Junk Food should be banned from schools

I will be making my rebuttals in my opponent's arguments, and possibly my additional arguments in this round. I will briefly rebut my opponent’s arguments, because I am short in time. Con's Framework/ My framework BoP is mostly on Pro, a bit on Con. Con says that we need to view this debate in regards of how happy the children, the adults, and the government. I accept this. If I succeed in having 2 or more, I win, if my opponent succeeds in having 2 or more, he wins. My opponent says that Utilitarianism must be accepted because happiness is the key to learning. I accept that happiness is important in learning, but not the key. The key of learning is concentration, which I will argue in this round that junk food does not make you concentrate. However, I do accept that happiness helps learning, but you need concentration more. My opponent says that if the children are unhappy, then the parents will most likely be unhappy. Not quite. My opponent's second source was about the children being unhappy with friendship, and with academic learning. My opponent’s source was not about the children being unhappy about their lunch. I think that the parents should care first about the child’s health and safety then whether the child are happy or unhappy about their lunch. My opponent says that if he proves that there is more happiness with junk food, then he wins. However, I believe that after he has proved that happiness is the most important, then I accept his framework. I do believe that happiness is important, but then I am saying that it is not the main problem. Rebuttal 1: Applying the Framework I will just put this in a separate rebuttal rather then putting it in the framework. My opponent says that junk food makes children and parents more happy as he showed a source. However, when I read the source, it never said of the parents being happy, it only said of the children. And in this source [65] it never said that the parents were happy, but it sounded like they were unhappy, and more worried about the children’s health. Because worrying is more unhappy that happy, and because most parents worry about their child’s health, and about junk food, this makes the parents more unhappy, so you ought to vote for Pro instead. Next, my opponent says that teenagers want to go over their own lives, which I agree that most do, and if the schools are restricting them, they would most likely be unhappy. This is true that they might be unhappy, however, because they are older, they should know that it is for their own good. Next, my opponent says that all people have the freedom of choice. My opponent says that if we restrict them, then they would be more unhappy. I do believe that they should have a freedom of choice, but then also, the parents have the right to tell them what to do unless it severely harms them, however, not eating junk food is not. Also, I believe that before freedom of choice, we have to know what has better effects that worse effects. Banning junk food has better effects and worse effects. Rebuttal 2: Benefits of Junk food My opponent says that as long as you don’t eat much, junk food isn’t bad for you. However, this is hard for children to not eat it, because junk food is very addictive. “Howard Moskowitz runs a consulting firm for the bigwig junk food companies, and he’s responsible for a lot of the delicious foods we eat. The secret, Moskowitz told Moss, is something he calls “the bliss point”—that specific balance of flavors that isn’t too much, but isn’t too little, and leaves your brain craving more. The product can’t be too flavorful, or it creates what’s called “sensory-specific satiety”—a big flavor overwhelms the brain and dampens your desire for more. By contrast, boring flavors don’t engage the brain enough, and no matter how much you eat, it never feels like enough. For most companies, reaching the “bliss point” is a simple process: just add sugar. Other junk foods trick us into eating more than we ever should with something called “vanishing caloric density.” Steven Witherly, a food scientist and the author of Why Humans Like Junk Food, told Moss that Cheetos are “one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure.” The puffy snacks melt in your mouth, tricking your brain into thinking there are no calories in it and convincing you to keep eating it forever. [66]” That quote explains and shows that junk food is addictive, and why. Many other sites agree to this [67]. Some sites says that junk food is as addictive as drugs [68]. Because of addictions, it will be much harder to not eat much junk food, so I believe that we should just ban junk food as a whole. Con also says that fat is necessary for your diet. Pro says that you can be ill without fat. However, this is irrelevant. We are banning, junk food, not any sort of fat. Con also says that cancer makes you not happy, which contradicts the framework. Then, Con is contradicting his framework, because he says that cancer makes you unhappy, and in my second argument in my second round, I showed that junk food can make diabetes and cancer which makes you unhappy in Con’s words, which means that you should vote for Pro. Rebuttal 3: Ineffectiveness My opponent gives 4 possibilities “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.” My opponent says that there are these 4 possibilities. I agree that 1 and 2 are my opponent’s side, however, what is the most frequent? It is mostly two and four. My opponent says that the possibilities of success of my plan is very slim when my opponent’s side is not. However, we can see in the parent’s and the government’s side. If the parent’s don’t want junk food, which is more likely because they want their child to be healthy. The government will probably take the parent’s side then the child’s side because they think children are too young to know. Then, there is another big possibility which goes to my side. And to conclude this argument, it doesn’t show why junk food is ineffective. It just says the possibilities. However, because I said few more possibilities, you ought to vote for Pro. Argument 3: Concentration/ Education This is my additional argument in this round. My argument is that junk food does not help your concentration and your education. As I said that concentration is the key to education, junk food harms your concentration, which means that it harms your education. Many studies says that junk food makes you very energetic, which means that you won’t concentrate in your work [69]. However, the energy is spent quickly, and live strong says, “This can lead to bouts of focus loss, fatigue and a loss of concentration. [69].” Many other sites says that junk food can be worse for your education, and grades, such as [70], and [71]. Because junk food stumps your concentration, which stumps your education, which gives you bad grades, which your parents will be angry, which you will be unhappy, which negates my opponent’s framework, this means that you should vote for Pro. Conclusion I showed that it is happier for there parents, because their child will be healthy, happier for the child’s future, but not now, because even though they complain, in their future, they will be healthy, and will have no diabetes or cancer, which can be happier, and the government is happier because they don’t need to listen to complaints. I also showed in this round that junk food does not help your child’s concentration, the key to education. As for this, vote for Pro! Sources [65] http://www.livescience.com... [66] http://mentalfloss.com... [67] http://time.com... [68] http://naturalsociety.com... [69] http://www.livestrong.com... [70] http://www.diseaseproof.com... [71] http://articles.mercola.com...