Students should be allowed to eat lunches during classes.

Let's get right into this.=======Counter Arguments=====-----Start Time-----Pro opens by claiming that half of all middle schools start at 8 a.m. which equals a 7.5 hour school day. Note that she has tempered her claim from "almost 8 hours" down to 7.5. She says that this early start and long day take away from the older students' ability to sleep and eat, but this is incredibly off the mark as high-school classes typically start 1.5 hours later than elementary school classes;"Elementary schools started at 7:30, middle schools/junior high school started at 8:15 and senior high schools at 9:00. While elementary school started earlier, they also get out earlier, at 2:25; middle schools at 3:10 and senior high schools at 3:55.All school districts establish their own times and means of transportation within guidelines set forth by their own state." [1] It should be noted that, in all three cases (elementary, middle and high-school), the school day is less than seven hours, according to my sources. Yes, Pro's source points at certain states that have earlier start times, but then again Pro's own source also states that;"The average length of the school day in the United States is 6.6 hours, so 9:00 a.m. start times would coincide with 3:30 p.m. dismissal for most districts (NCES 2007–2008)." [2]Finally, the argument pro is putting forth here seems to suggest that we need to push back the start time for school. That's fine and all, but that has nothing to do with letting kids eat during class. This argument is moot.-----Lunch Time-----Pro argues against my claim that there is only a '2.5-3.5 hour stretch between the school's start time and lunch time' by saying that this is only true for most schools, not all. This isn't even a counter argument. Yes, there are schools with longer stretches, and there are also schools with shorter stretches as I outlined in round 2 with my 9:50 a.m. example. What's your point?Pro also asks the question of if those schools have low obesity rates. I don't see the relevance of this question and Pro moves on from this question without developing whatever point this was supposed to make further, but since you've brought it up -- roughly 33% of youths ages 2-19 are considered overweight [3]. This clearly proves that "not eating enough" is not a problem by any means for our students. In fact, just the opposite is true. Students are eating too much.Pro then goes on to assert that there is a 4-4.5 hour stretch between the beginning of school and lunch time, not 2.5-3.5 as I've shown. Note that she has reduced her original argument of 5 hours down to 4/4.5. Pro can assert her position all she wants. I've sourced my claim and she hasn't. That's all there is to it.I'm sure Pro could point out one or two schools with longer class-stretches than the average 3-hour stretch, but then all she would have accomplished is predicating an argument on cherry-picked data. It's actually rather ironic that the only reason why pro is not guilty of cherry-picking in this debate is because she hasn't actually sourced her argument. -----Outdated Source-----Pro criticizes my first source by pointing out that its data is 8-12 years old. My response to that is that a decade old source is better than the no-source offered by pro in that same round. Besides, I've posted an updated source in this round. =======Dropped Arguments=======-----Slow-Cooker-----In round 2, I made the argument that eating every few hours is actually unhealthy because it effectively slow-cooks you with your own blood. Pro did not address this in any way, meaning she concedes this point. Since I've now established that eating every few hours is actually unhealthy, Pro's argument that students should be able to eat in class for health reasons has been completely defeated, which, given that this was her only real argument for her resolution, means that she has effectively lost this debate. Even if she manages to establish that the average student doesn't have enough time to eat every few hours at school, the assertion that eating every few hours is a good thing has been debunked and therefore, so has her following argument.=======Sourcing Issues=======Pro has once again failed to link her claims to her sources and it appeared that most of her claims aren't supported by her source whatsoever. Given that this is the second time this has occurred, I appeal to the voters to dock Pro on sourcing points.=======Conclusion=======Pro's argument has been defeated on all levels. Once again, her claims are exaggerated (although, not as much as in round 2 since Pro seems to be backing down somewhat from most of her claims made in round 2) and mostly unsourced, her conclusions don't follow from her arguments, but even if they did, her conclusions don't support her resolution (as I've shown eating every few hours is not desirable). At this point, I recommend that Pro concedes the debate in the final round so she can at least receive some conduct points.I look forward to your response. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu... (pg. 10, prgh. 2) 3. http://www.healthiergeneration.org...