS IS BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU.
It is a choice that shouldn't be advocated. It is a choice just the same as weed, meth, and cocaine are. They aren't advocated though.
Plus, junk food companies donate millions of dollars to schools so they can operate.
So they can operate? Hardly, schools are funded by the government. Whether or not the schools have unnecessary state of the art equipment in irrelevant to operation.
THIS IS BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU.
So if big tobacco companies started donating to schools, we should set up cigarette vending machines ...?
Companies have the right to advertise junk food, and junk food is choice. Choice of food should be personal and not made by government. What next?
I am in favor of legalizing weed, methane and cocaine, and matter of fact, I am in favor of legalizing all drugs.
Correct, operate was a poor choice of words, but yes, government funds public schools but there are millions of dollars donated by junk food companies Corporate donations
If the government allowed tobacco companies donated to school, why not put vending machines in schools?
If someone doesn't eat junk food, vending machines aren't going to affect them at school and the same goes for cigarettes.
Sure they have the right to advertise, who was debating that?
Junk food is again a choice that shouldn't be pushed by schools. Kids are unhealthy enough as it is, they need to be in environments that are advocating eating healthy.
What next?
What are you talking about? Eating junk food is still the choice of the individual, hell kids can bring it to school if they want to. The problem at hand is having junk food available to purchase in the lunch line, a place where kids are five days a week. What people eat cannot be regulated, however where and how much can be.
If the government allowed tobacco companies donated to school, why not put vending machines in schools?
I said tobacco vending machines, where one could push F3 and get some Marlboro's.
I am in favor of legalizing weed, methane and cocaine, and matter of fact, I am in favor of legalizing all drugs.
That is your own mental problem if you are advocating giving meth to children.
"One of the more popular methods for raising money is for a school or school district to sign an exclusive beverage contract with Coca-Cola or Pepsi in return for a share in the profits. The practice tripled across the nation from 1997 to 1999 and now includes 150 districts in 29 states, including many in Michigan, according to The Detroit News." This is certainly not only advertising, but promoting soda. If this is not a motive to push soda, then what is? Otherwise, those companies will stop donating or go to a different school.
Ok, we established that eating junk food is a choice. It is not the school's responsibility to promote eating healthy balanced diet, that is the responsibility of the parents.
What is wrong with having tobacco vending machines in schools? Most high school students who smoke will eventually get their hands on them anyways.
I am in favor of legalizing drugs to general public, not giving them to children.
So now you are picking a specific group of students, when high school only counts as about 30% of a child's public education.
This is certainly not only advertising, but promoting soda.
First off I am talking about banning junk foods in school, not about how they have been promoted in the past. Them being promoted is obvious, which is why I made a debate asking whether or not it should. Meaning the problem already existed, but thanks for reiterating the problem at hand.
Secondly Coke products and Pepsi products all have "zero" products. Which have no sugar or carbs, and most lack caffeine as well, I myself at the school I attend have no regular soda only died and "zero". So soda isn't necessarily the issue, its the kind of soda.
It is not the school's responsibility to promote eating healthy balanced diet, that is the responsibility of the parents.
It is the schools responsibilities are close to equal with the parents in raising children. After all children are at school more often than not more than the parents are with their awake child in any given day.
Schools and parents both share the jobs required to get their kids on the right track to leading a good life. They both instruct how to be healthy ( P.E. for example ), both teach children life lessons, and are with the child for a good portion of the child's developing mind.
So I hope we have established that it is both the school's and parent's responsibility to promote eating a healthy balanced diet.
What is wrong with having tobacco vending machines in schools?
Well considering the age group of our debate is public schools, which means the age group ranges from about 5-19 ... I find giving cigarettes to a 10 year old disturbing, but hey thats just me.
I am in favor of legalizing drugs to general public, not giving them to children.
But you are in favor of putting cigarette vending machines in public schools which includes children...
Oh, please, schools are equal with the parents in raising children. Just because they are in school more than they are with the parents, it doesn't equal responsibility.
Just what deadbeat parents love to hear? "YES, no responsibility. I don't have to support financially and don't have to make decisions for my children, and I can leave to the school, for which I didn't even pay in taxes."
Soda zero products only pertain to certain students. So now you are picking a specific group of students. Most students drink sugar soda.
Vending Machines implies the idea of choice, nobody is giving or forcing anybody to smoke cigarettes.
Just because they are in school more than they are with the parents, it doesn't equal responsibility.
So do you agree that schools are equal in the development of a child's mental development?
"YES, no responsibility. I don't have to support financially and don't have to make decisions for my children, and I can leave to the school, for which I didn't even pay in taxes."
Oh did I say schools have total responsibility? Sorry I thought I said parents and schools share the responsibility in raising a child from pre-k to the high school diploma.
Soda zero products only pertain to certain students. So now you are picking a specific group of students. Most students drink sugar soda.
Oh that was me saying donations are ok in some circumstances, I thought you could read between the lines.
Vending Machines implies the idea of choice, nobody is giving or forcing anybody to smoke cigarettes.
No, but making them available promotes the unhealthy lifestyle that smoking is.
