I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

There are many examples of programs where people are structurally fed. None of these have positive results, and all of them are based on quasi moral arguments. Yes, we don't want people dying of hunger in refugee camps nor we want children falling behind in class because of their failing parents. But there is nothing moral about choosing the easy way out of the problem.

Men and women are not the same. They are a distinct, binary grouping. One cannot measure up to the metrics, characteristics, etc of the other. Women have their own sports leagues because of this. Men do not have exclusive leagues, its illegal in most western countries anyway under discrimination laws. Women just cant compete at these levels though. Thats not a moral judgement but a plain reading of the facts.

As far as the incoming remark about "controlling what high school students do in private with each other", I will rather present you with a question:

Should we make it impossible for thousands of girls to get a gold medal, XOR allow 1 person, born a male and currently pretending/presenting as a woman, to dominate the competition? This is the actual, real life decision that leagues of all kinds must make, from football to chess.

Stop talking as if there's no human actor involved in this. If budgets are cut (less tax revenue) it's because the same people who oppose feeding kids oppose taxing rich people. This is just people saying, "We can't feed kids, because we might decide to not tax rich people instead." I'm not confused about this possibility or missing this possibility: I'm saying "don't be an asshole, collect enough taxes to feed the kids".

> Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient.

Stop talking about "people" as if you've forgotten these are children. Kids should feel entitled to eat, because children are entitled to receive food. Obviously we should be preparing them to learn to feed themselves as adults--nobody is confused about that--but it's going to be a whole lot harder for a child to learn if they're unsure about their next meal. And again, it's the same people who oppose school lunches who oppose education programs.

Giving a child a fish and teaching the child to fish are not mutually exclusive. And US conservatives oppose both.

> Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent.

Again, stop pretending there's no actors doing this. It's conservatives who are creating these artificially constrained budgets. It's conservatives who are not allocating enough money to both feed and educate children.

I'm simply not interested in any argument which involves pretending there isn't enough money to feed children. There is enough money, you simply don't think feeding children is important enough to collect taxes to do it.

I'm simply not interested in arguments about who should be feeding children. I want the federal government to fund schools to feed children because that's the only viable path to all the children in my country being fed on the table at the moment. You haven't presented any alternatives that work, and you won't, because you are more interested in avoiding taxes than you are in feeding children.