On the contrary, I think the affirmative is not dominant. . .

If you think my analysis is good, give me 5 points. . . Thank you. . .

I think opponents can adopt the argument that:

1. Take-away food is rich in collocation and has a large choice space;

2. For health problems, you can order takeout like McDonald's (if possible, you can even counter the other party's saying that "the school cafeteria is not necessarily hygienic!" );

Students should have the freedom to choose (this can be discussed with your "comrades-in-arms" before deciding whether to adopt it)

4. More advantageously, there are the following provisions in the law:

Article 6 of the Anti-monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China: "Operators with dominant market position shall not abuse their dominant market position to exclude or restrict competition."

And:

Article 17 "(4) restricting the counterparty from trading only with it or its designated operators without justifiable reasons;"

Don't forget, there is a charge for dinner at the beginning of school. Personally, this is definitely a blow to the other side.

I think the advantage of the opposing side lies in:

The law stipulates (as mentioned above) that "students have the freedom to choose."

Key points: adhere to the position of "students' free choice" and try not to let the other side expand the argument to the point of "all-round development of morality, intelligence, physique and beauty" and "this is for our own good" Even if the other party launches here, it doesn't matter. Look at the following:

If the other party puts forward the argument that "the school forbids to buy takeout for our own good", don't be afraid, immediately put "this is pure moral coercion! It seems that as long as someone's starting point is for our own good, we have no choice but to accept it? " Move out unless they are prepared for it. Generally speaking, they can only keep silent or try to change the subject.

For "takeaway may be unsanitary", we can refute it with "Let's order something more reliable like McDonald's". If the other party continues to pursue it, "Is McDonald's necessarily hygienic?" Then they are digging their own graves. "Don't each other from now on decided not to eat? McDonald's may be unsanitary, but the school cafeteria may also be unsanitary! " It's a shovel to send them to the grave.

In addition, "the school monopolizes students' right to choose meals" can also be a powerful weapon.

That's all I can think of. Add it yourself. . .