Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

=======Counter Arguments=======-----Opening Remarks-----Pro opens by criticizing me for not backing up the average sleep time for teens. I never made the claim that I would, nor is it necessary for me to do so because this debate is about why kids should be allowed to eat during class. How much sleep they get is irrelevant. If a lack of sleep is getting in the way of eating, then these student needs to go to bed earlier, wake up earlier, or eat during the numerous opportunities to do so during and after school. The high obesity rate suggests that kids are doing just that already.Pro then presents a quote and says that it proves me wrong on school start times. I don't know which source it's from, where in the source it's located or how this quote shows that students should be allowed to eat in class because Pro never outlines or develops any of these things (I guess she expected me to piece her argument together for her), but I do know that this quote is about high-schools in Kansas and New-York city specifically and therefore is not representative of the North American high-school system by-in-large. This is cherry picking. -- Note, this quote also talks about middle-school, but this is irrelevant to the argument about high-schools starting later on average.Pro goes on to say that I was the one who "got really into" scheduling, not her. This is an outright lie. Her very first argument in the very first round of debating was on this exact topic of school start times, end times, and over-all length. I'm not even sure what else to say. At this point I could end my argument here and I would already have enough to win, but I'll press on none-the-less.-----Lunch Time-----Pro argues that 20-30% of students skip breakfast, which goes back to obese kids because obese children cannot stop eating food, especially when they have to go through 4 hours of not eating. This may just be the most-wrong statement I've ever read. It's analogous to saying that 'because squares have four corners, they are round'. I'm not sure how to argue against this because I can't see how it's supposed to make sense prima-facie to begin with. No. Just... no.Pro defends herself from my claim that she lacks sources by saying she was talking about the average. Talking about the average doesn't excuse you from sourcing your claims, so that excuse isn't going to fly. She then says that if I don't believe her I should ask people at her nephew's school personally. It's not my job, as con, to validate your sources for you. I think I'm being trolled."Having very little source does not compare to 8 years of left source. Atleast i had the correct and con had very false information."I had to actually quote this because I don't understand what she's saying here well enough to paraphrase it. 8 years of left source? I'm not saying Pro had "little source", I'm saying she's made various claims with no sourcing whatsoever and this claim is one of them. =======Dropped Arguments=======Once again, pro dropped my argument on how eating every few hours is unhealthy. I've given her fair warning on this now, so there's no excuse for this.=======Sourcing Issues=======Same issue that I've been outlining this entire debate. =======Conclusion=======This was a very frustrating debate. I get the feeling that Pro secretly conceded right from the get-go and proceeded to troll me throughout this debate. I will not be debating Pro again in the future.Conduct: Con. Pro lied, cherry-picked, and repeatedly dropped the same argument.Spelling/Grammar: Con. Pick any random one of pro's paragraphs to read. You will find at least one grammar/spelling mistake.Arguments: Con. Pro was all-over the map with argument so nonsensical that I actually spent more time trying to figure out how these arguments were supposed to make any sense in the first place than I did to come up with rebuttals. Also, dropped arguments.Sources: Con. Pro failed to tie any of her sources to her claim despite being warned about it in literally every single round. Many of her sources didn't seem relevant to anything she said at all (which says something because many of her arguments were irrelevant too) and, to put the final nail in the coffin, many of her arguments were un-sourced all-together.Thank you for your time.