Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

The Obesity Conundrum: A Call for Education, Not Fat-Shaming

Outline:
I. Introduction
II. Main Argument
III. Conclusion
IV. References

I. Introduction

Rather than engaging in fat-shaming, it's crucial to address the root causes of obesity, a condition linked to various health issues such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Obesity can increase the risk of certain cancers, contribute to type 2 diabetes, and exacerbate heart conditions [1-3]. The question isn't whether obesity is a disease but how to manage it effectively.

II. Main Argument

Fat-shaming has been shown to be counterproductive. Anecdotal and scientific evidence demonstrates that fat-shaming can lead to weight gain and the onset of obesity, rather than promoting weight loss [4]. Instead, we should focus on educating individuals about the multifaceted causes of obesity, which include overeating but also other factors such as diet, sleep, and exercise.

Dietary choices, such as consuming high-fiber foods, can help manage appetite and prevent overeating [5]. Adequate sleep is also essential, as sleep deprivation has been linked to obesity in rodent models [6]. Regular exercise, even in moderate amounts, can reduce the incidence of obesity, though the relationship between exercise and weight is complex [7].

III. Conclusion

In light of the evidence, fat-shaming should be replaced with widespread education about healthy lifestyle choices. This approach avoids discrimination and promotes well-being for all, regardless of current weight. By educating individuals about the causes and prevention of obesity, we can empower them to make informed decisions and reduce the stigma associated with obesity.

IV. References

1. <http://www.cancer.gov...>
2. <http://www.webmd.com...>
3. <http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...>
4. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...>
5. <http://ajcn.nutrition.org...>
6. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...>
7. <http://www.webmd.com...>

Banning fast food in the U.S will decrease the rate of obesity in America. 60% of Americans are overweight and obese which leads to health risks such as diabetes, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, various types of cancer, headaches, gall stones, depression, asthma, and lower back pain. According to an article published on July 20, 2012, Deirdre Imus from Fox News stated "If fast food advertisement towards kids was limited it would lower childhood obesity rates". With this being said, we can see how the fast food industry is being promoted by advertisements which are affecting children by letting them think it is okay to eat fast food.Fast food is highly processed and contains carbohydrates with no fiber which can take a tole on the cardiovascular, digestive system nervous system,reproductive system, skeletal system, as well as the respiratory system. According to an article published by health line "today, more than 2 in 3 adults are considered overweight or obese. More than one-third of children ages 6 to 19 are also considered overweight or obese. The growth of fast food in America seems to coincide with the growth of obesity in the United States. The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) reports that the number of fast food restaurants in America has doubled since 1970. The number of obese Americans has also double". http://www.foxnews.com... https://www.healthline.com...

Please define "fat" and "skinny" for me please. Do you mean morbidly obese, or has a bit more body mass than the average amount for their age group? Skinny meaning anorexic, or thinner than the average amount for their age? Please be clearer. Thanks.

The average healthy person has a waistline of 33 inches, the average overweight person has a waistline of 45 inches. Planes are designed to accomodate that. The average obese individual has a waistline of 60 inches. That's nearly TWICE what an average healthy person has. In other words, they need an extra seat. It's time airlines started accomodating that and start treating the obese like people. A good way to start is exchanging specialized seating for a set fee. Here's an image to illustrate. http://medicineworld.org... From medicineworld.org Or something less scientific, imagine sitting next to this friendly gentlemen on your flight: http://www.spurgeon.org... You can choose to donate half your seat to this guy, or you can do as my opponent says and buy yourself an extra seat on EVERY FLIGHT, just in case. However, had the airline intervened and helped the gentlemen get a specialized seat (at a slight increase in expense), neither of you would have had to endure that experience! But how much should they be charged? My opponent asks: "$8 more per flight? So just how much extra should obese passengers be charged?" Good question, perhaps we should have addressed a hypothetical amount before we started the debate. Most people when thinking about obese passengers paying extra fees jump to such thoughts as hundreds of dollars more per ticket. I don't think that's anywhere close to necessary. While $8 is a good start, maybe somewhere in the range of $20-50. We're not even talking about a class upgrade here, which can often be twice or three times the price of economy. We're talking plus-sized flights, much like plus-sized clothing. When an obese person walks into a department store to buy plus-sized clothing, does he or she not pay more for the extra fabric? Of course they do. It's only logical. Essentially this small price difference is meant to stay within the same kind of difference. Of course, the group of people required for this small fee would be small. We're talking about the truly obese here (BMI greater than 3.5), not the common overweight. Just like the fact that tobacco and alcohol use is heavily taxed to discourage their use, this will encourage customers to lose weight. And of course, this eliminates the need for embarrassing moments that currently plague the obese customers such as having to be asked to switch flights so one with extra seats could be accommodated. The obese are people too. -- Let's take a moment and imagine how this would work. When a customer calls an airline (or go online or meet a travel agent), they'll be asked whether they perfer plus-sized seating. This would obviously be quite popular (who doesn't like a little extra space on flights?) but the seats would be reserved for only those who NEED it first, and then those who prefer it. If an obese passenger opts not to take the seat (I have a hard time imagining they don't, it'd be MUCH more comfortable), airline employees would try to establish if the passenger is disrupting others before asking if they could upgrade. Think of it like reserved parking for air planes. -- My opponent says: "Medical problems associated with contributing factors such as tobacco, marijuana and other drugs, alcohol, etc. all contribute to an additional increase health risks..." And that's why marijuana and other drugs are illegal, at least where I come from. Tobacco and alcohol ARE already being heavily taxed, and why taxes are going up by millions per year to DISCOURAGE tobacco and alcohol use. These taxes are used as insurance so that in the case when they require extra medical treatment, it's already been paid for. Now my opponent has derailed from the previous 3 arguments to start a new format, most of which I have already answered in my previous post. Regardless, I'll address them quickly again. -- "Obesity is preventable." In most cases, absolutely. There are rare instances where it's a genetic issue, but until my opponent can bring up specific proof that unpreventable obesity is the norm, there's really no argument here. Because it's preventable, they should cover all the things that come with their choices. Including paying set fees for flights. -- Other transportation. People don't pay for subway seats. I'm not sure about New York, but here in Canada our subway tickets don't have assigned seats! I'm hoping my opponent isn't suggesting that Airlines operate the same way as subways, having to stand on a flight for 10 hours sure would be an uncomfortable flight. -- "Therefore if one is so concerned about this HORROR, they have the option of buying an additional plane ticket just in case. Otherwise they can just take their chances and 90% of the time be a-ok anyway." You're suggesting that everyone buy an extra ticket just in case they get assigned a bad seat? That's the reasonable solution to the problem? Again, my opponent has simply skipped over my arguments to form his own. An obese person is not a discomfort (like a crying child), it's someone who has taken up much of what you've purchased, an airline seat. -- "Obese people are not the only individuals who fit uncomfortably on a plane. Tall or larger people in general (not necessarily obese) may also be the cause of some discomfort. " True, at the moment I pay an extra 14 dollars when I book my tickets so that I can request emergency exit seating (for the legroom). So... you're proving my point for what again? -- lawsuits Could you cite one lawsuit involving an obese passenger suing an airline? Or anything like it? Or anything to suggest that something like this MIGHT happen? I'd hate to accuse you of making up random facts or something. -- At the end of the day, all this is just rhetoric. Because North Americans in general will be gaining weight as a population, the airlines will be there to fill that need, expanding programs such as plus-sized seating that obese passengers may opt to purchase. No matter what, this is an inevitability. Heck, it's the American way.

