Junk Food should be banned from schools

Thanks Firewings! Observations I will be using this round to refute my opponent’s constructive case. I will leave the final round for a defense of my contentions in the form of a counter rebuttals. OBV1: My opponent opts in to forming no debate framework other than a framework of burdens which is unnecessary since it’s specified in the first round. This means that my entire framework ought to be bought by voters automatically. Voters ought to ignore my opponent’s criticisms on the debate framework that my opponent makes in his rebuttals as whilst he may mitigate the impact of the framework - he has no framework of his own meaning that votes are ultimately weighing my framework vs no framework. Voters need a framework so logically they must opt in to mine as opposed to no framework. OBV2: My opponent commits the fallacy of what is simply referred to as source spamming. His use of 64 sources is ridiculously excessive and is often used by those that wish to make their arguments appear more credible. The overuse of sources does not make his argument any more credible it simply looks like he’s trying too hard to receive authenticity of his arguments. Providing 7 sources to show that dark chocolate is good is ridiculous. OBV3: My opponent provides his sources in an external link. In the rules that my opponent set up himself, the debate character limit was set at 10,000 characters. By providing his sources in a separate link he gains additional characters to formulate his arguments as well as additional characters to source his arguments as, in essence, his characters for sources are infinite given that he’s providing them externally. This is largely unfair because in my constructive case I provided my sources in reasonable quantity but more importantly, I provided them within the rules and within the characters of the debate. This gives my opponent an unfair advantage which judges should not dismiss. I have abided by the debate rules, sadly my opponent has not chosen to do so himself. Given that my opponent’s sources are not contained within the characters of the debate and are instead contained within a broken link (the fixed link is in the comments section), I ask voters to penalize this lack of conduct by viewing his arguments as bare assertion and as unsourced content. Alternatives My opponent makes a long and unnecessary list of alternative foods. He makes the grammatically incorrect as well as subjective claim that these foods are “more tastier”. It isn’t surprising that my opponent fails to source this claim as there is no way to very that certain foods can be considered as objectively tastier than other foods. Taste and tastiness, in particular, are completely subjective and it is under my opponent’s burden to prove otherwise. Now some clarification may be needed. I never prohibited students from eating healthy foods as well as unhealthy foods. My counterplan never mentioned that I was going to ban healthy foods. Like I mention in my initial arguments, fats and sugars are necessary however I never said that healthy foods aren’t. My opponent provides no reason to suggest that healthy and junk foods aren’t compatible. To put this more simply view the following official image which is frequently used to show children the balance between foods: As you can see here. Foods high in fat or sugar are still necessary - just in smaller quantity (hence why I formed a counter plan with limitation on junk food). Given that we can clearly see that both healthy and unhealthy foods are needed banning junk food is not the solution. I completely agree with my opponent that fruits and vegetables and all the foods he lists as alternatives are good but they I disagree that they should be used as alternatives. I believe that they should be eaten in a balanced way - which is scientifically the best way to keep healthy [1]. This is how schools are currently set out [2]. Children have both junk and healthy food. My opponent wishes to ban junk food and just give children healthy food. Whilst at first this may sound like the best option but if we refer back to source [1] and the image above then you’ll once again realize that a balanced diet (which is the status quo) is scientifically the best diet. Furthermore, this is all excluding the fact that we already have a debate framework. The only framework in this debate is about utilitarianism and freedom of choice. By forcing children to only have healthy foods and not have junk foods you are violating the framework so even if you don’t buy the objections above, all that is needed to take into account here is the framework and this argument is negated as the freedom is choice is lost. Let us now put this into a syllogism: P1: The status quo promotes a balanced diet of both healthy and junk food. P2: My opponent wants to remove junk food from the status quo. P3: It is scientifically proven that a balanced diet with junk food is better than one without. C1: My opponent’s case is negated because it creates a worse scenario than the status quo. P4: The framework of this debate regards utilitarianism and freedom of choice. P5: Forcing children to not have junk food violates the framework. P6: Forcing children to have only healthy foods also violates the framework C2: My opponent’s case does not coincide with the debate framework and is negated. Children’s Health My opponent’s comments are all true. However it doesn’t take the counterplan into consideration. I am putting limitation of 2 items of junk food per day on so that these children overdose on junk food. A lot of my opponent’s examples do not count under the definition of junk food. Junk foods have to be high in sugar or fat according to my opponent’s definition. Vegetable oil, margarine, French fries, processed cheese and high calorie coffee drinks are not high in fat or sugar. They may be unhealthy but my opponent’s definition does not count them as valid items of junk food. For the items that do count it is important to re-look back onto the multiple complications that junk food deficiencies can cause. Like I said previously, fat deficiencies can cause learning difficulties, eczema, suicidal tendencies, poor growth, poor memory, poor wound healing, etc. making fat necessary [3]. As I also said, sugar deficiencies can cause shakiness, nervousness, confusion, hunger, etc. [4]. I am aware that my opponent has made objections to these points however since this round is only for rebuttals I will defend them and counter my opponent’s points in the final round. My opponent’s sources and diagram regards whether or not you have TOO MUCH junk food. Given that the counterplan states that there will be a 2 item limit, it’s relatively clear that there won’t be any overdosing (unless my opponent can prove that 2 items of junk food is too much) - which he hasn’t done thus far. Also, once more, my opponent violates the framework. I will now re-form a similar syllogism to the one formed in response to the previous contention: P1: Unhealthy foods are good for your diet in small quantity. P2: My counterplan states that unhealthy foods will be allowed in small quantity. C1: My counterplan is ideal. P3: My opponent states that junk food is bad and should be banned. P4: No junk food can lead to fat and sugar deficiencies. C2: My opponent’s argument leads to suffering which contradicts the framework. P5: My opponent’s constructive case must coincide with the framework to win this debate. P6: Both of his contentions violate the framework. C3: My opponent has lost this debate. With that, I hand it back over to Pro. The resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://www.fitness.gov... [2] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk... [3] http://allnutriments.blogspot.co.uk... [4] http://tinyurl.com...