Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Obesity is not a disease but a consequence of personal choices.
What constitutes obesity? It is a health condition characterized by an excessive accumulation of body fat, potentially detrimental to health and associated with a shorter lifespan and greater health risks [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Some individuals claim that obesity is a disease, but I will argue that it is a result of personal choices, not a medical ailment. My opponent can present their viewpoint in the first round. Best of luck!

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. It 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, whereas, muscarinic nervous system stimulation works by overriding the inhibitory neurons. > > > The pshchedelic 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 secret, vagal stimulation. > > > Most of the twenty-five million Americans who were committed 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 need further explanation in other groups, 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 the 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 evey 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 sufffering 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 waterboarding. The Baptism of 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", refering to human physiology. Yet, this is the most suppressed secret in the world. > > > > > > > > That's THEIR 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. 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" didn't dare touch 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 governemnt. 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 presse 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 paprer in the term paper black market, the wrong people re

Many Americans are overweight, especially at a young age, and physical education is only given to them for a certain amount of years throughout their school life. It should be an obligation to make PE an everyday class where students work out for at least an hour and learn the best exercises to do for certain fat located in the body. If no one teaches them, they will never know how to lose weight they've gained. The health of students should play a important role in their education. Kids need to stay healthy and live a healthy life style. They need to work out, get fit. Obesity is becoming an average american thing, and it should not be that way.

Can I first ask, that do you not think that being put in a class with all the other obese or unfit Girls and Boys might be a little degrading for the children, and perhaps even worsen they self-confidence levels?You said shy people's fitness would be affected, and credit due, those who don't play enough sport will not get fit. But the sport you do should not be forced upon you. We live in a free country of choice, and children should have the right to make a choice whether to partake in a gym class or not, regardless of weight and confidence.But your last comment or point took me back a little. "be separated by their ability to perform not their gender." Like I said above, how degrading would that be? Put it this way, at the school I went to we were in set classes for PE (Gym class for you Americans). I was in the second of four sets, meaning I was about of average to above average ability. But, I was then, overweight and quite unfit. But because I had the choice to play different sports than other people, I generally achieved much higher grades than I would have done, following the normal, unchanged curriculum.I would just like to clarify the notion too. You say Girls should not have to do the same exercise and Boys, but both you arguments are against Girls dropping out of lessons (and Boys). Is it not worth clarifying here and now, that when you mean Girls doing less sport than Boys, you merely mean Girls and Boys doing less sport than normal? Because in effect, what we both are arguing about it why a child of either gender should be able to abstain from a Gym class.You may post a rebuttal against my points again, but I believe that the last round is typically a summary rather than a rebuttal. In that respect I ask you to abstain from debating, but to summarise your debate for the audience to vote.

"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.

Due to the fact that you are an obvious and true moron who has a natural bona fide cabbage batbrain who cannot read worth a damn, this debate is now over. Get an edumacation, graduate from that big big big high school of yours, and get an intelligence please. Many thanx.

Con argues that there are no objectively unhealthly foods. This is untrue, a medical dictionary (online) has defined unhealthy foods as any food that is not regarded as being conducive to maintaining health. They include fats (especially of animal origin), "fast" foods (which are low in fibre and vitamins), foods high in salt and tropical oils (e. g. , fried potato chips), and cream-based ("white") sauces (which are high in fat) and junk food as a high calorie food low in nutritional value. And furthermore as a collective society it is pretty clear that we all know what we classify as unhealthy foods. It is also further proven as no type of junk food was stated yet con already knew exactly what it is was when including an example of McDonald's which, by the way, is subject to biased as the CEO of McDonald's underwent this "experiment. " Con's point about discriminatory and regressive nature will be dealt with in my later argument along with the inefficacy of the tax. Finally, con ended by saying the government has no right to interfere with an individuals right or "choice" as I see it to their own health decisions. Choice, however, is only effective when individual's make choices that do not harm themselves. Obesity is a harm to oneself as I stated in round one. Also, where the government provides health care to a state and takes on the expenses, the state has every right. Tax is an effective way to fight obesity. There are already numerous programs running world wide that are in place to combat obesity. On their on they are ineffective, but when this tax is added it solidifies what these campaigns are doing. In short, we need to practice what these campaigns preach. Here, I address con's third point. It is important to address the obesity epidemic, even when families feel they have to spend more on food than they would like. Nothing short of force will cause people to change to healthier habits. It is important to note that low income households are the highest risk of obesity. These families are also effected by obesity related diseases. Thus spending more money on food now will save them thousands that will be spent on medical bills. Reducing obesity will make more productive people who can do more at work - potentially earning more and thus cancels out the tax. This tax is a paying it forward initiative - spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future. The government is within it's boundaries with this tax, rather than outright banning certain products -which would be the fastest solution it is providing a disincentive for certain harmful choices. This is an entirely legitimate action, as it does not remove choice from the table but awards the conscious choice and protects the general society from harm and medical spending is prevented. It is also important to note that in the EU a report found that fat taxes were effective and even caused competition in the "healthier" foods sections causing more affordable prices for consumers.

I certainly agree with your previous points that the smaller members of society pay more than their share of the economic burden in this situation. However, inequality in itself does not make the situation inequitable. I view this problem as one of civil rights that must be concerned with the question of whether people can be held responsible for things over which they have no control. The problem in this case is not simply one of obesity by choice, but variation in weight based on many different types of genetic predisposition. I hope we can accept without specific evidence that people vary widely in size whether or not they have made any personal choices to contribute to their weight. There are very short, very thin people who may weigh under 100 pounds. There are similarly very tall very muscular people that may approach 300 pounds while still being in excellent shape. Some people have genetic problems inherently like obesity or thyroid problems that render them unable to shed excess fat that the average person would be able to. Society benefits by contributing to the well being of all of its members regardless of circumstances beyond their control, and preventing discrimination on that basis. It is certainly true that variation in weight is not only based on circumstances that are beyond the individuals control. Some people who otherwise would be thin may avoid exercise and overeat to the point that they are obese. Other people who may be predisposed to obesity may make conspicuous efforts to maintain a lower weight. In spite of those cases, it is not justifiable to discriminate between all people in some group on the basis that only some of the group are deserving of that discrimination. Some individuals will certainly take advantage of the system, but preserving the justice for some outweighs the small economic benefits of forcing inequity on the rest. The analogy comparing meals in a restaurant to plane fare is not useful because each person makes an individual choice about what food they want to eat and when. Differences in metabolism might also easily mean that some smaller people eat more food at a higher cost than larger people. Similarly, different food costs different prices from different places; and all of those differences afford choice. There is some choice involved in weight, but enough of the matter is predetermined to make it morally wrong to discriminate on that basis.