I would prefer to use the original definition. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to discuss an extremely important issue. One that directly or indirectly relates to incredibly important issues such as world hunger, sexual deviance, public health, and (yes, really) U.S. hegemony and nuclear war. The issue we're discussing: should here be a minimum body weight for runway models? I believe the answer is yes, and hopefully I can convince you into my line of thinking. C1. A minimum body weight discourages obesity Obesity is a major problem in the developed world. Indeed, the United States in particular suffers from this, with over 1/3rd of its adult population being obese[1]. Creating a minimum body weight for models sends a powerful message that obesity is no longer acceptable. This will show the obese that they are by no means accepted among our most beautiful people, which will lead them to, in an attempt to be beautiful, exercise and lower the amount of obese people. The psychological principle of conformity tells us that once one person/institution does something, others are far more likely to follow. By restricting the weight of models, we open up the doors to allow for other instituions to follow the same path. This would logically lead to the obese feeling ostricized and zealously work towards reducing their obesity. The effects of this could be monumental. I'll explain a few.(i) Decline in world hungerWith less obese people, more food could be sent to developing nations becuse the obese will both eat less, and feel a need to do something else other than sit and watch T.V. When the worldwide demand for food declines, the law of supply and demand dictates that the price will go down. Therefore, charitable organizations can buy more food with their strectched budgets, thus saving more lives and helping more people. Also, the spurt of activity following a decline in obesity will help this. People who aren't obese will feel a need to do something productive, and perhaps will invest in a donation to a charity instead of a new reclining chair or television. (ii) U.S. hegemony will increaseObesity obviously hinders health. When 1/3rd of the members of a country is obese and likely can't run a mile without getting a heart attack, how can that country expect to remain successful on the battlefield? Although much of the modern battlefield involves technology and marksmanship physical strength is still very important. So if the U.S. has a huge percentage of its population unfit for military service, how can iit be expected to remain the military hegemon? Imagine how differently we would've fared in the second world war if 1/3rd+ of potential recruits were unfit to serve? Furthermore, the U.S. is consistently mocked for its obesity. Destroying this perception would increase our credibility in the international community. Even if the minimum body weight rule didnt actually effect obesity in the U.S., our hegemony would still be increased because nations will respect our obesity fighting efforts. U.S. hegemony allows us to project our power more effectively, and use our military muscle to discourage nuclear proliferation by hostile powers. Our ability to do these things could save literally millions of lives. (iii) The economy will be stimulatedWith more people trying to lose weight, more people will buy things such as exercise equipment, sports equipment, gym memberships, ect. This could stimulate our economy greatly. At the absolute minimum these positive effects will take place among potential models who need to lose weight. C2. Sexual Deviance is discouraged by a weight limit Morality is the fiber that binds our society together. Since the vast majority of people do not find excess body weight an attractive feature, those that do are likely deviants with a sexual fetish for obesity. Creating a minimum body weight for models gives a firm message to them that their lust for fat people is unacceptable. This will result in more of them turning to religion, or going to a therapist to solve their sexual frustrations rather than acting on them. Less sex means less STDs, less unwanted pregnancies, and more time spent doing productive things. This could save lives. C3. Public health increase Models are, in general, very beautiful. Most people admire beauty, so when there is a minimum body weight, some of our most beautiful people who would have previously been outright rejected will now turn to reducing their weight to meet their dream of modeling. Hearing insiring success stories like this will encourage people to eat right and exercise, so public health will increase. At the very least the health of potential models will increase. C4. Defends our perspective of beauty At one point in human history, being fat was considered attractive. We must not allow that to happen again. I will link he readers to this, a picture of Catherine the Great, considered highly attractive for her time: http://www.nndb.com...Here's a pic of a modern day attractive woman, Rosie huntington-whitley (new girl in the transformers movies) http://www.modelinia.com...Surely we can all detect a difference. Thus, to defend our perception of beauty you must affirm.Thank you.

I dont think you understand what I'm trying to say. Diabetes and heart disease can go hand in hand, so if we are going to try to reduce diabetes by taxing sugar, why aren't we going to reduce heart disease by taxing meat and dairy. They can be just as bad as processed food. People don't need to have access to information to understand that sugars, processed meats and foods, dairy, etc, are bad for them. I understand what you mean that a tax on sugar would reduce obesity, but I don't think it is fair or that it will work. There have been many studies on this. http://www.abc.net.au... http://news.cornell.edu...

I am against the banning of trick-or-treating on obese children for several reasons. Ineffective. If a child does not receive candy from one house, there are lots of other houses that will provide candy on Halloween night. What difference is one mini-sized Snickers or a bag of Skittles?"That's not something that someone can judge -- the health of someone -- just by looking at them. I think that's the main thing. Even if a child is overweight, they might be very healthy because of what they eat and how they exercise. It's ineffective anyway because it's not likely to help the kid." - Dr. Katie Gordon, North Dakota State University assistant professor of clinical psychologyThis quote was pulled from http://www.cbsnews.com.... She provided an excellent point to why obese children should be restricted from trick-or-treating. Emotional consequences. Obese children are just like any other child, with just a few extra pounds. When they see a skinny kid receiving candy on Halloween, and they do not receive candy, then it can have a huge emotional impact on them. An emotional impact that would not only humiliate them but also make them feel secluded, different. Such a memory could, and very likely would, still be remembered later on in the teen years - when self-consciousness is high. If obese or even overweight children are banned from trick-or-treating, than they would feel even worse about themselves later on, knowing that others think they are large. None of your business. Parents know their children are obese. They don't need some outside force, such as a neighbor or another parent, telling them that their child is obese. Quite frankly, it is no business of a neighbor to tell a child or his/her parents that they are obese. Alternatives. Instead of handing out candy to fit kids and not giving it out to larger kids, neighbors could instead benefit everybody as a whole and give out, say, an apple. That way the obese child would not feel secluded and could benefit, like everybody else, from the healthiness of an apple. Unpopular method of reducing obesity. Despite being an ineffective way of reducing obesity, this practice of handing out "fat letters" is very unpopular.According to a CBS article, http://www.cbsnews.com..., "Some California and Massachusetts schools have also been accused of sending "fat letters" home with students. These notes include scores of a child's mass index (BMI), a height-to-weight ratio that is used by medical professionals to designate if a person is underweight, normal weight, overweight or obese. Other letters directly address if a child is overweight and obese, and include recommendations on how to help the child lose weight. The practice has been discontinued in Mass. because of fears that the letters may cause self-esteem and bullying issues."Halloween is meant to be fun, not to be something that causes someone to hate their body and despise who they are. If they are obese, and know the consequences of eating candy, then they should make the decision for themselves. Otherwise, it is not in the hands of a neighbor to decide whether they are fit-enough to consume candy.

When you try to urge an alcoholic to stop drinking how well does it work? when you want a drug addict to go to rehab how many times do they comply? The point is they have to want the change they have to take the first step then we can come in. Obese people have to do something first before we can help. Thank you.

