Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

Thanks, Pro. "First, let's get something straight- I am a girl. " My apologies. Pro says, "Eating in class distracts other students because it's very hard to pay attention while you're listening to someone chew. "This is nothing more than Pro's opinion based on anecdotal evidence. She may find chewing distracting, whereas I, and many others, won't, or I would be so focused on the lecture material and on taking notes that I wouldn't pay any mind to whether or not my classmate happened to be chewing. If eating in class *is* distracting -- and that's a big "if" -- then it would follow that it's distracting for the students who are eating, as well, and therefore that they would refrain from doing so regularly so that they could pay attention to the lectures. Again, though, whether or not eating in class is distracting is utterly irrelevant, because even if it is, this is not a case for it being disallowed. You can eat and still pay attention to the lecture material. Teachers can set up during their classes lax periods where they're not throwing material at you, but rather engaging studies in discussions and allow them to, in the process, casually respond whilst eating. Speaking from experience, which is valid in this case because that's all Pro has provided, I've taken seminars where eating was allowed -- and in fact encouraged, as we had a set time for eating, but continued our discussion anyway -- and it wasn't the least bit distracting to anyone. We were all so engrossed in the material that it hardly made a difference to us. "Most students eat snacks like chips, goldfish, etc that are in bags. So you're also hearing the student constantly put their hand in the bag and pull their hand out of the bag. "This argument is positively laughable. First, she doesn't even demonstrate that most students are eating X, Y, and Z foods; this is nothing more than a nonsensical anecodotal example, and I can balance against this my own anecdotal example, where people whom I know and associate with eat fruit, which is not carried in individual bags. Second, putting your hand inside a bag is *not* categorcially distracting. I don't consider it distracting at all. As I said, if you're so engrossed in the discussion, as you should be, there are few things that will actually detract your attention from it. Moreover, even *IF* we could consider a hypothetical where ths is distracting, that's utterly irrelevant because it is not a proper argument for imposing one's will on another student. Eating in class doesn't harm anyone, but telling children that they must starve DOES, not only because it will destroy their focus and thinking if they're particularly hungry or anxious, but also because it could create in them utter resentment such that they ignore the lecture or create DISTRACTIONS out of spite. Pro's proposal is more conducive to classroom distractions than mine. Pro says, "In reply to your comment about how students don't always eat unhealthy snacks. .. Most students do eat unhealthy snacks. For example, was in a class where this girl pulled out a great big family size bag of goldfish! She ate it the entire class. And when students do eat foods like carrots, that doesn't solve the tire problem. Carrots are probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat. "Pro provides nothing more than a baseless anecdotal example stating that most students eat unhealthy snacks. Again, even under a hypothetical where we grant this -- and let me be clear that I'm not granting it because Pro has provided no basis for it -- this would stll be irrelevant, because this would provide a framework for teachers, parents and fellow students to encourage one another to eat healthier foods. Pro does grant that students eat carrots, but claims that carrots are the "probably the most annoying food to hear someone eat. " This is nothing more than her subjective opinion, and we can discard it outright if I balance it out with my own subjective opinion that carrots are NOT the most annoying food to hear someone eat. "Now, back to how you shouldn't be hungry during class. School starts fairly early. Usually between the hours of 7 to 8. As long as you eat breakfast before you go to school, you shouldn't be hungry for your morning classes. " What if a student wasn't able to eat breakfast? What if there are hostile conditions at their home? What if they are poor and cannot access breakfast foods, and would only be able to eat during the classtime if the teacher or school were to provide snacks? What if a student is running late and does not eat breakfast? More important, why should Pro's subjective assessment of what *SHOULD* be the case dictate the choices of others? Why should Pro be able to impose her will on others simply because she doesn't think they should be hungry? She speaks of morning classes. Let's say you awake at 5 a. m. and eat breakast -- and I did this whilst I was in high school every day -- and have class from 8 a. m. until 11:30 a. m. That's six and a half hours later, so it follows you'll be hungry. For me, my lunch break wasn't until 1:30 p. m. on most days, so that's about eight and a half hours later. Naturally I'm going to be hungry. Pro says, "break is also fairly early in the morning. So that's giving you another opportunity to eat. I know everyone doesn't have a break time. Even if you don't have a break, you still shouldn't be hungry. "Pro defeats her own argument by conceding that not everyone has a "break time. " I never had a break time. But her argument is ludicrous, because she merely ASSERTS that you shouldn't be hungry. Given the example I just provided, why wouldn't you be hungry? Pro says, "I have been at school for a very long time now, and I've never even eaten lunch at school. For more than 10 years now, I've brought one small snack to school. (ex: pretzels). I'm still alive! "Pro's example is not only ancedotal, but heavily egocentric. She assumes that her position is absolute, and because X is true for her, X is objectively true. That is far from the case. Not to mention, she defeats her own case by stating that she brought pretzels as a snack to school. She HAD a break before lunchtime, but many students in her place did not. Also, being alive is NOT a measure of happiness, but of existence. You can be alive, but unecessarily miserable. The utilitarian case, of course, is to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, and everything about my proposal to allow students to eat in class achieves this end. Pro says, "After break, you go to a few more hours of classes. "This is false; Pro has already conceded that not everyone has a break. Pro says, "then, you have lunch where you have another opportunity to eat! " Obviously her use of "another" is deceptive and false, per own admission. Also, so? My lunch period was late in the day. I was hungry before then. Pro says, "After lunch, you have a couple hours left before you go home and can eat again. "This of course depends on timing, and even if you're not hungry after lunch, you could be hungry before lunch, so my proposal still stands. Also, some students may have an earlier lunch, perhaps at 11:30 a. m. , and would be hungry later on in the day. Pro's problem is that she wants to stick a rigid, universal proposal when the real world is nothing like that. Her next comment reflects the rigidity of her proposal. She writes, "That's more than enough eating time if you ask me. " She admits outright that this is nothing more than her subjective opinion. The problem is, her opinion is not universal. Her opinion is not a reason to deny students the right and the option to eat in school, especially since they are not harming anyone. Give them the choice to do so, acknowledging that people and circumstances are different, and let them sort out the details themselves. Let them decide for themselves what is best for them. Pro basically drops the five ponts I laid out in my last round, so I'll extend all of those.