Dear Amalia, ehem. You may not have gotten the fact that we have actually had a mutual understanding of the definition of this debate. Beofre we started posting stuff, I told you that it was about someone in this room. So technically, we are debating about nana hazni you stupid girl. Now getting back to the motion, some people may say that looks are not everything. But when talking about modern times, that is all people look at. And once more i would like to say that is, in fact, fat.

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"?.

Spelling and grammar is your major weakness here, not to me, only to those that judge. It is near impossible to find a good doctor, who won't prescribe a medication to fix us. The good doctors deserve a good living. How will we identify them?


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

The distribution of fast food in the United States should be prohibited!
Despite the argument that American individuals are perpetually active and lack the time to cook meals at home, hence their reliance on fast food, I strongly disagree, given the availability of numerous healthier alternatives such as meal prepping or carrying nutritious snacks or lunches. Yes, fast food is convenient and inexpensive, but your health and well-being are far more valuable than money. According to MD Health, "Fast food is intentionally loaded with additional sugar and food coloring to make it more alluring, particularly to a younger audience. Many individuals believe that these addictive substances are fueling the escalating obesity crisis." Most food additives and preservatives have detrimental effects on the body, including carcinogens that can induce cancer. "Fast food is frequently laden with ingredients such as soya, salt, cheese, or mayonnaise, and is often deep-fried, which adds a significant amount of calories without providing any additional nutrition. Given the high calorie content, a substantial amount of exercise would be required to burn them off. For instance, it would take seven hours of exercise to burn off the calories in a Big Mac, large Coke, and fries from McDonald's. Consuming such a high level of calories without burning them off can lead to additional health issues." "In addition to the detrimental medical effects of fast food, its production and sale have a substantial negative environmental impact. The resources required to raise meat for fast food products create a global resource shortage. For example, producing one pound of hamburger requires 2500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain, not to mention the land required to raise the cattle and the grains to feed them. The animals raised for fast food meat products are often fed antibiotics and an inadequate diet, causing them to be underdeveloped. These antibiotics and growth hormones can be transmitted to those who consume the meat, resulting in adverse health effects. Some individuals have reported the development of extra breast tissue or immune system damage from regular fast food consumption." According to a UCLA study published on May 5, 2018, "Food functions like a pharmaceutical compound that affects the brain," said Fernando Gómez-Pinilla, a UCLA professor of neurosurgery and physiological science who has spent years studying the effects of food, exercise, and sleep on the brain. "Diet, exercise, and sleep have the potential to alter our brain health and mental function. This raises the intriguing possibility that dietary changes can enhance cognitive abilities, protect the brain from damage,

"not every parent buys their kids Fruit by the Foot, Tootsie Pops, and all that other junk that causes childhood obesity." Then again, not every child is obese. The parents who carelessly buy fattening foods and leave it in the house already influence what their children will eat, because why choose to eat vegetables when junk food is lying there? Children do not understand this, and therefore will eat the food that is bought by their parents. The majority of children do not eat their food outside of home except for at school, and at school, I know that many countries are opting for a change in food, and this will probably happen. Also, once again, parents could urge their children to excersize or play outside instead of sitting around all day.

For the purposes of this debate, unless otherwise challenged, "abnormal women" shall mean adult females with an unhealthy body weight, viz. being either underweight or overweight according to the body mass index scale (1) and "unfashionable uniform" shall mean one similar to the garment pictured hereunder: http://upload.wikimedia.org... The fact is, being underweight or overweight can present women with serious medical problems and they should obviously aim to be within the normal weight range in order to remain fit. (2, 3) In addition, women who are not too fat and not too thin are typically more attractive to men and are, therefore, not only the healthiest but also the happiest too. It is the type of female role models such as those normally portrayed in women's fashion magazines and adult male interest periodicals that girls and women need to aspire to because if they achieve this healthy body image they will be both healthier and happier. Furthermore, their husbands will be less tempted to run off with some properly fit Asian babe whilst on a business trip in Hong Kong which will lead to fewer marital breakdowns when his wife later hacks into his personal email account while he is out at work earning the money for her to spend on designer clothes. In conclusion, because women are typically really interested in fashionable clothes, forcing women who are too fat or thin to wear an ugly uniform whilst out in public will be a huge incentive for them to either lose or gain enough weight to be allowed to wear attractive garments of their own choice instead, and I therefore commend this resolution to the House. Thank you. (1)http://www.caloriecounting.co.uk... (2)http://www.womenshealth.gov... (3)http://www.womenshealth.gov...

"And I know you said we aren't debating with diseases and stuff" Then why bring it up? I clearly stated in my opening statement that we are not debating about diseases and such, but food consumption. Therefore, for everything mentioned about diseases, I will call it out as invalid. "And how can kids play outside when they have homework!?!?!?!?!" How do people do extra curricular activites? Homework, on average, takes up thirty minutes to two hours for an elementary school, and perhaps one hour to two hours for gifted. Most schools release children from school around 3:00. This leaves them with four hours at the LEAST with the maximum amount of homework. "And how can parents urge their kids to play outside or whatever when their busy buying food thats not good for their kids as you previously stated!!!!" Parents do not spend their lives in grocery stores; they could at least mention excersize OR allow them to do extracurricular activities after school. However, when parents notice that their child is obese, they should at least try to change their lifestyle a bit, because a family's lifestyle really does make a difference for a child's weight. Who directs the family's way of life? The parents. "Where I go to school there is alot to be tackled" Based on your profile, it says that you are in highschool. Highschool is VERY different than elementary school in the amount of work and such people get. Parents are at fault for their child's obesity because they buy the food. They are in charge of what their children do, and they lead the lifestyle of their children. Children need excerize and healthy food. Parents are responsible for both areas. Lack of these things will cause obesity. Parents have control over this, and can stop it. Children's schools are not guilty, because the majority are changing their menu to stop the rapid growth rate of obesity. Fast food places do hold a bit of the blame, but like my opponent has said before, "its not like they're shoving food down the kid's throats". My opponent has failed to prove any clear points as to why parents should NOT be blamed for obesity; he has only provided counter-arguments. Hopefully he will state many points in the final round.