I have two sizable issues at this point relating to the description of the subject heading. "The fat should be made to buy two seats on planes",, now I know that fat can be made, but can it be made to buy? ,I would say it can not be made to buy any more than it can be made to sell, I take it what you meant by that is "an overweight person"? , and my other point is (assuming my interpretation thus far is correct),,, "made to buy,,," again do you mean that an overweight person should purchase two seats and then arrange for them to be fitted into the plane sometime before traveling? , or do you mean pay for the use of two seats for means of comfort whilst traveling? , I'll opt for the later and choose to rephrase the heading by reason of clarification for the benefit of all concerned. "It should be made compulsory for overweight persons to pay for the use of two seats on air crafts when one seat is clearly inadequate and threatens to infringe on another passengers seating space and comfort". On refection, if you were to have offered in a loving Scottish manner, to exchange seating positions with the hungry gentleman, due to your newly acquired fear of isles (wink wink) you could have taken advantage of your new seating arrangement by promptly sitting down, drop the arm rest, and fasten yourself in before he had time to be re-seated, leaving the no doubt leggy stewardess to negotiate the impending problem of having to maneuver herself and trolley passed the slavering gent in the isle seat, whilst you are quite comfortably enjoying the spoils of a stationary 125 meals and a free barrow load of booze that can't progress beyond the underside of your nose, courtesy of the by this time panicking how many bellies? , But no,, you had one look at the guys face,which prompted this pie in the sky idea, that would not only cause further discomfort and anxiety to others, but would inconveniently involve the busy captain who was purposely trying to avoid stray sheep whilst making his way to the runway, which only resulted in you being allocated a second seat (at no extra cost) in full view of your co-passengers who were being freely entertained by watching your version of a disgruntled passenger whom had no idea of how to play a simple game of musical chairs when having the advantage of a no loose situation which offered a reward that superseded the cost of your airline ticket. Please don't get me wrong here, I know ï¿½250 is a lot of money, especially to someone who has an Aberdeen connection, people from that area of Scotland are famous for their lack of transactions when it comes to bank withdrawals, at times I'm convinced Ebenezer Scrooge fathered the entire population of the city. It was only the other day that I witnessed an Aberdonian offering a card dealer his Grandmother in exchange for a pair of pocket 10s, with a view to increasing his rather advantageous stack in an online game of poker, whilst at the time hiding behind the guise of ill mannered aviator, dressed in a naughty school boy outfit, I know it wasn't you because your far too pleasant a person. You must realise that the facility of checking any Airline seating policy was put in place long before you decided to fly away from the much loved sheep of Aberdeen, and into the gateway of a cattle market provided by London Heathrow. If you were to have taken a little time out and enquire about the seating policy of the airline in question, you would have had prior knowledge that the ticket purchased ( single economy (coach) class ) was little more than a lottery ticket, and you stood to loose out by being seated beside a well fed gent who had a tendency to spread his over sized frame beyond the bounds of his much sought after seat, I say "sought after" because the flight was a sell out, not because you had the brains to suggest a cunning swap, and the well rounded gents idea of a loosing ticket would include being seated beside someone who wants the plane to himself, but lacks the intellect to move into the best seat on the plane, and ends up with the second worst, by choice. I think your idea of a winning ticket, would comprise of having the whole plane to yourself, now I know at this point you will say "I only wanted the seat I paid to sit on", but if you look at the terms and conditions of your ticket, your guaranteed nothing more than what you got, sorry but I think you're aware of that. If only you would have put your comfort before the priority of your bank balance, and purchased an additional adjacent seat, then just maybe you would have left the nice gentleman stranded in the Aberdeen airport cafeteria, awaiting the next available flight, wishing he was a fat cat that could afford the extra expense of club class, whilst you in your glory being able to stretch out and contemplate if it "would be too bold as to request a woolly blanket and a hot water bottle from a member of the leggy cabin crew". sorry but you brought it on yourself, Imagine the scenario if the policy you suggest were to be implemented, Check In,, "sorry sir but your too fat to occupy only one seat", traveler, "No no, you're mistaken, it's pure muscle, I workout frequently". Check in, "well your wife's fat and needs a good workout, as well as an extra seat". 2ND traveler, "No no, I have a medical condition, it's an illness, and I'm a lot slimmer than I look". It just wouldn't work, the flight operator would face more law suits than I care to mention, I think there's enough trouble at airports without asking passengers to embarrass themselves by jumping on a set of scales, you started this debate and gave it as much thought as you did the subject heading. I know of a man who's built like a half bottle of Smirnoff, he weighs about three and a half tonne, uses airports every other day, gets wheeled through airports from taxi to taxi, can't even walk in his sleep, (maybe he was the guy sitting beside you) this person is unable to sit on a bus or train for hours at a time, now I know airline operators don't run as an ambulance service, but they do run a service, and this service accommodates him. But in the way you wish for the policy to be changed only suits the pocket, not peoples feelings, your point only provides for pockets,and selfishness not people with empty bank accounts due to eating disorders and feelings, so for me the debate votes are balanced on this point, this is the choice that faces every potential voter. Now I know there are people out there that are grossly overweight, and refuse to pay for extra seating, causing discomfort to fellow passengers,like yourself, and at the same time saving a few quid in the process, but you just can't go trying to separate them from the genuinely ill, it would cause no end of problems and hurt to take such a stance, do peoples feelings take second prize to money in this modern day society? .your side of the debate reminds me of A comic strip, Fatman and Robbin', yes robbing people of their dignity and self esteem. I'll hand it back over to you, but if you are a man with even an ounce of compassion, you would concede this debate, and put the unsavory incident down as an experience that opened your eyes to someone less fortunate than ourselves, I'm sure it's left a bitter taste in your mouth, but just spit it out and get on with enjoying your life. I look forward to the next round :)

"None so blind as those who will not see" Have you ever asked yourself why America is so infested with lawyers? It's because the English language is so interestingly vague. When you use words such as "normal", "average" and "CAN", it's the same as opening Pandora's Box. The debate has pretty much boiled down to the definition of the word CAN. And once again, i will throw my opponent's definition back at him. "Can: to be able to; have the ability, power or skill to" Let's think about those 3 words, ability, power or skill. Can I juggle 5 different balls simultaneously? No, because I don't have the hand eye coordination. Can I run a 50 meter dash in 10 seconds? No, because I don't have the agility and leg muscles. Can I kick a nicotine addiction without a nicotine patch? No, because I don't have the willpower required. When my opponent brought up "Potatoes, nor salt, are physically addicting" he admits that will power is in deed an ability, power or skill that determines whether or not you Can or Cannot perform a task. So does the average person under normal conditions have the willpower to eat One and Only one potato chip? I spent most of this debate providing both examples and reasons why the average person under normal conditions DOES NOT have the willpower to resist the temptation to eat that second potato chip. Gluttony, peer pressure, forgetfulness, and my favorite, sunk pressure cost. And that's why you Cannot just eat one potato chip. If you don't believe me, give it a try. You can vote against me after your dead, if you never eat another Lay's potato chip for the rest of your life.

Extend all contentions. Con further supports my decision to call him fat, by proving that he is actually unable to correct typing mistakes due to how fat his fingers are.


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Obesity is indeed a disease.
Obesity is not classified as a disease. It's more of a lifestyle choice. Individuals have the autonomy to decide what they consume. No one coerces you to visit fast-food chains, order a quarter-pounder, and eat it. These are personal choices. Opting for a burger that packs thrice the recommended calorie intake is bound to result in weight gain. And let's not forget those who wash it down with a soda and supersize their fries. When you make such choices, you're not suffering from an illness, but rather displaying a lack of responsibility.

Note: The given documents contain grammatical errors such as "senority" instead of "seniority" and "ponder" instead of "pounder". I've corrected these errors in the similar documents.

Many thanks to my opponent for his considered reply. He wrote: "So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit?" Ha, ha, ha! Or strolling whilst under the influence of alcohol? Or walking without due care and attention? No, naturally, I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians should be subject to road traffic regulations, though it could be argued that people who swerve about the pavement and bump into other pedestrians because they are either drunk or they are texting on their mobile phones are almost as big a nuisance as the obese! My opponent went on to suggest that the Mayor wouldn't have the authority to introduce a ban. Perhaps he is right, otherwise I'm sure just such a ban would have already been introduced –after all, what a vote winner! That said, it is still my understanding that the Mayor of London does have some limited powers in matters relating to transport, for example he introduced a ban on drinking alcohol on public transport a couple of weeks ago, so a ban on the obese walking side-by-side might not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. My opponent continued: "…by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you?" Only when they get in people's way. It's just like people drinking alcohol. It's fine in a pub, but not on a tube or bus, which is why the Mayor banned it. My opponent then wrote: "Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer." I'm aghast that my opponent thinks that I would advocate the wholesale and indiscriminate targeting of obese people. My idea is that, only after a fair warning, would the police bludgeon uncooperative overweight people to the ground using batons or Taser them - to kick them senseless while they are down would be barbaric. The idea is that the abnormally fat would be left unconscious or otherwise incapable of continuing their journey (and thus causing their prostrate bodies to create further obstacles for hard-pressed commuters) is simply abhorrent. My opponent's final argument was that Londoners inconvenienced by the walking chicanes that the obese represent should ask them to move aside. This would not be advisable. Asking a bunch of drunken yobs on the tube to chuck away their booze may provoke a violent reaction. Similarly, if someone asked a couple of obese pedestrians to disguise their ignorance of common courtesies and kindly step aside and allow more important people to get past, they are liable to lash out, especially if it is a hot day or they are hungry (which is almost always). I look forward to my opponent's reply.

I see what you are saying, but 1) Rebuttals Okay but gaining weight ( which is what you said) is not want the people who drink it want, which is what I said. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not but other than that their is nothing else to rebut.

Well, Its quite obvious that you are just a waffler and time waster. You only joined this debate as a way of blocking the truth and thowing a spanner into the works. I am an expert on disease so I didn't appreciate your corrections which are just ridiculous nonsense. Your misguided belief that germs cause disease will cause you much anticpated grief in the future. Lol

As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the "obesity problem" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.