How many meals do children eat at school? Last time I checked, it was one. Two are home. Two is more than one. So, no, leading a healthy eating lifestyle is not equal.
I simply don't agree that schools and parents share the responsibility to raising a child. Schools give the tools to raising children to be good citizens, but not the responsibility which is placed upon the parents. Children model their parent and their habits.
There is beer and cigarettes at available at gas stations and grocery stores, yet I don't do either because my parents' felt that it was their responsibility to lead me to a health lifestyle and my choice and not the school.
How many meals do children eat at school? Last time I checked, it was one. Two are home. Two is more than one. So, no, leading a healthy eating lifestyle is not equal.
Check again. Ever heard of school breakfast ... ?
lead me to a health lifestyle and my choice and not the school.
How do you know it wasn't your teachers influence ...?
Are you saying the school you went to/are going to advocated smoking cigarettes and alcohol?
I have heard of school breakfast, but it is only a option, so it is not a officially sanctioned meal provided by the school. So, it is still only one sanctioned meal, which is lunch.
How do you know it wasn't your teachers influence ...?
I know because my parents and I had sit down discussions, although I admit were not fun but important whereas I never sat down with a teacher.
No, the school is not advocating smoking cigarettes, I am saying that I didn't need the school in making healthy lifestyle decisions.
I have heard of school breakfast, but it is only a option, so it is not a officially sanctioned meal provided by the school. So, it is still only one sanctioned meal, which is lunch.
They are both options ...
No, the school is not advocating smoking cigarettes, I am saying that I didn't need the school in making healthy lifestyle decisions.
Well you are not a statistic as a whole. Just because your parents sat down and told you what to eat and what not to doesn't mean all children get that benefit.
Children usually don't make the right choices as far as eating goes, if you make what tastes better but is worse for you they will nearly always choose unhealthy. Without parents next to them telling them what not to eat and what to eat they base their choices on what they are hungry for. If their is nothing but healthy food available their choices will begin leaning towards the healthy side.
Preciously, you made my point for me. Just because your parents sat down and told you what to eat and what not to doesn't mean all children get that benefit. My parents were responsible as will I as should all other parents. If people decide to have sex and decide to reproduce children, it is a individual or collective responsibility of the parents and not a public responsibility pawned onto taxpayers through public schools. Allowing public schools to take responsibility for children and teenagers is evading responsibility for fulfilling a duty by the parents. It is a cop out. The easy way out. Those parents can make cake and eat it too.
So, you are suggesting that your parents are not responsible? Because it sounds as though because of the pro-public school and public responsibility of children?
Why should my parents or I should have to pay more taxes for irresponsible parents who neglect their children by not instilling good healthy food decisions. Well, it is probably lack of education for food and it is probably the lack of responsibility of grandparents.
Allowing public schools to take responsibility for children and teenagers is evading responsibility for fulfilling a duty by the parents. It is a cop out. The easy way out. Those parents can make cake and eat it too.
It is a cop out to let parents feed their kids junk food, then let them come to school and feed them more. Until they become another statistic of obesity in children.
If a parent is already giving their child junk food they are already slacking in their responsibilities ... so they already are making their cake and eating it.
Sex doesn't equal junk food in school cafeterias... not the same choice nor level of responsibility.
So, you are suggesting that your parents are not responsible? Because it sounds as though because of the pro-public school and public responsibility of children?
First question makes sense, second one lost me.
My parents were responsible in raising me "right". Taught me that eating unhealthy food and drinking soda wasn't a good choice. That, however, did not stop me from buying Snickers out of vending machines.
Well, it is probably lack of education for food and it is probably the lack of responsibility of grandparents.
As you say it it sounds wrong but the companies are not intrested in the school their intrested in the money they get. Besides theres plenty other hands feeding schools alredy the biggest one is the goverment that are part tax.
It should not be banned from schools. I am still in high school and see first hand that kids now a days are way too lazy. This is even beggining to show in adults based on family friends even parents. TOO MUCH TV TOO MUCH VIDEO games that is the problem get out and do something EVERY SINGLE day.
You are in high school and you see first hand how lazy kids are, that TV and video games are a major problem. Right so far? So lets take it a step further and say that junk food is a good underlying factor. It is heavy in carbs and fats, not good for a healthy lifestyle, and essentially slows the body down.
So we could factor in junk food to your TV and video game equation.
we aren't fighting over TV or video games, it is of course these too that help in obesity but it is mostly junk food that causes these problems. so u are wrong. see the topic at hand.
as a young person i love !!!JUNK FOOD!!! and if any of you are like me then you would know how much i like junk food... also I know that adults also know how much kids around 5-10 which is also the people that love !!!JUNK FOOD!!! more then me and also the people go to school and would accually go through the effort to go to the shops in the morning before school. so if all these little kids that go to school are running around in there breaks then why is every one so conserned about people having people in school being obese?ask yourself that question and think about it
so if all these little kids that go to school are running around in there breaks then why is every one so conserned about people having people in school being obese?
Ok so as a young person you like what is unhealthy for you, that makes sense. However it isn't good for you, and getting rid of it does make sense.
