This House Would Ban Junk Food From School

The Pros

Given that this type of food has gained a large appeal in the masses, there are bound to be
several benefits of the same. How do these benefits fit into allowing junk foods in the school
scenario is what we will focus on in this section.

Quick and Easy

One of the main advantages of allowing junk foods in schools is that if on a particular day a
child does not carry a lunch bag then he does not have to remain hungry and can easily
have something to satiate his hunger. Along with that, it is one of those easy-to-eat foods
that can be eaten on the go. Therefore, it saves a lot of time. Most of these foods are also
quite cheap, such that it becomes economical to purchase them.

Change in Routine
Having junk food as a change in routine instead of making it a part of one's staple diet is
considered alright. It does not have major effects on a person's health either if this approach
is used and they are consumed once in a way. The problem only arises if it is being
consumed regularly.

Cooking Healthy
There are certain junk and processed foods that are made largely unhealthy by loading them
with oils and unhealthy ingredients like excess sodium (found in salt) in order to achieve a
longer shelf life. Instead of that, if foods like potato chips or juices are made available in the
school cafeteria, there will be no need to depend on unhealthy choices from outside. Thus
the same taste and thrill of having junk foods can be experienced without having to give in to
unhealthy choices.
This House Would Ban Junk Food From School
The Cons
While the pros mainly focus on the fact that it is a convenient, easy-to-eat, and a tasty affair, there are
several negative impacts that have been listed. Let us go into a little more detail in this section.

Unhealthy Ingredients
Junk foods are loaded with sodium, salts, and sugar so that they can have a longer shelf life. All these
ingredients are very harmful to the human body because they cannot be broken down and therefore
they build deposits in the body. Along with that, they also prevent the absorption of important minerals
and nutrients, thereby directly affecting a person's immune system and metabolism, among other
functions.

Obesity
One of the main effects of fast foods is that it leads to obesity. With the reduced physical activity in
this day and age, these unhealthy snacks add to the problem even more. They do not allow the food
to be broken down, and therefore cause layers of fat to be deposited in the body. Along with that, junk
foods normally use a lot of carbs, salts, and sugar, and more importantly, are devoid of any dietary
fiber or other essential nutrients―all these factors lead to more obesity.

Other Health Issues

Along with an increase in obesity, there are several other health issues that begin to develop as well,
because there are hardly any or no nutrients that are being consumed through this food. Along with
depositing fat cells in the body, these foods also alter the rate of metabolism, thus bringing with it
scores of other problems. Other than that, processed and junk foods are also known to alter the
workings of the bodily hormones and thus lead to hormonal imbalance and an addiction to these
foods. With constant and regular consumption, these foods could also lead to insulin resistance in a
person (which could ultimately lead to hyperglycemia and Type 2 diabetes), heart problems like high
blood pressure, liver and kidney problems, and a weakened immune system.

Affects Performance
The sugar and sodium content starts off a very unhealthy cycle in a person's system. The minute
he/she has a snack, there is a sudden burst of sugar and the person gets a spike of energy making
him overactive and hyper. As the effects of the snack begin to fade, the person becomes sluggish and
less aware. Until the time he takes another snack. Thus, he begins to depend on the snacks to get
energy boosts. This, not only sets off a dependency on the snacks, but a non-availability of the same
causes low energy levels, lack of concentration, and lethargy. All of which have a direct effect on the
student's performance.
It is also argued that the younger kids in schools might not know the effects of consuming junk foods
in high numbers and might continue to gorge on them because of their ready availability. Therefore, it
poses a threat to begin with.
 This House University Should Be Free
Arguments for Free University Education

1. Positive externalities of higher education. Generally, university education does offer

some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and
productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have
higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for
the government subsidising higher education.
2. Equality. There is also a powerful argument that university education should be free to
ensure equality of opportunity. If students have to pay for university education, this may
dissuade them. In theory, students could take out loans or work part-time, but this may
be sufficient to discourage students from studying and instead may enter the job market
earlier.
3. Increased specialisation of work. The global economy has forced countries, such as
the UK to specialise in higher tech and higher value added products and services. The
UK’s biggest export industries include pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, optical and
surgical instruments, and nuclear technology (see: what does the UK produce?).
Therefore, there is a greater need for skilled graduates who can contribute to these high-
tech industries.
 This House University Should Be Free
Arguments against free university education