I accept my opponent's definitions, therefore I will not post my defintions Contention 1) CSPI promotes unhealthy food diets: It is well known that CSPI denounces fatty foods, but at the same time promotes high-carbohydrate foods. Studies have shown that high-carbohydrate foods are more dangerous than fatty foods for carbohydrates are seen as the body as 100% sugar. Thus, the body has to create insulin to deal with these carbohydrates. If the carbohydrates are not used as energy, they are then converted to fat. High fat diets actually are healthier than high carbohydrate diets, being that it takes longer for the body to use the fat as energy, giving the consumer of said fats, a full feeling, causing the consumer to have a lesser urge to snack/eat less throughout the day. On the other hand, carbohydrates, being that they are burned through easily, give the consumer a tired feeling after the energy has been burned through. Tom Naughton, director and actor of the movie Fat Head (food documentary replying to the "Super Size Me" crowd proved one can LOSE weight on high fat foods. In fact, he even lowered his cholesterol ratio on a fatty food diet! It is SELF-EVIDENT that CSPI's "Green & High Carb" diet is fruitless (hehe, pun.) Contention 2) CSPI denounces perfectly healthy foods CSPI denounces nearly all food genres that include fats, especially trans fats. But of course, CSPI only sees one kind of trans fat, the evil doer trans fat super villian causing America to be fact on their own accord. Could it be a responsibility issue, or a parenting problem? Oh no, says CSPI! In fact, CSPI even claims that eggs are a "dangerous food." This is ridiculous when many naturally accuring trans fats are good for oneself. Naturally occuring trans fats found in milk and yogurt significantly dropped the cholesterol levels of obese rats during a research experiment at the University of Alberta. As I've stated before in my previous contention, fatty foods can be good for a healthy diet, as long as exercise is present. Esentially, a breakfast of bacon is healthier than having a bowl of cereal. http://www.latimes.com... www.fathead-movie.com/ (informative nutrition movie about carbohydrates that I used in my 1st contention) http://www.thedietchannel.com...

I feel really sorry at this point, for I may have said things that may have hurt my opponents or even you the readers feelings in an attempt to provide for a humorous mind, if this is indeed the case and I have hurt your feelings then I ask for my sincere apologies to be accepted. I never really took the debate seriously, but did manage to muster up some points which I thought to be valid as the remaining Characters permitted for the first round were nearing an end. The thing that pleased me most about this debate was having the opportunity to exercise and share humour, I was more than pleased to hear that Brian (opponent) was "highly amused", and if you the reader shared in the humorous side of the debate, then I'm pleased for you also. I was tempted to call Brian a "Master debater", in relation to the way he projected his stance in the first round but wasn't sure if the funny side would be seen as intended. I'm especially pleased that some of the real Brian shone through in his second round contribution, it gave the impression of him being a really nice guy, which put me on a guilt trip. I learned a lot from participating in this, so I makes no difference how the voting goes, I just feel that we should treat people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, I don't get anything out of judging others, and also feel it's not my place to do so, therefor if ever I find myself in a position to surrender a seat to someone overweight, I will do in respect of this debate. My thanks to you again Brian, for posting the debate and I wish you well. I have nothing to contribute further as far as the debate goes, but plenty to offer society. Ps, have you ever wondered why, "a fat chance and a slim chance have the same meaning"?.

Fat fingers make fat people according to you. look at the script and understand gladius capitulus that I accidentaly hit the caps button, it is right next to the A button on my keyboard, because I have the wherewithaLL TO TYPE MANUALLY. SORRY DID IT AGAIN. between your ears is a big bunch of fat, for sure.

Thyroxin facilitates weight loss. The thyroid gland produces and stores thyroxin. When the supply of thyroxin, in the thyroid, is sensed by its internal transducer to be getting low, it automatically produces more thyroxin. If thyroxin is squeezed from the thyroid gland, it goes into the blood stream and causes weight loss. The thyroid gland then produces more thyroxin in response to its emptiness, soon ready to be squeezed again. Care should be taken not to hurt the thyroid gland. Simple pressure will squeeze the thyroxin into the blood stream. It is said that if it is done over and over too much, this can cause a "thyroid storm", like a person with an over active thyroid. Performed carelessly, or abused, it can be unhealthy. But this is not the only reason this knowledge is suppressed. That area, known as the "vishudha chakra" in yoga, is heavily wired with muscarinic parasympathetic neurons, whose stimulation, called "kundalini" in yoga, will wake up the brain more than the usual 10% brain use, even like LSD, which works by blocking the inhibitory neurons thereby allowing more than 10% brain use, whereas, muscarinic nervous system stimulation works by overriding the inhibitory neurons. The psychedelic drug muscarine doesn't even pass the blood brain barrier. It also works by exciting the muscarinic nervous system; but, it excites the whole parasympathetic nervous system, causing undesirably over active bowels, etc., so it isn't popular in very civilized cultures. Now, we can see another reason why this very effective, and easy, weight loss secret is suppressed. For example, a very politically powerful mystical organization kept, suggestive to them, blue candy from the market to protect their supreme grand secret, vagal stimulation. Most of the twenty-five million Americans who were committed to the mental hospital gulags in the Twentieth century were committed for knowing too much about their own bodies, the power of vagal stimulation. To prevent this human rights abuse from cracking down again, this secret must be spread. This needed further explanation for other audiences, and, this was the further explanation: The vagus nerve runs from the brain, out and down through the naso-pharynx, and down the throat, down into the body. It has branches around the lungs, heart, digestive system, and then down there. It is called the muscainic nervous system, for, if it is stimulated enough it wakes up the brain beyond the normal 10% use, like the hallucinogenic drug muscarine. Here is more information about it: "Waterboarding has replaced LSD for the Clockwork Orange treatment. The public must be informed that waterboarding causes much more than some physical discomfort from drowning and smothering. It stimulates the vagus nerve so much that it puts its victims into what Dr. Stanislav Grof calls "perinatal matrix three". In perinatal matrix three, one body switches backward and forward in time into every person that has been seen. The victims are first forced to see films of people in torment. Then, from enough vagal stimulation the victim body switches into each and every victim, one by one, backward and forward in time, to experience them all, and suffers their suffering as real as life. The scientific discovery of quantum physicist Dr. Hugh Everett, of a probability timeline for every possibility, does show that one does actually body switch in real victims by the Clockwork Orange treatment, caused by LSD, or waterboarding. The TV's in the cells of victims are not a luxury. These TV's are used to show horrible torments which the prisoner will soon suffer by the Clockwork Orange treatment. Crucifixion does the same thing. In ancient times initiation into the Sacred Mysteries was caused by vagal stimulation like this. In the "Aenied" the Witch of Averness said, "You cannot enter the Underworld (better known as Hell) without the Golden Bough (the vagus nerve). Vivasection in those days revealed that the vagus nerve looked like a "golden bough". Dr. Stanislav Grof revealed that Baptism was originally like waterboarding. The Baptism of such waterboarding was used for vagal stimulation by many repositories of the Sacred Mysteries, like the Knights of Bath. The name Baphomet means the Baptism of Wisdom, and, the devil Baphomet gives the gesture "as below so above", referring to human physiology. Yet, this is the most suppressed secret in the world. That's THEIR Supreme Grand Secret. Vagal stimulation overrides the inhibitory neurons in the brain, waking up the brain beyond it's normal 10% brain use. LSD does the same thing by blocking seratonin, the neurotransmitter of those inhibitory neurons that normally keep the brain down to 10% brain use. When the Soviet Union found out that the "lodge" WAS violating human rights to suppress this knowledge of the human body, Dr. Stanislav Grof came from Prague, Czechoslovakia, and established Grof Transpersonal, http://www.holotropic.com... where sufficient vagal stimulation is accomplished by "holotropic breathing". The "lodge" heeded the warnings of national security by not suppressing them. And, the "hive" theory of network engineering was declared, that, knowledge is sequestered in groups and goes nowhere. Then, the Iron Curtain fell. They had violated the noninterference treaty. Back in the old Iron Curtain countries shamans' disease was public knowledge. The people were allowed to know that scar tissue in the parasympathetic (muscarinic) nervous system woke up the brain, beyond the normal 10% brain use. But, here, behind the "Plastic Curtain", people with shamans' disease were condemned to the mental hospital gulags, invented by Benjamin Franklin for his "lodge", and tagged schizophrenic. Schizophrenia itself is caused by the growth of too many axons and dendrites between the brain neurons, caused by a gene called DISC1, which also wakes up the brain beyond the normal 10% brain use. But also, anyone caught knowing this Grand Secret was tagged schizophrenic, locked up in the mental hospital gulags, and tortured with dopamine blockers and shock treatments. The "lodge" was so paranoid about its Grand Secret that no one could get blue candy until the Twenty-First Century. The availability of blue candy was probably made possible by the writings of Mike O'Dan the Snakeman, from 1971 through to the Twenty-First Century, by pointing out this gap, conspicuous by set theory, and the reason for it. The "lodge" is the greatest threat to the American way today, and have been since 1995 when they attempted to remove our human rights by a constitutional convention. Recently, they have even been trying to put America under an Islamic governmemnt. They are sneaking Sharia Law into our court systems now. They are also trying to force changes that would eliminate our Bill of Rights by destroying the economy. If you want to continue enjoying your American liberties, I suggest that you spread this secret material, for you, too, now know too much." Pressing on the thyroid gland squeezes thyroxin into the body causing weight loss. The thyroid gland soon fills with thyroxin again to be press again, causing more weight loss, on and on. It just looks like strangulation, blue candy stains the lips blue, and there can be much vagal stimulation done there with the "vishudha chakra", thus the "lodge" even used their un-Constitutional influence to keep blue candy off the market. The chakras of yoga are plexuses of the muscarinic nervous system, not "spiritual wheels of light along the spine". People who want to take more advanced yoga must sign a contract of secrecy before they are told the truth about the chakras. And, the yoga instructors are also bound by contracts of secrecy. I never singed any contract of secrecy. A homeless banished "lodge" member told my buddy and I all the secrets in 1959. I put them all in a term paper in 1962, got a 98% for it, graduated with honors, and joined the Army. The instructor of that class had sold that term paper in the term paper black market, the wrong people read it, detectives were sent out to hunt me down, and they got me "over a barrel" in the Army. I was given the "Clockwork Orange" treatment by large doses of LSD, which puts you in the real Hell. And later threatened that they would put me in Hell permanently is I ever revealed the secrets again. They didn't offer me membership. I also swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have been spreading the secret ever since, as a very angry fugitive.