"If a fat tax was ever introduced then the end result is likely to be that people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods which could lead to an increase in obesity!' You hit the nail on the head here. Poor people will sacrifice tooth and nail to make sure they have cable TV, whether they should be spending the money on more important things or not. Increasing the amount for fatty foods will not curb anything ... it'll just grow this wallet for some gov't assoc. to use wrongfully. Actually I pretty much agree with everything you stated in your round 3 argument. You sorta pulled a U-turn on me there. I know I was labeled 'pro' above, but your introductory argument led me to believe you supported this tax. You sound now like you do not.

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.

As I said, it only rules out certain possibilities. Yes, as the tests progress they will be better advanced and more accurate, but they are not 100%. Right now, they are not at their absolute best quality and therefore makes them potentially wrong which could leave a patient with no knowledge towards the disease. This makes them a test subject, based off of what you said, since they are getting better over time.

Ineffectiveness? While the particular instance of "fat-shaming" in Fargo may have been ineffective on a micro level, I assure you, it was far from ineffective. The point of the letters was to raise awareness among parents about childhood obesity; a topic that is as touchy as any other whether you are dealing with abortion or euthanasia. What she has done is bring media attention to the issue, and this is exactly how changes are made in society. Media attention brings heavy scrutiny by [i]both[/i] sides of an argument, prompts new scientific studies to be undertaken, and brings attention to people who may have otherwise been oblivious to the gravity of an issue. When stating that "it takes a village to raise a child," she was quite right. These days the media is that village, whether by the news that parents tune in to or the messages kids get through cartoons in the morning. Even something that seems as obvious as "my child is fat" can often be missed by loving parents. When more information surfaces, parents are better equipped to set up healthier food habits for their children, which in turn, can be passed on to their children's children, and so forth. Emotional Consequences? You were right to point out that adolescence is the most tumultuous and fragile time that a person experiences on their road to adulthood. In fact, the suicide rates of teens are a whopping 6:1 compared to that of TWEENS (10-14) alone. Not surprisingly, a majority of them are due to low self-esteem caused by poor body image, ESPECIALLY among young girls. So why not nip it in the bud? Have your own little Halloween party at home sans candy, or plan some other family activity instead of trick-or-treating with your obese child. The child need not know why they are not trick or treating, so in what way must it cause emotional harm? It is the parents in a position to mold the experience their child will have in adolescence; it is their job to equip them with the tools they need to be confident and make good decisions. This includes giving them the information they need to make not only physically healthy choices about food, but mentally healthy ones too. http://www.statcan.gc.ca... None of Your Business? Why not? We legislate paternal laws all the time. Seatbelts, ages limits for vice, and prostitution. And we do it not because the government or courts are particularly warm and fuzzy and want you to live a long and happy life so you can kiss puppies and unicorns. In the end, it always comes down to money. We spend billions of dollars on healthcare (I'm from Canada where these figures are even higher), even in places where healthcare is not subsidized. It is still one of the largest costs a government is forced to funnel tax payer dollars into. And while you may be content with spending your hard earned money to allow a fat kid to eat a Snickers, I, and many other citizens are not. This is why these laws are crucial. They are the balance between a free society that allows a smoker to take a puff or an obese child to have another serving of Kraft Dinner, but also try to mitigate the impact that these choices make on the rest of society. Thank our ancestors for utilitarianism. Alternatives? Certainly, I agree with you here. Sending healthy alternatives home with children is a better solution. But we are debating whether or not obese children should be allowed to trick-or-treat, not whether "fat letters" are a better solution than healthy treats. Unfortunately, we do not live in a society that gives out healthy snacks at this time of year, and, until we are, a night of frolic and fun is (from both a micro and macro level) not worth exacerbating their poor health, draining the resources of society, and further contributing to the "fat" epidemic that's plagued North America for decades. Unpopular? I feel like simply including this section in your argumentation has decimated any grounds for your position. Unpopularity should NEVER be a motive to maintain a status-quo. New and groundbreaking scientific discoveries that are made popular are almost always unpopular at the time because they go against the values and beliefs that people currently hold. This is the necessity behind change. The abolition of slavery and segregation, interracial marriage, women's rights: all things that at the time, (and still in some pockets of society) were wildly unpopular. I think most of us in hindsight can now agree that these changes were for the better, no?

