Organic food should be administrated in schools

Please note that CON drops all my arguments and previous refutation. Now moving to a refutation of CON's new points. Organic Farming is better for consumersFirst, it is obvious that CON is arguing for the wrong side. If organic farming is better for consumers, should we not promote organic foods, which are caused by organic farming, as much as possible? That would include the administration in schools. According to CON: "According to the Environmental Working Group (. http://www.ewg.org......) eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables exposes one to about 20 pesticides per day on average. Eating the 12 least contaminated foods exposes you to about 2 pesticides per day on average. "This was my second point, health defects. I must remind all that CON is arguing against organic foods, however, this point clearly supports it. Food SafetyAgain, this point is a point that supports my case. CON says: "One of the largest arguments for purchasing organic food has been the simple fact that organic foods contain less pesticide and pesticide residues. One study published in 2002 claimed that organic foods have one third the pesticides of conventionally grown foods"She even clearly agrees that the food safety is an argument for purchasing organic food. Again, as CON, she should be against the administration of organic foods in schools, not for it. SustainabilityAgain, a point that supports my arguments. CON says: "Many of the advantages of organic farming have been attributed to crop rotation which is NOT and exclusively organic farming technique"Again, CON should be arguing against organic foods and farming, and she does not do this by stating advantages of something she is supposed to argue against. Organic Food is Too ExpensiveFinally an argument for her own side. However, I already addressed this point the previous round, by saying administering organic foods in schools does not force students to buy them, simply, it gives students a choice. If families find it too expensive to eat organic, they do not need to purchase organic foods. Quick and EasyThis point of CON's is about how junk food is quick and easy and cheap. However, simply administering organic foods in schools does not mean that we will remove all junk food entirely. Simply, it means that both junk food and organic foods will be available to purchase. Therefore, clearly, CON's argument does not hold water. Change in RoutineThis argument is about the benefits of junk food. However, like I stated, we are not removing junk food. Also, this resolution is the topic of organic foods in schools, and I ask CON not to change the topic to junk food. Cooking HealthyAgain with the junk food. This argument is entirely invalid because the topic is the administration of organic foods in schools, not junk foods. ConclusionSorry CON, but it is obvious that I have won this debate. CON changes the topic several times, first to organic farming, then to junk foods. This resolution is whether or not organic foods will be administered in schools, therefore, all those arguments for those topics are invalid. Furthermore, CON argues alot for my side of the case, and as a result, is not fulfilling her BOP. The only argument she provided relevant to the topic and for her side of the case, was the cost factor, however I completely refuted that last round. Therefore, because of these reasons, and the additional reason that she dropped all my refutations and arguments from last round, I have won this debate.