I saw that thedoctor321 started another debate on this and I just couldn't resist. To begin: yo mamma so fat that she bought a second plane ticket -- for herself!

Perhaps, many people have heard something about the recent trend - The Body Positive Movement. At first the movement seems to be completely healthy. What could be wrong with accepting your body as it is? Still, the question is not as simple as it may seem. The concept of the Body Positive is often misinterpreted. Such misinterpretations are fatal not only for a single person, but also for a whole society. Therefore I insist that the movement can't be called positive. And here goes my first argument, which is HEALTH.Firstly, you can accept your body as long as it's healthy. I believe there are some things that can't be accepted. Moreover, there are some problems that can't be solved by simple acceptance. For instance, health problems. The thing is that by chance particular health problems affect our appearance, thus causing lack of self-confidence and making the unhealthy person disgusting for other people. To solve the problems person should consult a doctor, which sometimes represent another problem due to psychological and economic factors.Secondly, I'm convinced that one can't make himself or herself love his or her body simply saying "Ok, I accept myself as I am because each body is perfect" It's a delusion. It's a self-suggestion. It's a placebo. Time spent on worthless declarations and exclamations may negatively affect your condition leading to the health aggravation. On the contrary, to love your body means to respect your body. To respect your body means to take care of your body.Finally, I believe The Body Positive Movement represents a radical reaction to another recent trend which is plastic surgery. While the 2nd variant helps you achieve fake perfection with an operating knife, the 1st one denies perfection as it is. And as a result, it cuts both ways. These two variants only create the illusion of self-confidence. The Body Positive, just as plastic surgery, works for those who refuse to take direct action. Besides, both are unhealthy. People tend to see things in black and white. Why couldn't we see the shades of grey? Or - what is even better - why couldn't we mix them up with more vivid colours?Considering my first argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention!


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Obesity can be classified as a disease.
A significant portion of the population can shed excess weight by adopting a balanced diet and engaging in regular physical activity. However, there are individuals who face challenges such as hormonal imbalances, which can lead to weight gain. In such cases, the hormonal imbalance can be considered a disease that contributes to obesity. It's important to note that obesity is not solely a disease, but it can certainly be a consequence of other health conditions. Genetic factors that predispose individuals to diseases like diabetes and heart disease are indeed present. Leading a healthy lifestyle and making wise choices can lower the risk of developing these diseases. In some instances, regardless of one's efforts, genetic predispositions can result in conditions such as diabetes. Nevertheless, maintaining a healthy lifestyle is always beneficial when battling a disease. In general, consuming high-fat foods and leading a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity. Individuals have control over their dietary choices and level of physical activity. While there are genetic diseases that can result in obesity, obesity itself is not a disease but rather a consequence of lifestyle choices.

I will be representing the Con side of the debate and will be arguing that: the proposed "fat tax" should not be implemented. I will begin by building the Con argument in 4 main points. I will refrain from rebuttal until the second round as a gesture of good will for my opponent and to level the debate. I) There are no objectively unhealthy foods- Not all fatty food is inherently unhealthy. Fat is a necessary part of someone's diet though it should be consumed with moderation. The same is true of sugar and sodium and other components of food that when consumed in excess, have negative effects on health. As an example, the McDonald CEO went a full year eating nothing but McDonalds and actually lost about 20 lbs by eating a variety of things on the menu, controlling his portions, and exercising more. You can eat food usually considered unhealthy and maintain fairly good health if you are willing to try. (1) What is healthy and what isn't is subjective because it is based on many factors like level of activity, an individual's rate of metabolism, various health conditions (anemia, diabetes, etc. ), and even someone's environment and the weather they are exposed to. There is simply no principled method that can possibly set blanket standards that will be healthy for everyone. This becomes apparent when we assess initiatives like Michelle Obama's school lunch efforts where portion sizes were decreased which is bad for growing teens/children that are involved in heavy physical activity like sports. Sugars were also largely replaced with artificial sweeteners that can be equally unhealthy. These measures are ineffective at best and have a negative effect for many. II) Exacerbates crony capitalist corruption- The proposed tax adds to an already overcomplicated and messy tax code. This same tax code is so convoluted that the upper class and large corporations gain advantages through loopholes. This tax also give incentive for food industries to lobby for themselves and against competitors to promote more favorable dietary guidelines in regards to defining unhealthy/fatty foods. For instance, a corporation might seek to support officials that will determine their competitor's food unhealthy due to a particular dietary factor. They would also have incentive to lobby for officials who would protect dietary guidelines that placed taxes on their products. It is also worth noting that these various dietary regulations will hurt small businesses more than large corporations that are more equipped to lobby for favorable standards, engineer their food to meet standards, and take a hit economically from decreased demand. When small business suffers so does competition and our capitalist economy that relies on it. III) Discriminatory and regressive- This is a highly regressive tax because "fatty foods" are generally more affordable source of food and is more heavily consumed by the poor. This tax discriminates against impoverished groups that more heavily rely on cheaper "unhealthy" foods. This will exacerbate wealth inequality and hurt impoverished minorities. IV) Fails to create a healthier society- Unhealthy foods are healthier for the poor then not being able to afford food or skipping meals. This bill would particularly hurt many college students who rely on quick, easy food and would have to pay more or go with less. This bill does not incentivised eating healthy foods it only incentivised not eating unhealthy food. V) Not the government's right- The government has no moral right or Constitutional authority to decide for individuals what choices they should be making about their own health. Under this argument we should tax couches, computers, and chairs for contributing to an unhealthy lifestyle for some. 1) . https://www.usatoday.com...

Though America is dealing with overweight issues, not all of these issues are directly apparent with the entire N.C. State student body. Furthermore, Students enter college between the general ages of 17-19 and are defined by society as adults. Therefore as adults, if obesity is a problem for any students they should be able to seek help that is necessary or take a PE course at their will. And other students are welcomed also to take PE courses, but should be at the same time trusted as adults to make rational decisions pertaining to their health needs and desires. If necessary, information can be easily obtained through other resources as well, such as online or books if necessary. With response to the PE course requirements benefiting students as a whole, how is this relevant if N.C. State has never not required PE courses. How does the administration know that students would not seek out Physical Education courses without requirement, knowing that it benefits students as a whole. Students who are taking advantage of the Carmichael Gym and other perks that are offered would enroll themselves in a PE course, knowing that it helps to provide them a place to work out. Therefore, students who really care for the workout area and programs would partake enrollment, and those students who do not care for the facility and its benefits can put their time into another course. Physical Activity may have these effects, but the problem here is a time constraint. People who want to work out daily are going to work out with or without the course requirement, therefore PE courses are taking away from time they could allot for a more brain stimulating course. For other students who may not care as much about working out, they may not be able to find a PE course that works with their schedule; therefore, they are forced to sacrifice more important courses to fit PE into their day. My roommate had to take a PE course, which did not interest her because of the inconvenient time and graduation plans. She would seem aggravated both before and after class because she believed it was not the most efficient way to spend her day. So, clearly although exercise helps relieve stress, if you are not willing to fully engage in activity to relieve your stress there will be nothing to gain, and therefore, the PE course will render itself unnecessary.