1. Opportunity Cost. If we spend billions on free university education there is an

opportunity cost of higher taxes or less spending elsewhere. Arguably, there is a greater
social benefit from providing vocational training – e.g. so people could become
plumbers, electricians e.t.c. There is often a real shortage of these skills in an economy.
The UK commission for skills and education report significant skills shortages in the
basic ‘core generic skills’ such as literacy, numeracy and communication skills. This skill
shortages are prominent in industries like building, health care, plumbing, social care
and construction. Generally, the problem is not a shortage of graduates with art degrees,
but lower level vocational skills. (See: BBC – skills shortage in the UK) Therefore, there
is a case for charging for university, but greater public spending to tackle this lower level
skill shortages.
2. Do we have too many graduates? In recent decades there has been a rapid rise in the
number of graduates. But, many graduates are leaving university to take jobs which
don’t require a degree. A study by the ONS found that nearly 50% of workers who left
university in the past five years are doing jobs which don’t require a degree. (Telegraph
link) Therefore, it is a mistake to continue to fund the public expansion of university
education because the economy doesn’t need more graduates as much as other skills.
3. Higher quality of education. The rapid rise in university numbers means that greater
pressure is being put on university resources. Since the government is struggling to
maintain public spending, let alone increase spending, there is a danger that university
education and research may suffer, causing UK education to lag behind other countries.
If universities can charge students, it will help maintain standards, quality of teaching
and the reputation of UK universities..
4. Makes people value education more. If people have to pay to go to university, you
could argue that they would value the education more. If higher education is free, it may
encourage students to take an easy three years of relaxation.
5. Signalling function of higher education. Arguably, higher education acts as a signal
to employers that graduates have greater capacity. As a consequence, people who gain
a degree, end up with a relatively higher salary. Therefore, if they financially gain from
studying at university, it is perhaps fair they pay part of the cost. This is especially
important for middle-class families, who send a higher proportion of people to higher
education.
 This House Would Ban The illegal
Prostitution
Pro

Prohibition does more harm than good

Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual services does not protect those who sell or buy
such services, but rather pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual
services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded when such markets are
prohibited. When selling and buying sex is illegal, those participating in these exchanges cannot, or
simply do not, seek the protection of the law when their rights are violated. Because crimes against
sex workers or their clients are often unreported, and when reported often not investigated,
predators and rights violators can take advantage of others without fear of arrest and
punishment. Moreover, because criminalization forces sex work into remote and invisible corners of
society, sellers and buyers are less able to insure their safety and protection. For these reasons, laws
criminalizing sex markets amplify the risks sellers and buyers face when they participate in sex
market transactions.

The main purpose of criminalizing sex markets is to protect those who enter such markets from
harm. Yet the harms of paying or accepting money for a good that can be legally exchanged for free
are far less than the harms that result from the rights violations that often occur (robbery, battery,
sexual assault, murder) when sex markets are pushed underground.

Legalization has benefits for society

Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets
so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial. In
particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clients, and the
communities in which they operated. By allowing sex businesses to operate openly, providers,
clients, and business owners can become law-abiding, productive citizens, who contribute to their
communities. Sex businesses and workers would pay taxes, and other licensing fees. Business
owners would be expected to comply with standard business laws and regulations. Moreover, the
government could enact special regulations appropriate to this industry, such as age restrictions on
workers and clients, and mandatory condom use.

The resources that are currently allocated to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate sex workers and
clients could be reallocated for better uses. For example, these resources could be used to better
address the sexual abuse of minors, sexual assault, substance abuse, mental health problems, and
the many public and individual needs that go unmet.
 This House Would Ban The illegal
Prostitution
Contra
Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex

The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is bartered. Taking or offering
money cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many on the
open market diminishes its value. Moreover, while the benefits of commoditized sex are
questionable, the harms are significant. Those who engage in such exchanges diminish their capacity
for genuine sexual intimacy, while damaging their physical, emotional, and mental health. Moreover,
the harms of market sexual transactions often affect non-involved third parties, such as the spouses
or lovers of sellers and buyers.

Because the harms of market sex are long lasting, though sometimes distant, it is appropriate for
society to intervene to prevent these harms. Markets in sex pose a public health threat, just like
markets in dangerous drugs. Prohibition will reduce the number of people who engage in market
sexual transactions, and for those who do participate, there are ways to minimize violations of their
rights.

Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and
girls into commodities

Markets in sex are shaped by values that differ from non-market sexual relationships. Market sexual
transactions are not structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social intimates, but
rather by the ends of profit maximization and mutual benefit among strangers. The goods exchanged
in a market are interchangeable with other goods, in ways that maximize profit and mutual benefit.
When these goods include sexual services, the sexual services of one provider will be interchangeable
with those of another.

