Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit.

I want to start by thanking my opponent for his participation. I am pleased to see that my opponent agrees with me on the importance of trade. It seems that in this last round my opponent's arguments and rebuttals can be boiled down into two points: 1- There are better ways to teach trade practices than the act of students selling snacks to one another.2- The food the students are trading are not healthy.I. Better ways to teach trade: Young enterprise rebuttalSir Walter Salomon founded Young Enterprise in 1962. [1] It was based on the successful Junior Achievement programme in America. He admired the US charity’s ability to foster work readiness, entrepreneurship, financial literacy skills, and its philosophy of “learning by doing” that encouraged tens of thousands of young people to reach their potential. Because of the fact that the organization itself has a focus on the philosophy of "learning by doing", I would argue that this point is null in itself because the children are technically doing exactly what this program would teach them to do. We also can't say that this is no better than basic trade between students in terms of profit making because most participants in the programme actually do work towards making a profit for themselves. In the recent information tab titled Now on the same page as the link I shared above it goes on to claim that:"Young Enterprise’s pioneering Start-up scheme to help university students launch their own business booms as the economic downturn triggers a surge towards graduate self- employment. In the Spring of 2013, Young Enterprise launches the Tenner programme, a competition that challenges young teenagers to take a ten pounds loan, to do something enterprising, make a difference and give back. The scheme fits superbly with what we already do and provides a potential catalyst for major expansion."Not only does this programme promote making profits, but one challenge is specifically aimed at children under the age of 11 with the sole goal of selling goods or products for making a profit. [2] So why my opponent used this as an example is beyond me. These children are making profits just like the students who are selling snacks, with the only difference that the former is guided by adults (which makes sense since the children are below 11 years in age) whereas secondary school children (who range in age from 12-18) aren't necessarily supervised. [1] http://www.young-enterprise.org.uk...[2] http://www.young-enterprise.org.uk...II. Non-Profit Organizations and GreedI get where my opponent is coming from when he states that selling goods for profit are a matter of greed. Everyone knows that buying and selling for profits can be viewed as a form of greed. This then turns our argument into one on morality, and if it's ultimately for the greater good. I have no interest in turning this into a morality argument when I've already stated in previous rounds how: "This is the risk of trade, and under capitalism the seller has the right to sell the goods for a price that reasonably matches the demand. No-one is forcing these students to purchase the food, they are doing it willingly on their own accord. If both the buyer and seller have come to an agreement, it is implied that they are both satisfied with the parameters of the transaction. The only exclusion would be if it is a purchase made under duress, but this is not the case."I extend this point from my previous round based on the fact that my opponent left it standing unchallenged. The importance of this should not be underestimated because when a buyer agrees to the price of a sale, there is no un-fair practices being had - the buyer is willingly paying that price. There is no guarantee that volunteering for non-profit organizations can teach children how to conduct sales better than a hands-on experience of actually buying and selling products based on demand and supply which is exactly what these secondary students are doing. There is no greed or exploitation going on, so I see no point in recommending they do it for a non-profit group when they can gain just as good experience, if not better, by conducting the trades on their own accord. In doing so, they are their own boss. They can learn first-hand from their mistakes and it actually teaches them lessons because it directly affects their profits. They are highly unlikely to make the same mistake twice if they are losing profit. In a non-profit organization, they can make mistakes without any real repercussions in terms of their own profits - there is no guarantee that they will learn from those mistakes when their is no form of applicable repercussions that would truly affect them.My opponent failed to show how such lessons gained from volunteering can actually benefit someone more than the hands-on approach where their own profits might be truly affected. Hands-on experience has always been the best method of retaining knowledge gained from interactions and situations where lessons are needed to be learned. Especially when the people involved in such interactions have the mental capability to understand the ramifications of their actions as I also pointed out in my previous round. My opponent made the final point in this argument: "What students are doing by selling are only gaining slight knowledge of business, but their main incentive for their actions is purely because of the profit they make." My opponent failed to prove the validity of this statement by showing how students are only gaining a slight knowledge of business. There is no evidence for such a claim and I would counter-argue, as I did earlier, that this hands-on experience would provide a vast amount of knowledge for those involved when it comes to:1) Bargaining: which would build the social skills of compromising and meeting in the middle. 2) Supply and Demand: would teach the importance of accurate price listing and understanding what the consumer desires.3) Competing prices with other students: Would teach the importance of marketing, location, building relationships with consumers so they will return for later purchases, and ultimately the cut-throat nature of the trade business.4) Building a name for your business: A skill that can be applied to any and every young entrepreneur for future application. III. Healthy LivingAt the end of my opponents round, he introduced the issue of health which I already touched on in my previous round. Once more, he uses school rules as the factor that should ban such practices. I've already stated how:1) Students should not break school rules and that if they do - the punishment is justified.2) That school rules were never part of the resolution which is based on a "should" claim. Considering the IQ statistics I shared in my previous round - it is evident that these students have the intelligence necessary for determining the health benefits of certain foods. If they are willing to engage in such practices, it is evident that health is not a determining factor for such trades. Since school rules were not part of the resolution, it is clear that the only point my opponent really has going for him is if trading such unhealthy foods is morally acceptable. But when the factor of 'forced purchases' is removed from the equation, there are no moral issues being raised. The students view these foods as a 'good', which is why they are willing to purchase such products for the listed prices of sale. I would argue that hindering someone's ability to purchase a product they deem as 'good' would be more morally compromising to the standards of free-trade, capitalism, and individual preferences than it would over health. These students are fully capable of determining what they can and cannot eat and when school rules are removed from the equation- my opponents argument collapses on itself in terms of moral justification.