:: REBUTTAL :: 1. Cost of Insurance This contention is highly flawed. While obese customers may cost more to insure (as they pose a higher risk of becoming ill during flights), so do the elderly, those with allergies, those with asthma, those with mental illness, pregnant women, children in general, those who use/abuse drugs, those taking medication, etc. Because airlines do not require a background check before booking a flight, it would be extremely unjust to require specifically obese people to pay extra under the premise of an insurance issue, and not charge other potential 'threats' for the same substantial risk. Additionally, my opponent indicates that in only 1% of cases involving obesity is the condition genetic. I ask that statistics like this only be taken into account if they are cited/sourced, as it would be very easy for either side to draw up random stats that may or may not be true. Furthermore, I disagree with that figure on the basis of psychology alone -- I'm sure that even if 99% of obese individuals "choose" that lifestyle, there are some deep-rooted depression and self-esteem issues, which cause obesity to lean towards a medical (mental) condition rather than just a choice. Now even if you buy into the fact that overweight people choose that condition, you cannot deny my previous point that there are all kinds of conditions or circumstances which would increase the cost of insurance for certain flyers. To make this call for higher prices legit, you would have to agree upon charging a superior price for ALL flyers with medical conditions/situations that would cause insurnace to increase. Otherwise, a great deal of discrimination lawsuits would be on your hands, in which cases the airlines would be forced to charge migh higher prices for tickets than they already do in order to sustain legal fees. Plus, consider the fact that in order to regulate this kind of additional fee, new jobs would have to be created that deal specifically with insurance and charging passengers the right amount of money as designated for their flight. This would cause airline disruption, inevitably draw upon negative publicity, and most importantly cause the airline to shell out more money to pay the salaries of these new jobs and deal with other legal issues. In essence, the money that you are trying to 'save' is actually not profitable at all (it may even be an added expense), as new jobs would have to be compensated. And finally on this matter, you must take into account how many times one's obesity actually causes a MEDICAL EMERGENCY on a flight, to the point where insurance is actually even necessary. If the figures are low (and Pro hasn't given us any proof to indicate otherwise), you must find this contention to be entirely unnecessary and completely in my favor. 2. Comfort In order for this point to be validated, you must extend this argument to all forms of public transportation - not just airplanes. Therefore my opponent has the burden of affirming this resolution in terms of trains, subways, public buses, etc... in which case it would be easy to oppose for economic reasons. Further, a counter-attack may conclude that the airline be responsible for administering more comfortable seating for larger passengers; that is to say that bigger seats can/should be implented for comfort. You may charge passengers more money for this type of seating; you may even force a larger passenger to purchase a ticket for this kind of seating. However, you may NOT charge them extra for sitting in the same size seat as everyone else. Thirty percent of Americans are obese [1]. Statistics show that the highest demographic of obesity occurs amongst those of a lower class; in other words, the fattest people tend to also be the poorest [2]. Thus the likelihood of an obese person being able to afford a plane ticket is much lower -- say 10% (and that may be a generous figure). Now knowing that there is a 10% chance that an obese individual may cause you discomfort on a plane, a consumer has the option to buy THEMSELF an extra plane ticket, which would ensure them extra room for comfort even if an overweight person sat beside them. Sometimes, life is unfair and you make purchases hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. If you book a vacation in Aruba and it rains the whole time (causing you to have a disappoting experience), you won't find your hotel or airline refunding you any money for your misfortune. Similarly, airlines don't give you lower rates for the possibility of sitting next to a particularly foul-smelling passenger, or for being subjected to crying children. Better luck next time, mate. 3. Weight & Money --> The Real Issue There have been a lot of changes since the 1990s that have made things more expensive, specifically THE COST OF GASOLINE IN GENERAL. Many people blame George W. Bush for the rise in prices -- does that mean we get to charge all Republicans an added fee for contributing to our economic situation by voting for GWB? Certainly not. The truth be told, America has been looking for ways to promote healthy life choices by making it more expensive to lead an unhealthy lifestyle. For instance, we place high taxes on cigarettes partly because of their health cost. Similarly, ideas about making fast food drive-thrus more expensive have been discussed; Dr. Schmidt (an economist at the college of William & Mary) said people would expend more calories if they had to get out of their cars to pick up their food. The bottom line is, you cannot realistically blame overweight people for society's troubles, such as high gasoline prices. "'This is like, let's find another reason to scapegoat fat people,' Dr. Oliver (a political scientist at the University of Chicago) says." -- "Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also wryly cautions against being quick to link cause and effect. 'Yes, obesity is to blame for all the evils of modern life, except somehow, weirdly, it is not killing people enough,' she said. 'In fact that's why there are all these fat people around. They just won't die'" [3]. :: CONCLUSION :: Based on my arguments, it is clear why obese customers should NOT pay more money for plane tickets at the present time. It is neither cost effective nor fair, and the incentive for people to lose weight in order to save money just doesn't work. Countless studies prove that instead of helping, the stigmatization of being obese just leads to more over-eating and a higher rate/weight for those who are over-weight. This in turn leads to more fat people, meaning more sociological and economic issues in the United States and beyond. :: SOURCES :: [1] http://www.breitbart.com... [2] http://www.philly.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...

To compare childhood obesity to child abuse is preposterous. In contradiction to my opponent's views, it is unfair to dictate how a child lives his or her life. Rather than hounding children about what they eat and how much they weigh, we should be encouraging them to feel confident in his or herself. It is agreeable that no, children don't always choose what they would like to eat, some times there are simply no other options. I, myself always being on the go as a child, am aware of the strain it puts on a family. It isn't always possible to sit down at a table and eat a nice, healthy dinner. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also easier to grab something on the go. In opposition of comparing childhood obesity to abuse, we should be making families aware of the dangers of constantly eating unhealthy. And since there are not always alternative options, if it is necessary to eat unhealthy - it should be eaten in moderation. For example, rather than ordering a twenty piece chicken nugget with a large soda and a large fry, perhaps an alternative should be a 6 piece chicken nugget, small fry, and a water. It doesn't matter how hard someone tries to instill good habits in a child, if the child is not motivated it will not happen. Perhaps it would be better to encourage a mandatory physical education class. As my opponent stated, "The fat kid will be teased" because "students will bully him because of his weight." Rather than worrying about this child's weight, we should be concerned with the school. If the school is allowing children to bully one another over something as trivial as weight, then we evidently have a bigger issue on hand. The school should be worried about making both children and their parents aware of bullying issues rather than a child's weight. And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion

(Again, dont really believe in this, but judge based on the arguments) First off, i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad. In the last couple years the obesity epidemic in the US and the western world has being a serious problem. Studies have shown that smokers tend to be slimmer than others, Jodi Flaws at the university of maryland school of medicine "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies......Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both." There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias (a severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.)"Many dementias go hand-in-hand with a loss of chemical receptors in the brain that just happen to be stimulated by nicotine. Smoking seems to bolster these receptors, and smokers have more of them." (Guardian Unlimited New Media) The studies show that smokers may have more to lose before they start losing their minds. "It does seem that nicotine has a preventative effect" says Roger Bullock, a specialist in dementia and director of the Kingshill Research Centre in Swindon.


