Junk Food should be banned from schools

Counterplan I will be presenting a counterplan to the resolution that will still allow me to meet my burden however it will involve minor changes to the status quo. The counterplan is as follows: P1: Junk food will not be banned in schools (thus fulfilling my burden) P2: Schools will be limited to allowing children to bring in 2 items of junk food per day. P3: Schools with canteens will only allow children to purchase a maximum of 2 items of junk food per day. C1: My BOP is fulfilled since banning junk food is still allowed in schools. C2: Children will not be as likely to overeat, come obese and find themselves prone to complications a a result of junk food. Framework The BOP primarily lies on Pro as his 1st round highlights. Voters ought to be weighing this framework as a framework of the greatest produced happiness (comparable to the ideology of utilitarianism). We need to be viewing this debate in regards how happy the children, adults, government, etc. would be because if there is a net decrease in happiness involved then suffering will be created which is illogical - which is something that Firewings must concede because his case hinges on suffering being a bad thing and moral realism existing. Utilitarianism must be accepted because happiness is key to learning and this is a discussion regarding schools and whether junk food should be banned from it. Happiness and learning are greatly interconnected and optimum learning is contingent on happiness [1]. This shows that the greatest happiness for the students should be considered. If the students are unhappy then the parents will most likely be unhappy, once again resulting in more suffering [2]. If parents and students are unhappy then complaints will increase [3]. If complaints increase then the government will be unhappy as funding for schools will have to increase to combat these complaints and resolve these issues [4]. Ergo, happiness is extremely important regarding these issues and if I am able to prove that there is more happiness caused as a result of the status quo then I win this debate as I have successfully proven that happiness is extremely important. Given that Pro has already provided his initial arguments he cannot provide an alternative framework since a late framework creates debate complications. This means that Pro’s only realistic choice is to accept the framework of utility and try to argue that under it his case is preferable. Applying the Framework Now that the framework is set we need to see who’s side it goes in the favor of. Studies from Science Daily strongly suggest that junk food causes happiness in both children and adults [5]. This means that if children are allowed junk food they will be happier and will ultimately achieve better in schools. Teenagers in schools almost always need to feel like that they have control over their own lives [6] or else it can be unhealthy as teenage hormones as well as upbringing (both nature and nurture) increases their craving for control as they will soon be adults and control over your life is necessary [7]. If they are restricted by schools, the government or their parents then they lose this sense of control which can lead to severe unhappiness and depression which directly contradicts the framework [8]. Everybody has the basic right to freedom of choice [9]. Freedom of choice is largely applied to many laws as it is a philosophy that many countries uphold and base their core principles on, particularly in regards to issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, legality of smoking and the legality of alcohol [10]. Denying people of bringing in or purchasing junk food at schools is to deny children of their freedom of choice. Again, to re-link it back to the previous point. If children do not feel as though their rights are being upheld then they do not feel as though they have control of their lives as they are being subjected to situations that potentially violate their core philosophies. This, as we have already concluded results in a net decrease of happiness which violates the framework once more. To summarize, I believe that it is quite clear that the framework of utilitarianism goes in the favor of Con. Since Pro has already presented his initial arguments it would be a demonstration of poor conduct for him then to initiate another framework in the rebuttals round as it disrupts the flow of the debate and matters as crucial as a framework (arguably the most necessary part of a debate) to be introduced in a round superseding the arguments round would be a demonstration of a poor attitude to debate and a poor demonstration of conduct. This means that Pro’s only viable option here is for him to try and prove that the affirmative case can win under the framework of utilitarianism which will require him to disprove each scenario I present before you in this contention, as well as providing more arguments to additionally prove his burden under the framework. Benefits of Junk Food The resolution states that junk food is food that contains large amounts of fat or sugar. So I will attempt to prove, in this contention, that junk food can be bad but it isn’t useless and it is, in fact, necessary for us. It is a large misconception that fat is bad, unhealthy and unnecessary. It can be bad for you if you have too much of it, however this is the same for any food (excluding celery) [11]. Furthermore, fat is necessary for our diet. Fat is considered to be a “lifeline” for vulnerable organs such as the liver and kidneys [11]. Without it we can fall extremely ill and potentially die [12]. There are countless diseases associated with fat deficiencies and they can cause a number of extremely negative effects such as learning difficulties, eczema, suicidal tendencies, poor growth, poor memory, poor wound healing, etc [12]. These diseases cause pain and pain causes a net decline in happiness - once again violating the framework [13]. Sugar is also something that the definition of fat references to. Studies show that sugar not only significantly increases the happiness in children [14], but it is also good for environment since it’s a natural resource (free of pesticides and other harmful products) [16]. It is also necessary in our diet as it increases the production of enzymes in our body, most notably insulin [16]. Hypoglycemia is a common sugar deficiency that many have heard of (due to the increasing views that sugar is bad). Alongside hypoglycemia are many other sugar deficiencies too. Symptoms of these deficiencies are shakiness, nervousness, confusion, hunger, etc. Discouraging sugary foods in schools means that children will logically receive less sugar daily and will ultimately be more likely to experience complications such as these. [15] Ineffectiveness For many the banning of junk food in schools will raise sugar and fat complications and deficiencies as my contention above highlights. However by analyzing the odds we can conclude that the ban will be ineffective to fulfilling the aims that my opponent wishes to achieve and will also be detrimental. I will provide a syllogism of the events that will occur if junk food is banned in schools: Possibility 1: The child receives less junk food and is therefore susceptible to sugar and fat deficiencies and could receive them [12][15]. Possibility 2: The child will continue to eat junk food at home and the ban will be ineffective and pointless. Possibility 3: The child will have less junk food and no negative effects will occur. Possibility 4: The child will be safe from complications from an overdose of junk food. These are the 3 major possibilities. Possibility 1 goes in my favor. Possibility 2 also goes in my favor. Possibility 3 is neutral as it does not mean that a ban is good and it doesn’t mean that a ban is bad. Possibility 4 does initially seem to go in my opponent’s favor however as my counterplan explains, there will be limits so therefore, this possibility goes in my favor too since my plan will also prevent the child from the overdose of junk food without having to impose a larger change to the status quo (as my opponent’s larger burden is a concession of). Ergo, the possibilities of success in my opponent’s plan compared to mine are very slim (given that there are many more extremely unlikely possibilities that weren’t considered) however the major possibilities clearly indicate that my burden is much more preferable and ideal. Conclusion The resolution is clearly affirmed, I have presented a strong and clear framework alongside clear arguments. I will be rebutting my opponent’s case in the next round however I believe that the more feasible plan at the moment is clear. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals. Sources [1] http://www.edutopia.org... [2] https://www.schoolplaces.com.au... [3] https://drhurd.com... [4] http://www.ombudsman.org.uk... [5] https://www.sciencedaily.com... [6] http://www.apa.org... [7] http://www.newportacademy.com... [8] http://www.webmd.com... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://scarlettswinter.blogspot.co.uk... [12] http://allnutriments.blogspot.co.uk... [13] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [14] http://www.lifetimetv.co.uk... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://www.sugarhistory.net...