Obesity will happen with or without kids running around, unless you are in kindergarten ( and with your grammar and spelling it is quite possible ) you will not be experiencing recess every hour. In fact the only class you might look towards for physical fitness is P.E. and even then most kids end up walking around and not actually doing the instruction given.
Obesity isn't the only problem with junk food, diabetes is to. You can be the healthiest looking person in the world and end up having diabetes, you can get diabetes with or without heavy exercising. It's all in what you eat.
Since eating junk food is a danger on a individual basis, why not ban skiing, football, baseball, boxing, soccer, racing, hunting & fishing? Because these are a dangers to individual's health.
It is not a danger I never said that, it is detrimental to the growth in a child. Also leading to different forms of bodily degrade i.e. obesity, diabetes. It isn't dangerous, merely unnecessary.
Sports promote having a healthy body. A few injuries here and there are not detrimental to growth, unlike obtaining diabetes and living with a blood tester in your pocket 24/7 for the rest of your life.
So, what about the thousands of jobs where "junk food is made." Are you going to tell them that their job was eliminated because junk food is a danger that leads to obesity and diabetes. I think that they would prefer to keep their job and rely on free choice, liberty and personal responsibility in eating healthy instead of government intervention.
Well, that is a good idea, but there is one problem. The supply of jobs that make healthier foods are already filled. Why? Because the market demands it that way. Since the market demands junk food, there will be junk food. There is only a supply if there is a demand.Unless America shifts towards eating more healthy food, the healthy problem will not change. One person or entity shouldn't make arbitrary decisions on what the general public wants, that should be left to the market, and schools and government should stay out of what the market demands.
First of all, students ought to have a variety of food to choose from in schools. When students are in schools they face tremendous stress from homework, assignments and whatnots. Why deprive them of one of the few incentives to come to school that is to have some awesome deep fried food or sweet-tasting chocolate brownies?! Why confine them to eating what is socially perceived as healthy but utterly bland? So authoritative. For all we know, the high energy (junk) food can be effective in maintaining students' enthusiasm in class, think sugar rush!
You can get a lot of energy from trail mix and many other healthy foods. The energy from those foods are better because they last longer. A sugar rush only lasts for a few minutes.
But if what appeal to kids are junkfood, the healthy foods you mentioned aren't going to be consumed and therefore zilch benefit will be reaped, won't it?
If junk food were banned, then the kids will have no choice but to eat healthier foods. If they get hungry enough, then I'm sure that they'll eat something healthy.
So you are advocating obesity and diabetes in children ...?
Sugar rushes are not a good thing, they are actually extremely detrimental to a child's learning abilities. A child gets a sugar rush, becomes hyperactive and unable to concentrate. Shortly following comes the crash, where the child loses interest in being in the room itself and will consider sleep as a very good option.
My main idea there was not about sugar rushes but rather, intermittent consumption of junkfood can provide energy needed by children in breaks for example, to continue the day.
Also, it didn't occur to me to advocate obesity and diabetes, what I was against is simply the banning of junkfood. Very explicitly saying, Junkfood should therefore NOT be banned from public schools. (notice I'm not saying getting fat is therefore good)
My stand's pretty simple actually: Junkfood should not be banned because children are free to eat what they want to (measures should be implemented to exercise control, of course) and junkfood in small amounts definitely can provide energy for these children's day. (That's it. Don't read too far into it)
Letting something that children like, tastes good, but is terrible for the body be available for consumption 5 days a week is a bad move. Children eat what they like no whats good for them.
Junkfood should not be banned because children are free to eat what they want to
Children should not be free to make very big decisions, choosing between what tastes good and what is actually good for you is to big a choice to be readily available to a child 5 days a week.
why ban? only junk food can be sold in vending machines. what happens to the hungry students when they do not have food to eat when canteen stores are closed? do they have to go on studying with an empty stomach?
The vending machine doesnt have to sell junk food, rather they can sell healthy snacks such as crackers, dried fruit, pretzels, juices, granola and cereal bars, ect..
Junk food should not be banned because children have the choice whether or not to eat healthy and get excercise and such. They bring obesity and diabetes onto themselves. Other healthy kids should not be forced to eat healthy against their will if they do not wish to. If they are obese they should get more excercise and eat healthier. No one is forcing them to eat unhealthy products as they do.
y should junk food be band from schools well they should put healthy food in school food but people don't always need healthy food so i disagree with you guys
No. Rather, supply the schools with both healthy food and "junk" food. Then, leave it up to the students to make the choice of what they should eat. No point in preventing them from eating something they'll get outside of school anyway.
Yes, i agree junk food is bad for your health, BUT. People, even students do have the rights as a human to choose what they want to eat, so others like principals do not have the right to control what the students eat.
NO, you just need to admit that you are fat and need to ask your self a question "Do I really need that Twinkie or that Ding Dong", " Do I really want to get fatter", "Do I really want to ruin it for the skinnier kids that want junk food". But really other students shouldn't be punished because somebody else is breaking the ricketier scale. Okay you guys, do you like junk food, then if you know your over weight just admit it nobody cares that your fat