Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

No problem. As a road map I'll simply attack Pro's arguments and move on to voting issues. 1. a. Varied sources are advantageous but this argument has no point. Because of the generalization of Americans kids being fat due to school food, thus we are debating upon that. b. http://www.usatoday.com... In the U.S a Big Mac costs $3.59. You claim one of your scratch food costs $4.00. So do the math, which costs more? We are saving at least $.3 per each Big Mac, add that on a big scale and we save a lot compared to a $4.00 school meal. 2. I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll ref-raise, groups can recruit others to their cause through propaganda. Therefore your source is inaccurate. 3. Metabolism is tied into the diabetes and weight issues you've discussed in R3 paragraph 3 to hopefully clarify and refine some arguments. 4. I didn't not claim my source in the issue of food additives, that is a possibility but not for sure. "ADHD has a strong genetic basis in the majority of cases, as a child with ADHD is four times as likely to have had a relative who was also diagnosed with attention deficit disorder." This is the part I was using about. 5. "They probably don't want to show the absence of nutrition." But still they showed it so people are aware, so by buying such food they are aware of the risk. And again food bought and eaten outside of school is not the school's problem. 6. Not a valid source meaning there isn't a website present, this is just another absurd and hypothetical claim. Voters, if you do this pass then I can say Harvard University researchers proved students are less likely to buy food made from scratch in school cafeterias, therefore schools lose income and costumers. Actually it's been proven correct (but not by Harvard :( ): http://www.education.com... 7. Yes, I agree it's very hypothetical. Thus your overstatement is invalid along with other exaggerated arguments...wait that's pretty much all of it. 8. Most of your arguments basically revolve around that source. And because I have already proved it wrong and too costly for schools, it's invalid. And again neither Pro has not destroyed my arguments (otherwise I wouldn't be refuting in sheer shame), nor has he touched on my contentions and its impacts. Voting Issues: 1. Again, Pro has not touched on my own contention, and please don't be confused with rebuttals. Basically S1: junk foods are a large source of income. S2: Fast foods promote business and school. My contention's impacts outweigh Pro's. "S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com...... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs. S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general." 2. His arguments revolve around the UC Berkeley source and I have proved it wrong and too costly and basically destroyed Pro's impacts. So this source and Pro's arguments are gone. 3. Pro has not touched or in other words dropped some Con's extended arguments: In R2, "Now R1," "2nd paragraph." In R2. "Now R1," "1st paragraph." Overall in the end Con's impacts and arguments outweigh Pro's arguments. Thus Con has won through cost benefit analysis as our agreed judging criterion. Pro, I hope this last round is worth it. I enjoyed debating this topic. And thanks again for starting this. -Brian Davis P.S No problem, I can understand your situation.