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Obesity cannot be classified as a disease, it's a consequence of personal choice.
My opponent argues that "Obesity is not merely being unhealthy or having excess fat. It's a medical condition that results from a series of decisions. Obesity isn't a choice, but the culmination of many choices." However, he's partially correct. An individual makes conscious decisions daily, fully aware of the consequences of consuming unhealthy food. They persist in these choices, despite knowing the negative impact on their health. My opponent also asserts that "Obesity isn't being unhealthy or having excess body fat." This claim is flawed. Obesity is indeed detrimental to health: it's the leading cause of type 2 diabetes. The likelihood of developing diabetes increases significantly if one's body weight exceeds the norm. Diabetes can cause severe damage to the eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... My opponent has failed to provide clear evidence beyond stating that obesity is a disease without substantiation. Cancer is a disease; people do not choose to have it. Obesity, on the other hand, is a result of personal dietary choices. Vote PRO!! :)

Ok so I think your points have not been thought out properly. Here's what have to say about them "1. If we are going to put a tax on sugar for diabetes. Are we going to put a tax on meat for heart disease? Milk for osteoporosis?" - We are not talking about meat or milk are we?!, its incredibly irrelevant! "2.It's not just sugar that causes diabetes. Bacon, cows milk, white bread, fruit juice, and so much more, lead to diabetes." - what sugarless fruit juice are you drinking?!, anyways I can't talk about milk and meat because poultry and dairy are both very much different to sugar. 3. "Your body, your choice. People need to do research and learn what's good for your body and learn to reduce/eliminate consumption of these bad foods." -one the common folk do not have access to information as much as you think -you can still purchase sugar with a tax applied Nonetheless, here are the points I am going to highlight -Like any other product, increasing the price restricts the market segment, thus reducing your national obesity crisis -Sugar literally has no nutritional value, AND IT CAUSES TOOTH DECAY -Addiction is very much real, and the control aspect you talk off is not always a conscious discussion -Withdrawal from sugar happens and it takes 2-8 weeks to detox -Tax means more financial contribution towards for your public services Depending on your response, I'll go into depth in round 3 on these highlighted bullet points.

i had my first gym class in kindergarten. And I had my first health class in seventh grade. Giving kids a class in nutrition does not mean that they're going to listen or apply it to real life. Disease can be spread through a number of ways. Lets be real if you were given a nutrition class would you use it? i might listen but it doesnt mean I would actually go out and do what I was tought.

I agree with you there. Healthcare is disproportinately disseminated to people with little to no sense of personal responsibility under this line of thinking. In your first set of arguements though you didn't mention trying to use that "fat tax" to offset the costs of their larger health bills. That form of offset WAS already the norm amongst all healthcare and insurance providers in that your premiums were adjusted based on your lifestyle. Many required blood tests and asked health related questions to assess your liability on the rest of their members when you start making claims. Public funded healthcare took this form of offsetting costs away when they made it gov't run and for the public. Now you want to go back and find a way to basically do the same? Make healthcare affordable by all then tax them on the backside for their eating habits, or smoking habits, or drinking habits or whatever? That makes no sense. Private companies already had that loophole figured out and accounted for in their policies and people frowned on it and made them look like the bad guy for charging more or denying people based on their increased liability. Your wanting to tax people for what they eat is no different without using that money to offest the cost of the food also. You would HAVE to offset the cost of that food to make it affordable for people to unanimously choose to use it in the first place, else you are just further excluding certain people from the healthcare you think they are all entitled to by natural right (sigh). So, your proposition is contingent on using the funds to both offset the cost of the food so they can have the ability to get on this bandwagon of yours and also the money would have to be used to still offset health costs (which you presume will decrease, since everyone will be eating only your health foods). Also, the numbers you posted about taxing tobacco and alcohol stunned me. Thats great that the gov't was able to meet that NHS mark ... but you make it look like their in the business of making money off of use at 3x the amount needed?! 3x?! Thats a gross mistepping of their bounds. They should not be controlling people at all, let alone turning a profit off of it. Then that money goes to what? Subsidise some other effort that does not pay for itself? Sounds like alot of excess fat in the gov't that will be kept around, again not because of it's own merit, but because of some excessive taxing going on from other programs. "Health experts believe such taxes will encourage food manufacturers to make products that have a reduced fat content " and that consumers won"t even notice the difference in taste " and they might be far healthier as a result." Where is this ever stated to be their responsibility?? It is not the responsibility of any government i have ever lived under. And never will be. This is a waste of time on the part of the officials I voted in to office. Its not even the responsibility of the company making these foods to do such a thing. They only exist because they provided a product myself and others enjoyed in the first place. The minute they change their purpose to that of thinking themselves the providers of my health and taking responsibility for my decisions ... theyve overstepped their purpose aswell. Read some of their mission statements. MARS, CocaCola, Kraft, whatever. None of them are talking about feeling responsible for the general health of the public in their statements. They are supposed to be providing a product consistent with what people like and nothing more. If they start limiting their products to whatever is affordable to make by modifying it to dodge extra gov't taxes ... the minute they do that they die off ... and people will find another brand that can provide. This is essentially food censorship. Not a form of control I want anyone to have over me. Especially if they have a narrative!! The gov't doesn't get to have that narrative. They don't get to have any narrative other than the ones laid out in the constitution to protect my freedoms. They are supposed to be protecting my freedoms not protecting me from them! Protecting me from my own freewill. Thats what this all sounds like.

