Students should be allowed to eat food in the classrooms

Here is my first response to my opponent"s claims. Rebuttal Number One: "This is actually false because I had class"" Stop right there. My opponent defends his position by citing personal experience. In fact, he does so multiple times. "This is actually false because I had class"" "This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools"" "in all these classrooms I have seen"" There is a huge problem with this logic. In the same way, I could cite my personal experiences defending my position. That doesn"t mean that I"m telling the truth, or that what I have experiences should be the only contributing factor to make a general conclusion of what should/shouldn"t be done. For example: Your claim: "This is actually false because I had class were you can eat in and it was never a distraction." I could claim: "But I had a class where you could eat and it was a distraction." That wouldn"t mean that I would be right. That would simply mean I made a claim with no logic, evidence, backing, data, etc. It would be okay if my opponent used something other than his personal experience to defend his claims. However, he only uses personal experience in two of his rebuttals. That makes his claims very weak. Rebuttal Number Two: My opponent describes a study that one of his teachers used. "And in fact it does help grades in one case study that my Science teacher did was 3rd period Earth Science was the control group and 4th period was the variable both had a C average and about 20 high school students on any given day and this experiment lasted for 2 months. She let the students in 4th period bring in food and eat quietly and do not share with anyone else. The grade average rose from a C average to a C plus average and the control group stayed ruffle the same so it can be concluded that eating can help students GPA." The specific study that you cite has many flaws. First off, it said that the average for the class who was allowed to eat in class rose from a C to a C Plus. However, exact percentages aren"t used. So, that means that the class could"ve previously had a 76% average, and the average changed to a 77%. The class with no food could"ve gone from a 74% to a 75% as well. That would imply that each class had the same gain, but the letter grade only changed. That doesn"t show that allowing kids to have food in school gave those kids an edge. Second off, the experiment my opponent cites doesn"t explain any of the other factors that might"ve been different between the two classes. Third off, the increase could"ve been for any reason (perhaps it was slightly easier material in the 2 month period than it was before that). Fourth off, there are no repeat experiments that would back your claim, which means the results could"ve been pure coincidence. Therefore, the results from this experiment are not that impressive and don"t prove my opponent"s point. Rebuttal Number Three: "You Prepared to state that " That food will cause a mess" This is also false because in every class room and I have been to many types of schools k-12, urban and rural schools, colleges and in all these classrooms I have seen a trash can in every single one of them." My opponent claims that just because trash cans are in every classroom that kids won"t litter. This is simply false. That be like saying that just because laws exist that people will always follow them. We know that to be false. In the same way, trash cans can be in rooms and kids will still potentially litter. Whether it is laziness, misbehavior, or carelessness, if there"s an incentive to dispose of food/trash in a wrong manner, it will potentially occur. For example, let"s use graffiti. As previously mentioned, many school kids graffiti the school walls. There are rules against it. However, people do it. Littering is very similar to this. If kids want to do it, they will still do it, whether or not a trash can is in the room. Rebuttal Number Four: "Some students can't make in time to eat breakfast at home or school and they go through five or so hours before lunch" My opponent claims that some students have no time to eat before school starts. While this is might be true, there are better alternatives to solve this problem other than allowing kids to eat in school. For example, the kids could go to sleep earlier and wake up earlier. The kid will have the same amount of sleep and will have more time to eat in the morning. It would be unnecessary to allow kids to have food in schools for this reason. Rebuttal Number Five: "i.e Richard is a 8th grade who dad makes 90,000 dollars a year no need for a free lunch but his dad is a major drunk/ gambler spending so much money on his addiction that he can't afford for Richard to eat the semi-frozen junk that most schools give now a days. But if Richard can get a dollar or two somehow he can buy a small snack versus a $5.00 meal in the afternoon." This example shows that the kid might only have money to afford small snacks. However, that is a separate issue from the one we are debating. Whether or not one can afford a lot of food doesn"t have to do with whether or not kids should be allowed to eat in school. If the kid can only afford a small snack, then there"s no reason he can"t eat it at home/before school. Schools shouldn"t allow students to have food in classrooms for this reason. Rebuttal Number Six: "1) If students are hungry they are thinking about food and not on the topic or assignment on hand. 2) If students do not have time to eat in the morning this will gave them the needed food and energy to get through the day. 3) What good is a student distracted and hungry not doing the work, and not gaining any knowledge." Once again, all of these three claims are just claims. They don"t have any reasoning or reason why they are true. Plus, all my claims in round two and three have shot down these claims. Based on what I have said, these claims really don"t do anything in proving his point. Conclusion: I have responded to everything my opponent has stated in round two and three and showed why everything he claims is flawed. Also, I have reaffirmed my points. My opponent still hasn"t responded to my round two claim that eating in classrooms is unnecessary.