Kids shouldn't eat junk food.

First off I would like to point out that junk food is improperly defined and so is the notion of should not eat. My points will be (i) clarifying the scope of the debate, (ii) showing that junk food is not necessary bad, (iii) using the blanket term junk food prevents proper food education, (iv) eating junk food is sometimes useful, (v) junk food is tasty and should be treated as a treat. I. Scope of the debateAccording to WEBMD, junk food is generally food high in calories and low in nutrients. [1]By shouldn't eat, an English speaking person will normally understand that they should be forbidden or at least vigorously discouraged. The proposition of is not defined as principle or as policy and I think that it should be viewed as a policy since principle discussions are sterile and lack any real world application. Kids should mean 4-18 as until the age of 4 the diet is stricter for the child [2]. Also, after 18 years, there is no control over what a person eats. We also refer to children in countries where there access to food is possible and there is no famine or food shortage. II. Junk food is not necessary badThere are a lot of myths about junk food. Actually “junk” food is just as bad, or as good as the corresponding “home-made” food. In some cases the junk food is actually better than the home-made food. For example a junk food salad with some dressing or even the dreaded burger will not top a burrito, a shawarma, or a camel stuffed with goat stuffed with chicken stuffed with bacon. It is therefore more important that adults teach children to exercise sound judgment when they eat anything. The shorthand junk-food=bad, natural food=good is wrong and dangerous. III. Junk food is just a blanket termAs explained in the first source, there is no universally accepted definition of junk food (I just chose one that best matches pro’s argument). This means that using this term obfuscates good food education and prevents children from learning better info about calories, nutritional substances and adverse effects. If instead of sketchy info about junk food children are given hard facts about all food, junk food consumption would be limited to an acceptable level. IV. Eating junk food is sometimes usefulJunk food is prepared fast and has a LOT of calories. This means that there are times when the child can get his calories even when there is little time for a meal. The alternative of skipping a meal is worse than eating junk food. As stated above, when exercised with caution, eating junk food can prove useful. V. Junk food is a treat and should be treated as suchAll examples against junk food are just examples of excess. They are not able to prove that even small amounts of junk food are unhealthy. Even excess water can kill you [3] so it is better to teach children to eat and drink healthy than to ban junk food and think the problem is solved. Also children eat stuff for the taste and banning junk food would be excessive since it would include sweets (high calories, low nutrients) and other things they love. Where there is no excess, there is no reason to ban. If junk food is just a treat, than excess is prevented and all the problems listed by pro are also prevented. By (i) clarifying the scope of the debate, (ii) showing that junk food is not necessary bad, (iii) using the blanket term junk food prevents proper food education, (iv) eating junk food is sometimes useful, (v) junk food is tasty and should be treated as a treat, I consider that the motion should be rejected. Vote for Con. [1] . http://www.webmd.com...[2] . http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...[3] . https://www.scientificamerican.com...