Americans suffer from a disease, Greed is a sin a disease, You do have a duy to share, And human nature can and will be changed If you see someone with more than they deserve it should make you angry, Especially if they have more than you do and you don't have anything, How is that fair? Even the bible tells you to share.

Swimming My opponent states that burn lines are worse than being a fatty! Well now I beg to differ! Sunburns = Everybody gets em Just plain fat = only about 96% of all beach goers! 96% < 100% Also, I want you to tell me what looks worse. The natural skin color of a ginger that my opponent posted above, or this: That’s what I thought. At least gingers have a chance to get some abs and show off to the ladies! If you do not think the above ginger my opponent posted is the sexiest thing you have ever seen then there may be some serious problems with your brain. My opponent then goes onto to some absolute bull shat over some un-proven scientific theory called buoyancy which scientists have only discovered and been researching for the past 3 and a half days. The fact that my opponent even has knowledge of this top secret scientific discovery only further proves he is a super cyborg robotic ginger of awesomeness that knows everything and works for the R.C.G.A (Robotic Cyborg Gingers of America) which is a top secret government program that is secretly taking over the world. I have taken 3 years of middle school science I think I know what I am talking about. Gravity pulls fat people down so they sink whenever they fall into water. Looking Pregnant It is quite severe my fiery friend! Fatties are already embarrassed for being who they are and now they have to endure further embarrassment for it! The baby needs a beer?! That has to be the worst thing you can possibly say when people think you are pregnant! You'll probaly end up losing whatever small amount of friends you had! I’m sorry, which one is pregnant? I’d probably guess the super hero one because I would tap her any day. I see her baby lump stickin out! Oh and before my opponent says I only like the woman because I am “fat albert” here’s a picture of me. Walking Up Stairs Quite a tragic accident that was. Let us all take a moment of silence for the respect of all the fatties. Now then, my opponent states that fat people falling down stairs doesn’t happen as often as I would like you all to believe! ORLLY NOW. According to the FAP (Fat American People) Association exactly 4,454,954.3 Fat people fall down the stairs and can’t get up daily. You have got to be kidding me. You are telling me that a skinny boy will have trouble going up stairs because his shoes have no soles? Fat people weigh like at least a couple thousand pounds! They have trouble going up a step without breaking a staircase! Don’t even get me started on how expensive it is with them and home repairs! Farting and Fat People My opponent is correct and has shown logic and scientific evidence that it is fat people that always fart, although I disagree with the ozone layer. My opponent states, “It's not that we always assume it's the fat guy, the fact is, it's just always the fat guy.” And then states, “Ginger farts have the ability to melt faces of those that the farter loves. From experience, I've sent four girlfriends to the hospital. It sucks.” My opponent is talking about fat gingers, which both of us can easily agree is the worst mixture of genetics of all time. Both of our arguments our negated. 1. Fat people are the ones that always fart. 2. Ginger farts melt people’s faces off. 3. Only fat people fart, therefore only a fat ginger can do this. Luckily, I can continue off the fact that fat people fart all the time regardless of being a ginger where as you are forced to drop the arguments because gingers can only fart if they are fat. Anyways, to the ozone layer. My opponent is completely off with this statement! The reason the ozone layer has been repairing itself is because of the use of oil, fossil fuels, and driving cars everywhere! The farts of fat men have nothing to do with this and the “nutrients” in their farts actually cause chemical explosions in the atmosphere 78% percent of the time and it actually weakens the ozone layer! Being Attractive Don’t get me started! According to the ROJAA(Rich Over-Rated Judgemental A$$holes of America) exactly 49.9999% Of people in America find fat people more attractive than gingers where as a HUGE gap of 1.0001% of people in America find gingers more attractive! Ron Weasely: Dayamn. Santa Clause: Hmmm, I concede to this one, but you get my point! MassiveDump: Sexy We could do this forever, but in the end I've got all the 100% legit statistics! Plus gingers are sassy and who doesn't like a little sass? Oh, and I think I win -> http://www.youtube.com... Physical Activity Football: A good football team needs a versatile man who can do more than one thing if he needs to. Being a fat wall isn’t going to cut it in football when those mean lean, black machines have handled fatter ladies than the likes of him. Golf: Just, please, just look at the video and watch them fail. They are obviously incapable of working a golf cart. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Baseball: When fielding they are far too slow to get that ball or even throw it to someone. Even pitchers and catchers have to do some fielding and running surprisingly. Basketball:Sorry, but dem nigga$ wouldn’t exactly have what you call, a problem, jumping over a fat man and dunking over him! Sumo Wrestling: OH please, who watches Sumo wrestling?! Notice how I listed sports people actually watch?! My opponent concedes to the fact that fat people falling is indeed horrifying. Noticeability All those pranks can be pulled of by duct taping a bunch of pillows to a skinny man! Skinny people can make themselves fat with the use of items but fat people can’t make themselves skinny the same way! My opponent concedes that fat people are no good in the military and can't go tomohawking a bunch of Osma BinLadens. My opponent posts a picture of a ginger with his head on fire. Of course that makes them noticeable! In the same way that if a fat man takes out a trumpet and starts blaring it at random people they will tend to be noticed! Fact is, that ginger is using his powers to manipulate power of his own free will. In the same way, the fat guy uses his power to blare that trumpet of his own free will. If you make that ginger stop doing his power and take away the trumpet from the fat guy then you will still get a very noticeable fat guy! Gingers 1. The Ability to Control And Manipulate Fire at Will. Frankly, he is obviously holding out his hands in a way that shows he has power over the situation! Just look! His face shows absolute focus! MassiveDump, please try to refrain from lying about such a thing! We all know you are a skilled firebender so please, for the sake of our audience let’s get real here! My opponent makes an Avatar reference. What you didn’t know was that every fire bender is a ginger. None of the other nations could take them seriously in war so they all dyed their hair then went to kick some a$$. 2. Can Burst Into Flames Burning Everyone Around Them. What my opponent says is indeed true. Those hot tempers can indeed cause them to spontaneously combust. On the bright side, if you are getting hot headed then maybe you took out somebody you didn’t like anyways! 3. No Soul Which Means No Emotions which Means NO FEELING HAPPINESS EVEN AT THE SIGHT OF THE BIRTH OF YOUR OWN DAUGHTER (or for me the sight of a cheeseburger more likely). What is this blasphemy?! Daughter? You’re a robot for God’s sake! Or at least a circumcised cyborg! 4. Gingers are Naturally Good at Doing an Irish Jig! Point taken. Maybe a very desperate way to make some money off the street when you are poor…? 5. The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow. If you want to get technical, I never implied you were a lepherchaun! Only 11% of gingers are! It’s just in your genetics to know where the pot of gold is! Just pay off the KKK wouldja? They probably need some more ammunition to kill people anyways :D Anyways, you are all cyborgs with flame powers. I seriously doubt the KKK is going to be much of a problem. Thanks. Back to you!

Gym class and health class, gonovice when was your first gym class and when was your first health class? what grade?. Second how much about nutrition did you learn from your gym or health class. How much do you currently know about nutrtion? How would you rate your nutrition knowledge from 1 to 10, what number. And to see if the gym class and health are realy enough to teach about nutrition how has the knowledge that was taught to you in those classes effected your daily life. For instance if you would could you give a sample of your current diet for a one day. Just try to pick the things you eat most often on most days, through out the day. Maybe I am wrong, maybe school are already teaching enough about health and nutrition, though the more the 60% of the countries obesity rate do not say much, nore does the epidemic of heart disease,diabetes, and cancer deaths. It is said the in a few years from now corornary heart disease will surpass cigarette smoking as the most preventable cause of death.