My opponent makes an interesting and somewhat valid argument. However, I believe that if we take the blinders off and look at the whole picture, we can see that the parents are not the sole cause for children over-eating, but merely part of the larger puzzle, and placing a punishment entirely on them is both reckless and impotent. I will address many points on why taking children away from parents because of their weight is not going to solve anything. My first point is just repeating something that my opponent already stated himself. "...out of more than 3,000 kids meal combinations, found only 12 that met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids." When literally 99.6% of quick meals are unhealthy, how can we punish the parents when they have virtually no options to begin with. My second point is that schools have control over children's lunches, 5 meals a week (out of 21), and many schools are beginning to include a breakfast break in the morning (raising their control to 10 out of 21). Do parents have any control over what their children eat at school? No, not at all. Sure, parents can send their kids with a bag lunch, but that doesn't stop them from trading that apple for a donut, or from grabbing that soda from a vending machine. Parents are not their at the lunch table to ensure proper eating habits, and neither is the school, with (just pulling the prices from my old high school) a 20 oz soda at $1.25 and a 15.2 oz apple juice running at $1.75, costing 84% more per fl oz. Even bottled water costs the same as a soda. My third point is that the way we define and measure obesity is not a sufficient guide for our children. It has many, rather vague definitions which make it difficult to see where the line is[1]. The few definitions that do have a clearly drawn line say it is a BMI of 20% (for men) and 30% (for women)[2]. If we take the same calculator that doctors use to calculate BMI off of your weight and height, we find the the formula is (W/(H)^2)*703 [3], where W = weight in pounds and H = height in inches. Please note, that this takes absolutely no consideration for how much weight is actually fat, and how much is muscle. Let us look at some people that would be count as "fat" simply based on height/weight. LaMichael James [4] - Running back for the #1 Oregon Ducks, he is 5'10" and 195 pounds. This puts his BMI at 28%, in order for him to get to the BMI of 20%, he would have to fall to 139 pounds. Jacquizz Rodgers [5] - Running back for the falling-short-of-expectations Oregon State Beavers, he is 5'7" and 193 pounds. His BMI is 30.2% and in order for him to get to 20%, he'd have to drop to 127.7 pounds. Good luck. My fourth point is that there are benefits to having extra weight, even in the form of fat. Your body stores unused energy in the form of fat (any carbs, protein, or fat that isn't used right after eating) for later use. So when you do not have food readily available, your body burns the fat in your body for energy, much like a savings account for body energy. Excess fat and muscle also protect the organs of your body in the case of trauma, like a car crash, animal attack or getting shot. My fifth and final point is that we need fat people around for our own safety. This is probably the biggest point. If you are in a plane crash up in the mountains, and have to eat other people to survive, it is far better to eat a few fat people, then have to kill a bunch of skinny people. And if a crazed gunman storms into the mall, fat people make much better cover then skinny people. And finally, when the zombie apocalypse begins, the fat slow people will be targeted fist, giving the rest of us time to get away and regroup. If we punish parents for making their children fat and obese now, then we loose our safety net for tomorrow. Thank you, [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.healthandfitness.com... [3] http://www.whathealth.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Burping is uncontrollable. And you can just politely ask your friends to stop whistling. It would be a lot easier than to ban talking. Sound does not affect boiling temperature. Diabetes is hereditary or beyond most people"s control, and purely medical. It"s like saying anyone who needs to diet needs to be fined. Laziness is subjective. Like, for example, being too lazy to type more than 750 characters. Have you ever burped? Probably. Maybe even last week. Anyways, banning talking is essentially stupid. Provide non personal arguments, please.

"I see you don't want to take into account the hard reality of this unbelievably unhealthy food."I see you don't want to take into account the hard reality that getting rid of McDonald's would do absolutely nothing for our obesity rates, the economy, or anything else."If McDonald's was banned, obesity rates will decrease drastically."If you got rid of McDonald's, every other fast food joint would simply pick up the slack. People will continue to eat the same garbage no matter where they get it."If you refer to my last argument, you will see why it causes obesity."And if you refer to mine, you'll see how such a thing is preventable."It may be a huge factor that you may not be skinny as you say you are therefore you are becoming angered over a simple mistake..."Are you kidding me? First of all, I'm not "angered over a simple mistake". You were basically trying to pass off that info as your own, and never even referenced that you pulled it from elsewhere. That, and using word-for-word text from someone else's work shows how uncommitted you are to formulating your own ideas. Second, implying my frustration with you doing this has to do with me being fat is basically ad hominem and totally irrelevant."I posted McDonald's is increasing economic distress not just about minimum wages."Yes you did. And I posted that even if we get rid of McDonald's, the power will simply shift to KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Subway, and all of those places. The debt will not go down and it will not cost tax-payers any less."This may be a sensitive topic but we just need to face the ice-cold reality that McDonald's will kill us quicker therefore it should be banned."Eating candy that much is insanely unhealthy, so why don't we use that same logic for candy companies? Because we trust that people are smart enough to make healthy decisions and not fill their face with food that has been shown time and again to not be the best choice. This is not McDonald's fault. If people stopped eating there, they would go out of business like *that*."P.S. 'TBHQ' is a chemical that is placed in most of McDonald's products that contains a sub-chemical called 'Phenol' which causes..."First, you forgot to cite your source. Again. (1)Second, you fail to mention that these horrible phenols can be found in berries, cocoa, fruits and vegetables like potatoes, oranges and lettuce, peppers, clove and thyme. These are all natural products. They can also be used as natural pesticides and are sometimes the key for food preservation and preventing infection (2) So, trying to pass phenol off as this terrible chemical that causes that huge grocery list of side-effects is somewhat misleading. Then again, you just Google these things and copy-paste the first result that looks good, so I don't blame you for missing something.Third, you base most of your argument on the fact that McDonald's uses this unhealthy component for preservation called TBHQ. This would be fine and dandy if you didn't list dozens of other things that have it as well. What, are we going to ban all of these products and companies for using it even though it's FDA approved? That thought it ridiculous.___This idea came to me just this round- what if we do ban McDonald's? Like, tomorrow, it was just gone. This would leave 440,000 people without a job. (3) Our economy is already in terrible conditions, and this would shatter the country. We could not handle such a massive, sudden lost of jobs. The implications are too numerous to mention.___Voters, my opponent wrote a grand total of 1468 words. Of those, only about 350 were original. This was found by copy-pasting all of his points into a Word document and highlighting only those which were original. This results in less than a quarter of my opponent's points being entirely his own, and all references to outside texts being uncited. Even with citations, this shows an utter lack of interest in trying to formulate his own ideas or gaining anything from the text.My opponent literally said that my being overweight was the reason for being frustrated with his regurgitation of cut-and-paste articles. This is ad hominem and irrelevant in every way.My opponent has refuted absolutely none of my points; in fact, there was never even an effort to do so.Voters, I'm going to say vote for whoever made the better argument. But I do ask that you take these points into account.1. http://ajosephproject.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.macroaxis.com...