The position of seller or buyer in a particular market is often determined by one’s gender, class, race,
and nationality. In sex markets, sellers are typically female, and buyers are typically male. Race,
class, and other social hierarchies also shape one’s position in a sex market. Because the sellers in
sex markets are often people who are disadvantaged by their gender, class, race, or nationality, the
existence of markets in their sexual services will promote the idea that the sexual capacities of
women (and other disadvantaged groups) are goods that are interchangeable and exploitable. The
idea that the sexual capacities of women (and girls) can be accessed as market goods or commodities
will shape attitudes toward women and girls who do not enter sex markets as providers. In this way,
the values that structure markets in sex will spill over into non-market sexual relationships, and lead
men to regard women as replaceable goods rather than unique human subjects.
 This House Believes Science Is A Threat To Humanity
Pro
New communications have dissolved traditional families and led to the creation
of harmful new relationships.

New technologies have broken down traditional social relationships which provide stability and are
important for psychological health. Many individuals are increasingly becoming self-absorbed in
videogames and autonomous lives on the internet without making lasting connections with people
face-to-face 1.Technology is not necessary for a fulfilling life, as the Amish show by avoiding
technology which damages the community and harms social relations.

The manipulation of life is Playing God.

Science has moved into new areas which violate the boundaries of morality. Research into cloning of
persons and animals is taking place, as well as work on genetic manipulation.1 Such work is reckless
and involves taking the position of God as an entity which decides what forms of life to create.
Genetic testing involves the abuse of animals, which are used merely as tools in studies to increase
knowledge.2

1. Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, 'Brochures of Patients: Human Cloning and

Genetic Modification,'

2. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 'Animal Testing 101,'

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, 'Introduction to Shac,'

Science has created new means for the state to control the lives of its citizens.

Technology allows governments and those in authority to develop more powerful means to monitor
citizens and control discussion. The totalitarian governments of the twentieth century (such as
Stalinist Russia) utilised modern technology to monitor and indoctrinate populations. 1 Even in
democracies, monitoring of communications and centralisation of information makes it much more
difficult for an individual to oppose actions they do not consider moral as any attempts to organise
against it could mean arrest. 2It is no longer the case that citizens can chose to “opt-out” of control
by a higher body by withdrawal to less controlled areas, such as the countryside.

1. Los, Maria. 'The Technologies of Total Domination.' Surveillance and Society. 2 (1): 15-38.
2004.2 New York Time, 'Surveillance of Citizens by Government,'

2. The Telegraph, 'The Government is creating a surveillance state,'

 This House Believes Science Is A Threat To Humanity
Contra
Science is a set of tools to improve humanity; like anything it should be used
with caution.

Science is not a threat to mankind, its misuse by selfish or misguided humans is the issue. Knowledge
of the functioning of the universe is ethically neutral. The knowledge of science is a tool to improve
the well-being of humanity and increase life choices. Like any tool it can be misused, it should be
regulated and used carefully, there must be checks from government to make sure that science does
not go further and faster than is in the interests of the state or than its people want. It is only
through regulation, checks and inspections that we can make sure that science is used for good
rather than ill and ensure that the research is performed in a moral way. But possible misuse is not a
reason to outright ban such an important concept. Knowledge is morally neutral in that it has no
preferences itself. 1

Science allows humans to collaborate more effectively

Science has created modern communication systems which allow individuals to communicate across
the globe with friends and relatives. Communications also allow humanity to deal with wider problems
collectively where this was previously impossible. One example is collective action to deal with natural
disasters such as flooding or tsunamis, aid is flown in from around the world and millions donate the
necessary funds after seeing the suffering on their TV screens. It is also more difficult for local rulers
to oppress their populations without facing outside pressure to reform or stop.1

Science saves and improves lives

Science has allowed much greater medical care for the sick and disabled in society. Lifespans have
increased and previously terrible diseases can be dealt with (such as cholera). 1 Increased crop yields
from intensive farming are providing enough food for the world (even if it is not being properly
distributed).2Science has also enabled those who were born with disabilities to live better lives, as
society is able to adapt and accommodate them.

Lives can be more fulfilling

Science is the discovery and use of knowledge. It is how we became the dominant species on earth,
by using tools and techniques to improve our living standards and take control of our
environment.1Technological advances have enabled humans to become removed from the basic toil
needed to survive and to consider other pursuits, so for example we no longer work all day every day
as we are more productive so allowing holidays. They are now able to pursue their desires or
consider great questions.