I dont think you understand what I'm trying to say. Diabetes and heart disease can go hand in hand, so if we are going to try to reduce diabetes by taxing sugar, why aren't we going to reduce heart disease by taxing meat and dairy. They can be just as bad as processed food. People don't need to have access to information to understand that sugars, processed meats and foods, dairy, etc, are bad for them. I understand what you mean that a tax on sugar would reduce obesity, but I don't think it is fair or that it will work. There have been many studies on this. http://www.abc.net.au... http://news.cornell.edu...

At this point, the debate is over. Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link: . https://www.chop.edu...One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page. Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate.

changing weights is not evolving. evolving involves changing genes. changing weight doesn't involve changing genes.

people should know how to take care of their body so they can prevent the majority of diseases and cancers and get off of the dependency of pharmoseutical companies or cold hearted pill pushers which ever name you prefer. Maybe not all but my overall view of pharmosuetical companies is pretty negative because they choose not to spend any money on commercials or info on prevention. they have the knowledge and power yet choose to take advantage of people and thier money.

Perhaps, many people have heard something about the recent trend - The Body Positive Movement. At first the movement seems to be completely healthy. What could be wrong with accepting your body as it is? Still, the question is not as simple as it may seem. The concept of the Body Positive is often misinterpreted. Such misinterpretations are fatal not only for a single person, but also for a whole society. Therefore I insist that the movement can't be called positive. And here goes my first argument, which is HEALTH.Firstly, you can accept your body as long as it's healthy. I believe there are some things that can't be accepted. Moreover, there are some problems that can't be solved by simple acceptance. For instance, health problems. The thing is that by chance particular health problems affect our appearance, thus causing lack of self-confidence and making the unhealthy person disgusting for other people. To solve the problems person should consult a doctor, which sometimes represent another problem due to psychological and economic factors.Secondly, I'm convinced that one can't make himself or herself love his or her body simply saying "Ok, I accept myself as I am because each body is perfect" It's a delusion. It's a self-suggestion. It's a placebo. Time spent on worthless declarations and exclamations may negatively affect your condition leading to the health aggravation. On the contrary, to love your body means to respect your body. To respect your body means to take care of your body.Finally, I believe The Body Positive Movement represents a radical reaction to another recent trend which is plastic surgery. While the 2nd variant helps you achieve fake perfection with an operating knife, the 1st one denies perfection as it is. And as a result, it cuts both ways. These two variants only create the illusion of self-confidence. The Body Positive, just as plastic surgery, works for those who refuse to take direct action. Besides, both are unhealthy. People tend to see things in black and white. Why couldn't we see the shades of grey? Or - what is even better - why couldn't we mix them up with more vivid colours?Considering my first argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention!


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Schools ought to prohibit the sale of junk food. Prohibiting junk food in schools could serve as an effective strategy to combat the escalating obesity rates in the United States. The potential health benefits of such a policy far outweigh any perceived drawbacks of limiting students' food choices.

I accept my opponent's definitions, therefore I will not post my defintions Contention 1) CSPI promotes unhealthy food diets: It is well known that CSPI denounces fatty foods, but at the same time promotes high-carbohydrate foods. Studies have shown that high-carbohydrate foods are more dangerous than fatty foods for carbohydrates are seen as the body as 100% sugar. Thus, the body has to create insulin to deal with these carbohydrates. If the carbohydrates are not used as energy, they are then converted to fat. High fat diets actually are healthier than high carbohydrate diets, being that it takes longer for the body to use the fat as energy, giving the consumer of said fats, a full feeling, causing the consumer to have a lesser urge to snack/eat less throughout the day. On the other hand, carbohydrates, being that they are burned through easily, give the consumer a tired feeling after the energy has been burned through. Tom Naughton, director and actor of the movie Fat Head (food documentary replying to the "Super Size Me" crowd proved one can LOSE weight on high fat foods. In fact, he even lowered his cholesterol ratio on a fatty food diet! It is SELF-EVIDENT that CSPI's "Green & High Carb" diet is fruitless (hehe, pun.) Contention 2) CSPI denounces perfectly healthy foods CSPI denounces nearly all food genres that include fats, especially trans fats. But of course, CSPI only sees one kind of trans fat, the evil doer trans fat super villian causing America to be fact on their own accord. Could it be a responsibility issue, or a parenting problem? Oh no, says CSPI! In fact, CSPI even claims that eggs are a "dangerous food." This is ridiculous when many naturally accuring trans fats are good for oneself. Naturally occuring trans fats found in milk and yogurt significantly dropped the cholesterol levels of obese rats during a research experiment at the University of Alberta. As I've stated before in my previous contention, fatty foods can be good for a healthy diet, as long as exercise is present. Esentially, a breakfast of bacon is healthier than having a bowl of cereal. http://www.latimes.com... www.fathead-movie.com/ (informative nutrition movie about carbohydrates that I used in my 1st contention) http://www.thedietchannel.com...

Oh. Thought I was Pro. Well, to be "sick", you need to have germs. Germs are everywhere, thus, we are all "sick", but some of us are only a tiny bit sick.

Thank you for your participation in this debate and also, that you gave such good arguments! In the beginning, I want to answer on your question "Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position?". I'm talking from a health position. When I wrote about disease, I based myself on this article: "Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease, the number-one killer of women. "Fatty red meats and many processed meats are high in saturated fat, which raises LDL (bad) cholesterol and increases risk of coronary heart disease," says Dr. Rachel K. Johnson, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association and professor of Nutrition and Medicine at the University of Vermont. Studies, including one of more than 500,000 people published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." of course, you are right when you wrote " It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not.". However, I wanted to say that people can reduce risk. Besides, I have this position because of environment. For instance, people cut trees down in order to create new pastures for animals. Everybody knows that trees are the planet's lungs, so when we lose it, carbon dioxide is released. Consequently, it leads to the global rise in temperature. Also, there is a problem of shortage of water in the world. According to VITA (it's russian site) farming uses 70% of all using water in the world. It means that everyday one farm uses water as one city which has approximately 10000 population. Reference: http://www.womenshealthmag.com... http://www.vita.org.ru...

BRING. IT. ON. I purposely challenged MassiveDump seeing that not only is he the most famous ginger on DDO but he would know what being a ginger is like more than most of us! This is a troll debate! Telling the truth is not required, but let's at least try to make it relative to being fat or being a ginger. No going, "EMEMGERD FAT PEOPLE ARE FLYING ALIENSFRFROM MARZ THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTER." Or anything like that! Let's keep it real bro. Innapropriate language is also allowed! First round is for acceptance.Note to all viewers: this debate may be found offensive, especially to fat people and gingers. Viewer discretion is adviced. And don't say I didn't warn you.