I hope this can be an enjoyable experience for the both of us. Arguments:1. Less people die. My opponent correctly suggests that, in recent years, children and infants have died less frequently from disease. This is due to great advances in medicine. However, those great advances in medicine have also brought other, much less desirable, effects. Thalidomide: Thalidomide was first sold in Germany as an over the country drug in 1957. It was used in the hopes that it would prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, which it did. Unfortunately, however, it had the side effect of deforming the limbs of unborn children whose Mothers had taken the drug. Of the 10,000 children born with limbs that were malformed because of the drug, only 5,000 survived. Thalidomide was a case of drug companies destroying the lives of 10,000 people without malicious intent. It was also, as my opponent will doubtlessly point out, over 50 years ago. Whilst this is true, there are much more recent, yet less infamous, issues with the advances of medicine which have undoubtedly made lives worse. One example of this is in a BBC news report from 2006:[1] 'Six men remain in intensive care after being taken ill during a clinical drugs trial in north-west London. The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital when they suffered a reaction. Relatives are with the patients, who suffered multiple organ failure. Two men are said to be critically ill. 'This shows that the advancement of medicine has not necessarily made lives better, in fact, it could be said that, although more people now survive diseases, their quality of life is lower. An example of this would be the euthanasia debate. In the past, your doctor would help you survive disease until the point where you were in insufferable pain which could not be alleviated. At this point, your doctor could, and often would, make the decision to ease your passing with an overdose of drugs (normally morphine) with your consent. [2] 'Throughout classical antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested. 'This was made illegal in the UK in 1961, meaning that those suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal disease may not make the decision to end their life with help if they're unable to do it alone. This is not just in the UK, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country in the world. [3] 'As of 2014, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. 'Despite even this, the increase in world population is not inherently a good thing in itself. It has led to oppressive but necessary policies such as the Chinese one child policy, which has seen the murder of many young girls in the hopes that the parents will have a son. Thus, my argument is that whilst life expectancy has gotten longer, quality of life has not.2. Better technology for everybodyMy opponent again correctly suggests that technology has not only improved over the years, but has also become more available to the average peasant (citizen). However, this is not necessarily a good thing. My opponent asserts: 'Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations. 'This is all very well and good, however, the increase in 'better transport' has massively increased the consumption of oil and other natural resources all around the world. Here we see the increase in diesel consumption per year in just the USA. This data only goes up to the year 1998, however, I can tell you that the fuel consumption in the year 2013 in just the USA [4]'about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline. 'This tremendous increase in the use of natural resources has resulted in a tremendous increase in greenhouse gases emmitted into the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. As you can see here, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially from 1960-2010. This is resulting in a 'warming' on a global scale. An effect that is commonly known as 'global warming. 'This has resulted in the extinction of countless species and will result in the extinction of countless more. [5]'Polar bears have started drowning as they have had to swim longer distances between ice flows, and the U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that if the Arctic ice cape continues melting at its current rate, “two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century. ”7 Of course, it is not just the polar bear that is affected—one study predicts that a quarter of land animals and plants could become extinct because of global warming over the next 45 years.8'[6]'Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said. 'My opponent implies that communication has become easier in the past few hundred years with the invention of increasingly better, more convenient and inexpensive telephones, right up to the mobile phone. I would agree with him, but that does not mean that the quality of communication has gone up. In fact, I would argue that the quality of communication has definitely gone down. I want to transport my reader back to a time that is no longer in living memory. A time where telephones did not exist and the easiest form of long-range communication was a letter. I want to transport my reader back to the 1830's, to a young girl called Victoria, who would later be known as Queen Victoria. She wished to write her sister, whom had gone to live with the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a letter. It had been many years since she had been allowed to see her sister, and after writing the letter she waited excitedly for a reply. Can you imagine her dismay when, a few days later, she opened an envelope addressed to her from her sister to see nothing but the letter 'K' written upon an almost blank piece of paper? This, of course, never happened. The cost of sending a letter, whilst not expensive, was costly enough to ensure detailed communication with ones friends and loved ones which invoked a feeling of closeness that is not as often seen in the communications of today. This is primarily because now, with the invention of social media and texting, it is so incredibly easy to lose the sense of connection that communication held in the time of letters. Lengthy and structured replies are no longer seen as important, formality is an art that is often no longer understood or seen to be necessary. The phenomenon of the 'K' response is often wrote about, it is well recognised for its rude abruptness, yet many people still continue to use it because, with the invention of easier communications, there is little practical reason not to. Thus, I argue that whilst the quantity of communication has increased, the quality of communication has gone down. As has, therefore, the quality of friendships and relationships. More arguments next round. Sources: [1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk...;[2]http://euthanasia.procon.org...;[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.eia.gov...;[5]http://www.greeniacs.com...;[6]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;

Thank you for starting the debate. So, we have a fat person. They are fat by their own doing, not by genetics. This is established. Now, we must reason why they're hating skinny people. What if they think that being fat is superior? What if they have different definitions of beauty? (Remember, during the Renaissance and before, more full-figured women were considered more attractive than skinny women.) What if they think of it that way? In that case, it's no different them then getting angry about ugly people. Now, that sounds kind of bad, but this is something everyone is guilty of at some point or another, whether they own up to it or not. If they have a different view of beauty and view skinny people as ugly, shouldn't they be able to express their opinions on what they view as physically unattractive? Other people do it all the time. Furthermore, assuming that they they are speaking down at skinny people because of envy. But what if they don't like people with anorexia or bulimia? Now, true that talking bad about people with eating disorders seems mean, but then we're going to have to condemn half of America's comedians. Anorexia and bulimia are eating disorders just like obesity. And these disorders are all self-inflicted. the original source is from the victim themselves. So, if a fat person decides to talk bad about skinny people because of these eating disorders, it's no different than when a healthy person talks bad about people for being obese. In fact, it actually might be better. Why? Because an obese person has first-hand experience with an eating disorder. They know how dangerous it can be. They could, quite logically, despise other people with eating disorders, because they want people to be more responsible, since they know how bad it can get. It's like a drug addict not wanting someone to start using heroin, because he knows how bad it can get. There's even further reasons why an obese individual should be able to speak out against skinny people. we would all like to live in a world where people aren't teased and put down, but that isn't so. A lot of obese people are ridiculed because of their weight. A lot for them try to lose weight when this happens, but still can't. and they keep getting teased. Now, their is only one natural reaction to this: resentment. If a group of people teases you every day, you're eventually going to hate them, and you're eventually going to speak about it. You should negate the resolution on this point, because here the "normal skinny people" are bringing it on themselves. Finally, I give you the freedom of speech argument. Even if it's completely unjustified, even if what they're saying is completely stupid, they should have the right to say it. It's not hurting anyone for them to express their opinion (so long as they're not teasing anyone about it and as long as they're not endangering anyone else by doing so), so they're only making themselves look stupid by expressing an unfounded opinion. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves, let them. This will give us a good indication of who the stupid people are, and it will tell us who to put our confidences into. And even if you disagree with someone, you shouldn't want to keep them from expressing their opinion. For example, I disagree with you. However, I'm not saying that you shouldn't say what you want, I'm simply debating what you're saying. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable freedoms we have It gives us a plurality of ideas which is priceless. As Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I have given you FOUR INDEPENDENT REASONS to vote CON. My opponent should have to successfully refute all of them. Otherwise, you default CON. Good luck. :)

