Students Shouldn't Be Allowed to Eat in Class

Pro says, "You seem to be contradicting every little thing I say. .. Instead of picking apart my points of argument, why don't you lay out some better points? "Pro CLEARLY has not read any of my arguments. I laid out five better points in my last round, and all five of those points were DROPPED. Those points were: -Eating in class hurts no one-Breaks are good, natural and conducive to learning -Students have different eating habits, so imposing one universal standard is unwise and offensive-Pro shows no link between obesity and snacking-Snacking in class could even be a way of encouraging students to eat healthyAll five of these points were dropped AGAIN. I'll extend them through and ask that you vote Con merely in light of the fact that my case remains completely untouched, while Pro's remains in shambles. In addition to these points, I provided contentions within my rebuttals. I discussed utilitariaism last round, for instance, and Pro has completely dropped it. The point of a debate with a shared burden of proof is to lay out and defend your own case whilst ripping apart your opponent's. I have done that thoroughly. Pro says, "Many other students and I both find it very hard to concentrate when people are eating in class. It's very hard to concentrate on what the teacher is saying while you're hearing someone chew next to, behind, or in front of you. Before you try and tell me that not everyone finds chewing annoying, I'm going to tell you that I already know that. I'm just speaking from personal knowledge. Many students do find listening to someone chew extremely annoying. "Pro starts out with nothing more than anecedotal example, and then CONCEDES that she is speaking only from personal experience and that this view is not universal. She conceded and dropped, also, the point that imposing a universal standard where there isn't one as a way of depriving people of freedom of choice is wrong. After this remark from her, you should vote negative. She is not responding to my points at all, but merely repeating the points of hers which were already rebuted. I also commented in the last round that if you're paying attention, chewing will likely not be an issue. She dropped that. Pro says, "As I said before, I find it very distracting when I have to constantly listen to people pulling their hands in and out of bags. You just gave me your opinion and said "I don't consider it distracting at all. " I find it odd you said that, because I thought we weren't giving out opinions on here? You certainly keep calling me out on that. "We're not GIVING our opinions. It's a debate, so we need to defend our opinions. Pro does nothing more than state her opinions here, as well. She doesn't respond at all to the point I made, and once again her point is not universal and does not merit action such as disallowing children to eat during school. Pro says, "You said, z"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. .. ." Let me just say that it shouldn't be the school's responsibility if students aren't able to eat at home. (That's a completely different argument though, so I won't get into it). " Pro doesn't at all respond to any of the points I offered, nor is there any context to her remarks. She said in the last round that students shouldn't be hungry during their early classes, and I brought up three scenarios where this WOULD be th case. Whether it's the school's responsibly if the students aren't able to eat at home -- mind you, Pro does nothing more than ASSERT this as opposed to actually back it up, and I think it is utilitarian, per my last round, for public programs of this nature to exist to feed the neediest amongst us -- is utterly irrelevant becasue I've adequately rebuted Pro's point and she makes no effort at all to counter-rebut. Pro says, "But back to the being hungry part. .. If you don't eat for 6 and a half hours, you're not going to die. A you're not even going to pass out. Almost people don't eat for that long. "Pro once again completely drops my rebuttal. First, I noted that it could be far longer than six and a half hours in the absence of a break -- I pointed to eight in a half hours in my own experience -- and I rebuted her point regarding the fact that you're "not going to die" by noting a distinction between being alive and being happy, and pointed to utilitarianisn. Pro dropped that point. Passing out, also, is distinct from being happy. Pro tries to say that almost all people don't eat for that long. Note that this is (1) unsubstantiated and baseless (2) non-topical, because we're debating "ought," not "is" and (3) irrelevant, because even under a hypothetical where it is the case, this doesn't mean those people are happy. Pro says, "If you're constantly eating, you will become obese sooner or later. (Again, this is a completely different argument. So I'll just leave it there. )"When did I say ANYTHING about constantly eating? I did not. I said that student sshould have the option to snack during the day, and disallowing it is depriving them of their freedom of choice when they're not harming anyone. Even under a scenario where they COULD put on weight by eating -- and, no, I do not accept that nonsensical premise as Pro hasn't at all backed it up -- it would be their choice to do so, or subject to intervention by their friends, teachers, or parents. Pro says, "All of you're comments are just contradicting my arguments. .. You need to state your own points next time :)"This is embarassingly, parently false. I made my own points in Round 1, which Pro droppeed in their entirety, and then made contentons within my rebuttals, most of which Pro dropped. Conclusion I have rebutted all of Pro's arguments and she dropped every single one of my contentions.