================PRO's CONTENTIONS========================== RE PRO's contention #1: 1) PRO concedes that the other COMMON PE sports I showed were more dangerous than DDR. Ladies and gentleman, this hurts PRO's case considerably as to answer his Aerobics comparison, I'd simply say Aerobics AND DDR be included in PE, provided PRO wishes to keep the aforementioned activities. I request that PRO clarify on this matter before I continue on this path. 2) Step aerobics is a poorer choice than DDR. Whether or not it's safer, the fact of the matter is that it is not as alluring, as shown by PRO's own evidence. Thus, it is far less likely the solve the problems which I brought up in my first contention. 3) Nonsense. It is my opponent who has skipped over an important point. As I insisted in the last round, his problems only come up if one plays DDR TOO long in one sitting. The fact of the matter is that not only can a P.E. instructor make sure that no single students plays the game too long (which is much easier than hiring a teacher to conduct step aerobics), but that a group of students are not likely to experience the problems he brings up in a 45 minute class. Speaking of 45 minutes, I'd like you to take a gander at this article (1). Observe the following quote: "CVS is caused by decreased blinking reflex while working long hours focusing on computer screen." Does 45 minutes sound like LONG HOURS to you? Of course, even if I am to pacify PRO's argument and say something like "ALL PE classes go on for LONG HOURS", again, the solution is to simply have the P.E instructor limit the amount of time students spend on these machines. RE PRO CONTENTION #2 1) Yes, they are required to participate, but this does not bring us to the conclusion that these students who aren't overweight will willfully lose an uncanny amount of weight as was the case for the obese individuals in PRO's link. There is a difference between an overweight individual losing weight and an proper weighted or underweight individual losing weight and that is that the overweight individual can afford to lose weight (hence the body will react differently and more pleasantly). One cannot say the same for underweight individuals. At any rate, until PRO provides evidence, you are not to accept his argument here. 2) I've already covered step aerobics, but just to reiterate, step aerobics isn't as addictive, thus wouldn't serve as proper motivation in order to pull off the feats cited in PRO's original article. ================My CONTENTIONS==================== CONTENTION #1: The purpose of my first contention is to establish just how much of a problem obesity has become to society, hence the need to take significant action. If PRO concedes to this, then it is his responsibility to show that step aerobics can motivate students to lose weight and that it is beneficial. Unfortunately, he has done neither of the task. CONTENTION #2: See above. CONTENTION #3: 1) Hmm, whoopsy. Yeah, it improves Foot eye coordination, not hand eye coordination, however, this concession is utterly meaningless as improvement of foot eye coordination (2) is still highly beneficial given that driving skills still improve (specifically usage of the break and accelerator) if there is better foot eye coordination. Remember, with better driving skills, there will be far less automobile accidents. 2) Dancing is an art form that refers to body movement usually rhythmic and to music. What I'm saying is that DDR trains one to use their body to rhythmically coordinate with the music that is playing (hence hitting arrows at every beat). I hold that if one can master this via DDR, their dance skills should improve when it concerns "dancing to a beat." In addition, through DDR, one's "footwork" has more potential. As for citing the CHa-Cha-slide, I was under the impression that PRO was to be arguing that aerobics was superior. Whether or not the Cha Cha slide is superior is irrelevant as I'm simply listing the benefits of DDR. Unless PRO can prove that the Cha Cha Slide has ALL of the benefits that DDR has, his objection is of no relevance and is to be dismissed immediately. - As for rhythmic accuracy, yes, one could very well play a musical instrument, however, this is simply a red herring presented by PRO. If not, then PRO must prove that 'merely' playing a musical instrument has ALL the benefits DDR has. 3) Yes, participation is mandatory in a PE class, just as participation is mandatory in an upper level math class, however, students who are actually INTERESTED in either class are more likely to benefit from the education that students who are not. As for that comment PRO made about Wii sports, this is once again a case of proving that Wii Sports possesses all of the benefits DDR has. Most importantly (in accordance with my first contention), how often does Wii Sports serve as a significant weapon against obesity? As for his summary, just look over my points that refute his argument on step aerobics. In addition, you have no reason to consider any of PRO's alternatives since none of them even manage to have all of the attributes which DDR does. By his logic, a house which merely consist of a high quality master bedroom is better than a house which consist of a nigh high quality kitchen, a nigh high quality master bed room, a nigh high quality bathroom and a nigh high quality living room. And yeah, that'll do it for now. SOURCES: #1: http://en.wikipedia.org... #2: http://www.ddrfreak.com...

I was a little shocked that instead of denying Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke that your post actually affirms what I have been saying! Government over steps it's bounds way too often. This is supposed to be a country "for the people, by the people." I didn't vote for a ban on soda, less calories in schools or obamacare. I do believe there should be no junk food in schools but if a kid brings their own then let him/her enjoy it. As I noted in the comment section, there are students feeling like they are starving by the end of school and definitely by the end of after school activities. The school lunch program was to ensure ALL students receive some sort of sustenance and nutrition, not pay 25 cents more for less food!!! Thanks michelle! I believe the actual quote was "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like it requires a nail" I am not positive but it is a little easier to understand that way. I have worked on so many machines that I have no favorite tool. NDOT's TDM is a bunch of fools. They do not know how to build roads properly, how to have safe and effective egress and their lack of knowledge of how to synchronize traffic light is troubling. The biggest problem with the Las Vegas road system is that too many los angeles engineers moved here and they had warped conceptions on how to handle traffic. They think having to stop at every light prevents speeding but everyone here races to beat the light!?!?! I don't even want to get started on "global warming" and "climate change". It is a lie designed to create more money for the government in taxes and carbon credits PERIOD! Look at Italian/Roman art over the last 2000 years. From the 150 BC to 300 AD they were shown is summer type clothing. From 300 AD to 900 AD they are shown in longer togas and layered clothing. Again from 900 to 1200 hundred the clothing was lighter and shorter. From 1250 to 1400 the clothing was again longer and layered. This was the time of REAL climate change, they had very many floods and droughts. By the mid 1400's clothing became very heavy and rarely recorded weather of the time period, up to the mid 1800's, was almost never over 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In the late 1800's there were temperatures in the 90's and on occasion 100's in the summer. In the 1950's it cooled again and in 1988 a warming trend started. Times change and all things with it. The earth has warmed and cooled for a million years and will do so for about another million. The above dates are approximate and the clothing is not just fashion it shows the climate of the time. If you wish to view a 2,000 year old tree ring that shows the change in temperatures of Northern Europe go here http://www.dailymail.co.uk... As far as homosexuals and gambling I think that is individual right. I don't like anything gay around me but if a flamer comes in and sits next to me at the bar it is his/her right as long as they don't harass me. If someone wants to risk all their money I think it is their right but so that person's rights don't trample other's rights, they should HAVE to be logged in. If you lose everything from gambling and file bankruptcy or try to get welfare you should be denied. You have the right to bankruptcy if your business can no longer compete and welfare if you are down by no fault of your own but when it is out of your own ignorance the American people should not have to bail you out. I would expect a church or charity to help though. That is the great thing about Americans, when left to there own accord they always come through for their neighbors.

I really disagree that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity. It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats. Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. Kids dont just eat at home. They can eat at school, with their friends at McDonalds, ect. So childrens parents arent the main influences in what thier children eat.

I gladly accept. If this is a troll debate, please refrain from mentioning that fatties have legitimate health problems as opposed to gingers, because in reality I agree with you on this resolution (but for the purpose of the debate I'll stand opposed). In exchange, while I feel like the fact that fatties are flying aliens from mars is a legitimate claim, I will refrain from using it by your request. Loser buys lunch. Good Luck! :D

I understand this debate is meant to be 'light hearted'. I would hope so anyway. Still, it is Pro's position that he advocates a form of discrimination. "The obese are the human equivalent of vehicular wide loads" We have separate laws for humans and vehicles because...well simply they are not analogous legally. "The same principle should be applied to the narrow, crowded pavements (sidewalks) of central London." So people who run on pavements should be legally stopped and fined for exceeding a pedestrian speed limit? "The Mayor of London should pass a by-law that would empower the police and Community Support Officers to force abnormally fat people to keep out of normal people's way by walking in single file, with the use of batons and Tasers being sanctioned to enforce the law." To start with in the UK, the Mayor of London cannot simply "pass a by-law". There are no specific stages in creating subordinate legislation; however there are two procedures for it coming into effect: Negative resolution: the subordinate legislation has immediate effect, but is brought before Parliament and may be annulled if a resolution against it is passed within 40 days Affirmative Resolution: the subordinate legislation must be affirmed by resolutions in each House of Parliament before it may come into effect. Secondly, by what right do you claim moral and consequent legal authority over obese individuals? Is it simply because they annoy you? This is hardly a sound legal basis. Batons would certainly be innefective as a pro social motivator, tasering an individual would essetially create a sidewalk block stopping pedestrians walking both directions which is opposite the benefit you infer. "thus forcing decent, hard working commuters to risk their lives by dodging onto the road in an effort to get past them" No, that is an individual choice, one would argue based upon impatience and a societal norm where you don't ask the person in front of you to move aside. In each case it is certainly not due to the obese individual. "decent" and "hardworking" are merely fallacious ploys that appeal to emotion. Unless wife beating welfare cheats have a secret anti obese pedestrian sidewalk technique we don't know about.

Thanks for the debate. My opponent had one really good point. That somehow low-calorie is associated with healthy. Yet, inadequate calorie intake is detrimental to health and performance. This trend of low-calorie or calorie reduction is disturbing to me. I've studied diet a lot and I conclude that no good can come out of denying yourself needed calories. Solution: Eat a lot of healthy food. Apples are known for being healthy, so instead of eating a really low calorie meal of one apple. Eat lots of apples, at least five in a meal. Nobody gains weight on a straight apple diet. Thanks again for the debate.