Purpose of Runway models Pro doesn't actually address this until round 4 so I have no choice but to rebut it now. It is not to be considered a "new" argument. I have mentioned as early as round 2 that the purpose of a model is to sell clothes and that the imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal. A) Pro brings up his assertion that if thin models can prevent nuclear warfare, then we should go with thinner models as the benefits of preventing nuclear warfare outweigh the harms of not selling clothes. The point that Pro misses are likelihood. The likelihood of models affecting nuclear war is negligible. The likelihood of them selling clothes is significant. For this reason the miniscule possible effects of nuclear war are in fact outweighed by the need to sell clothes. Besides I negated the point that it doesn't affect military strength. By extension, nuclear power is negated as well. B) Pro says that the "glory" of the modelling profession is destroyed. However, the practical benfits of allowing fatter people to model outweigh any "glory" that might be destroyed. What is so "glorious" about allowing only thin people to model? Seems more like a mean girl clique rather than a glorious endeavor.ARGUMENTS C1) Destroys business1. "If an obese person wishes to look thinner, would they be more likely to buy clothing advertised by a THIN person, or an OBESE person?" This is just flat out wrong! Obese people will want to know that they can look thinner, not that thin people can look thin. The clothing manufacturer can easily put the obese in a generic or in a competitor's clothing for a 'before' picture and in their own clothing for an 'after' picture, to show how much thinner they can look by wearing their clothing. That is the goal when selling to obese people; to show them that they can look thinner. Pro hasn't been able to negate this argument so it stands that lack of obese models will cause business to sink because it loses the obese 1/3 of the US population.2. "How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity?" I have already explained how ostracism causes more harm than good by causing psychological problems. 3. "What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not?" Show the same person wearing a competitors clothing in a slideshow and show how this person now looks a lot thinner wearing that company's clothing.4. "Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh." No, it doesn't. The most important thing for the business is to sell clothes and make a profit, not to encourage people to pursue healthy lives. Should McDonalds remove its BigMacs and only sell Caesar salads in order to encourage people to live healthy? Everything that that business does must further the goal of making a profit. That is how businesses stay solvent and successful. C2) DiscriminationPro points out a case where the Supreme court allowed a private organization to deny membership to an individual. What Pro conveniently forgot to mention is that it was first taken to the New Jersey supreme court which actually ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against the organization. It was later taken to the US Supreme court. The legal fees required for a corporation to handle multiple lawsuits is very high. The obese will be lining up to take this company to court. Pro's assertion that the judge will laugh them out of court doesn't match his source which says that a lower court actually ruled against the corporation. It is a complicated issue and not one where a judge will laugh the plaintiffs out of court.C3) Self-Esteem & R3) HealthPointing out that it was adressed under a different heading is not a concession. It just means that Pro is supposed to read what is under that heading. I am going to combine my C3 with Pro's since they are essentially the same.Pro says that a rejection of obesity encourages health. I argued that it will create more problems than it solves assuming there is no de-facto weight limit. It creates psychological problems of depression and suicide due to ostracism and health problems like bulimia and anorexia.Pro says that my contention about Anorexia and other eating disorders is negated by the fact that there is already a de-facto limit. If Pro is correct in saying that there is in fact, a de-facto limit, then the benfits he gives about decreasing obesity are nullified as well because of this de-facto limit. At this point, the only contentions that stand are mine; the ones about destruction of business, lowered profits, declining consumer base, and legal problems that will arise as a result of descrimination. In fact Pro never adresses my point that a bad reputation will lead to even worse sales. I conclude this point by saying: If there is no de-facto limit, the health problems of imposing a maximum weight will be just much as the health problems due to obesity. If there is a de-facto limit, then the benefits of imposing a limit are nullified.REBUTTALSR1) Obesity discouragedExtend the lawsuit argument. People are not going to change just because some organization put a cap on the weight of models. If anything, they would take it up in court. (i) World HungerPro admits that his advantage is a fleeting short-term, one-time advantage. This is the same as admitting that there is no long term advantage because I brought that point up and Pro didn't adress it."There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives."Actually that is not true. The purpose of any business is to stay solvent and make a profit. The interests of the business come before charity. You can't give what you don't have. (ii) Hegemony"1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war"1% of the population serves in the military counting both active and reserve personnel and is the most powerful military in the world. The health of the fattest 1/3 of the population is irrelevant to military.Nuclear war impact is negligible. Pro doesn't really argue this point. he just throws it out there saying that a more powerful US military will decrease nuclear proliferation. When I proved that the power of the US military is unaffected, the point about nuclear proliferation has been negated as well.(iii) Economics Pro basically conceded that the economy is too complex. He drops all my arguments and simply repeats what I already refuted in round 3. R2) Sexual Deviance Pro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give their profits to the porn industry. Runway-models are supposed to sell clothes, not root out "sexual deviance." This point is irrelevant and Pro never even explains why being in the minority is a bad thing. He calls it "deviance" and says that "deviance" is bad. But if he defines "deviance" simply as being in the minority, then why must it be rooted out? R4) Beauty "It doesnt matter if those who thought the obese were attractive were successful, their society is lower than ours on the evolutionary scale so we have to default to our perception."Just an opinion. No facts to back it up. No logical analysis as to why such an opinion is correct. He never answers the questions: If the ancient people were successful in defending their perception of beauty, wouldn't fat people be considered beautiful today? Why must our perception of beauty be defended? Conclusion Every single one of Con's points rely on highly unlikely scenarios that runway models have a miniscule chance of affecting such as military recruitment, nuclear warfare, and US Hegemony. My points directly address the goal of runway models: to sell clothes. His points about positive health effects are balanced by my negative health effects if no de-facto limit exists, and are nullified if a de-facto limit does exist. At this point, you can vote off of my contention that imposing a maximum weight reduces sales and therefore it should not be done.

I have responded to your argument that consumer do not know how to read content charts of nutrition. Fast food is not killing the nation. It is consumer choice. The fast food industry markets there products to educe consumption as any other but yet again it is consumer choice. If there was a ban on fast food, consumers would still make unhealthy choice effecting their health. Therefore, it is not fast food that is killing the nation. It is consumers choice of consumption. Fast food is not killing the nation.