Junk Food should be banned from schools

Thanks Firewings! Observations OBV1: Pro makes a rule violation. In the rebuttals round (ie. R3), he fails to address the counterplan. He then leaves it to the final round to address my counterplan. This is another demonstration of poor conduct from him as well as violating the rule stating that no new arguments can be made in the final round. I will not be able to defend the counterplan this round because that would make me violate the rules too. This means that Pro gets the final word on this contention when in reality it should have been I (in this round). Framework Pro must concede to the framework as he has no alternative framework to offer. A debate onset is better than no debate onset. Nevertheless, I will address his mitigation on the framework. Pro concedes that happiness is important to learning but states that concentration is key - not happiness. Voters should NOT buy this argument as it is a lately applied framework in the form of a rebuttal. Frameworks are new arguments which must be applied in the initial arguments round as it is crucial that they are established as soon as possible (as this is the judges debate onset). Voters should not buy his argument that concentration is key (even if you do not buy this rebuttal bare in mind that my framework was sourced, my opponent’s assertion that concentration is key bares no weight regardless). Pro’s next concern regards my sourcing regarding the parental claim that they would also be unhappy. He blatantly lies here. My second source is NOT about children being unhappy with friendships. It is about children being unhappy at school and the impact this has on parents. It provided the example of children being unhappy with friendship but this is not the focus of the source and my opponent's rebuttal here is completely false. Ergo, the point regarding parental unhappiness stands. My opponent makes another completely subjective and arbitrary claim. He states that HE BELIEVES that parents should care about the health of their child before their happiness. There is no support for this claim and under the framework this is a direct contradiction to what he concedes (utilitarianism). Pro’s overall rebuttal to the framework is poor and misguided. He makes no attempt to refute it with objective evidence at all. He makes claims such as “ do believe that happiness is important, but then I am saying that it is not the main problem. ” My response is simple. Why should voters buy what you subjectively believe as opposed to the objective evidence that I present in my initial framework? Applying the Framework Pro begins by making the claim that I never proved that junk food makes the parents as well as the children happy and he shows that my source never mentions that the parents are happy from junk food. My source did, however, as he concedes, manage to prove that children are happier as a result of this. As I managed to prove in the initial framework, parents are happy when children are happy so if we apply this logic to the scenario we can conclude that the parents and the children are happy with junk food. Which under the framework of utilitarianism, works in my favor. Next he attempts to refute the claim that junk food makes parents happy by citing a source that one families parents said that junk food is bad and they are unhappy about it. I managed to prove that generally junk food causes a net positive rate of happiness in children and therefore parents. He attempts to negate this with one family's experiences. This is insufficient as we are looking at an overall trend in happiness as opposed to individual experiences. Pro once again makes extremely weak and subjective claims. I managed to prove through the usage of basic psychology that teenagers need a sense of self sufficiency and restrictions are extremely negative for these children (thus leading to depression which results in a net decrease in happiness, thus violating the framework). His only response to this was that children should know that it’s for their own good. This is again, subjective and unsupported; it contradicts the framework, etc. I provide scientific research which he concedes to, and his only comment is a subjective one regarding what he believes that they should be thinking. Just because pro believes that teenagers should know that it’s for their own good, doesn’t mean that they will or are doing so. Pro’s next point is baffling. His poor grammar here makes it unclear as to what his point are however it appears that he is saying that our freedom of choice (once again in his opinion) is inferior to an analysis of the situation as an ‘on balance’ debate. The application of the framework is pretty clear. Objectivity proves that an increase in happiness will occur if we remain under the status quo. It also proves that there is will be a net detriment in happiness if we do otherwise. His subjective beliefs are clearly insufficient in negating objective, scientific, psychological facts. If you are buying that the framework goes in my favor then you ought to vote Con right here as this is sufficient to negate. Benefits Of Junk Food Pro says that it is hard for children not to eat too much junk food as it is addictive. This is besides the point. My counterplan is very clear in restricting junk food access to 2 items per day. This is a limitation, though not a limitation that is as great as my opponent is suggesting (ie. no junk food at all in schools). He goes into extensive efforts to prove that junk food is addictive. I do not deny this (though his sources and quotations are somewhat questionable). That is why I initiated a counterplan on the resolution which allows me to bypass this potential dilemma. Pro finally makes a very, very crucial error which could ultimately cost him the debate. In my contentions I proved that fat and sugar deficiencies exist if you don’t have enough junk food. He dismisses these arguments and ultimately concedes them by saying that the argument is irrelevant because it regards fat which is not the same as junk food. This is false. His definition clearly states that junk food is unhealthy food that contains high amounts of fat / sugar. So this debate is about fat and sugar as pro makes no attempt to give alternative sources of fat or sugar meaning that the deficiency point lies in my favor. Given that I have already proven that fat and sugar deficiencies result in unhappiness (which he also concedes). This point goes in my favor. Pro picks up on the point that I said that cancer results in unhappiness (as sugar and fat deficiencies can and do lead to cancer - as my arguments stated). He attempts to point a contradiction as he managed to show that excessive amounts of fat / sugar do lead to cancer. This is true however the point is irrelevant since, once again, under my counterplan there are limitation and given that he never disputes the claim that these limitations will prevent overdoses of food this ultimately goes in my favor once more and the contradiction is refuted. Ineffectiveness Pro concedes that points 1 and 2 go in my favor. He makes no attempt to dispute the tie on point 3. And I have already agreed that point 4 goes in his favor. Given that 2 out of the 4 possibilities go in my favor. 1 is tied. And 1 goes in pro’s favor this means that his plan is more likely to be ineffective than effective. Pro attempts to look at this from the position of the parents. He once again makes multiple faulty and untrue assumptions. He states “if parents don’t want junk food, which is more likely because they want their children to be healthy…”. This claim is unsourced. I initially provided proof (that my opponent concedes) regarding the fact that children are happy as a result of junk food. I also provided proof that parents are happy as a result of children’s happiness and the same is applicable vice versa (ie. with unhappiness). He believes that based on one family's experiences regarding unhappiness as a result of junk food, all families will be like this. This claim is absolutely false and this can be confirmed by my data in my initial arguments. So it is actually more likely that parents will be unhappy as a result of a junk food ban than they will be happy as a result of it. Pro says that the contention is negated based on the fact that there are other possibilities. I am aware of this and made note in my contention that these were the 4 major possibilities and my opponent does nothing to dispute this claim - ergo, this argument goes in my favor. Concentration / Education Pro makes another argument in this round which is permissible given that R1 allows it. His opening claim is that junk food can lead to loss of concentration, focus loss and fatigue. What he fails to mention is that in the same source it also says, prior to revealing these statistics, that it is talking about people that have admitted to eating too much junk food. This is problematic as an argument since this is directly addressed by my counterplan as there will be limitations on junk food quantity. The next claim made is that junk food can be bad for your education. He uses source [70] and [71] to back this up. Source 70 is in regards to the typical US diet. This is problematic once again since this debate is not specific to the US. It regards a generic approach to the subject. Pro lives in France and I live in the UK. I see no link between this debate and the US. 71 also references to the US diet and it also references to there being a lack of healthy food being eaten in the US diet. My complain for source 70 is applicable to source 71 too. This argument is negated. Even if you do not buy my rebuttals this argument is in contradiction with the framework meaning that it does not stand under it. Pro claims that this negates the framework. This is untrue. It is an attempt at a completely new framework being made in the middle of the debate. Voters should not buy this. The resolution is negated.