Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Parents should not bear sole responsibility for their child's obesity. I strongly disagree with the notion that parents should be solely blamed for their child's obesity. It's not as if the parents are force-feeding their children. Children have control over their own dietary choices. They don't only eat at home; they can also eat at school, with friends at fast-food restaurants like McDonald's, and so on. Therefore, parents are not the only influence on what their children consume.

Since definitions were never implemented, lend me the honor of doing so. Sick- "Of or relating to those who are ill" World- "All of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" By these definitions, you have the BoP to prove that *all* of the people (meaning everyone) are of an illness. Sources: 1]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

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 am going to start off by saying that the purpose of Runway-models is to sell clothes. Nothing that my opponent mentioned furthers this goal. His entire case needs to be thrown out because he does not address or refute this definition, neither does he show how imposing a maximum weight helps the purpose of runway-models by selling more clothes.ARGUMENTS C1) Destroys businessPro's argument here is that skinny models can be used to advertise clothing to the overweight and the obese. He paraphrases my argument as "After all, he even states that the purpose is to make them look skinny," and then asks:so wouldnt it be even more effective to avertise using SKINNY people?"The problem with this is that clothing for the obese is designed to make an obese person look skinny. The only way this can be advertised is to try it on an obese person and show them off, maybe show them in the competitor's clothing as well, displaying to all how the company's clothing makes a fat person look skinny. It would certainly not make more sense to advertise using skinny people as the objective is to show that fat people can look skinny, not that skinny people can look skinny. So, if the organization removes the fat models, they would have no one on whom to showcase the clothes that they designed for the obese 1/3 of the population. This is what will destroy business.Pro also says that there already is a de-facto weight limit. I made a reasonable assumption that most models are underweight or normal weight with few being overweight or obese. If Pro is going to contest my assumption, he may say so in the next round. If I am then able to show that there is at least one model who is overweight or obese, Pro's argument about de-facto limit does not stand.C2) Discrimination bad"Con argues that media backlashes and boycotts may occur. Ok, what impact has he argued?"The reputation of the company will tank. This ties back to my first point. A bad reputation decreases sales of clothing which is what the purpose of runway models is. "He further argues that it would create legal problems, but he hasnt explained how." I have explained this. The models who were fired or not hired because of weight will file a lawsuit against the company. Lawsuits waste money for the company which again decreases business."Besides this "impact" is absolutely and incredibly outweighed." If the purpose of runway models was to prevent nuclear warfare, then yes it is outweighed, lol. Runway models are supposed to sell clothes, not increase military strength or protect humanity from Weapons of Mass Destruction. C3) Self esteem and depressionSee my rebuttal R3 below.REBUTTALSR1) Discourages obesityPro simply repeats what he said before. He says that because of confirmity, when one institution does something, the others will follow. Because everyone is now ostracizing obese people, they will be motivated to get thinner. I say again: Fat chance. When any group of people are ostracised such as Black people, White people, Asian people, men, women, disabled people, old people, etc, their best and most likely action would be to take that discrimination to the courts and file a lawsuit. Pro is unrealistically optimistic when he assumes that not only will no lawsuits be filed, but that ostracism is a good and beneficial thing that will help the obese lose weight. Ostracism will create psychological problems and will cause more harm than good.(i) World hungerPro concedes that in the long term, supply will decrease as demand decreases. His argument is based on short-term increases in supply which is outweighed by my point that in the long-term there will be a detriment. Pro wants a short, fleeting increase in supply. How would that do any good?Pro also argues that even a little saving would be beneficial if given to charities, but never explains why the food companies would give to charity as opposed to throwing the food away. Either way, this is just for the short-term. In any case, the purpose of a runway-model is not to solve world hunger. (ii) US heg.Pro argued that more people will become obese and it will decrease the number of potential recruits. There are about 1.5 million active personnel and 1.5 million reserve personnel in the military. Total US population is about 300 million. So the percentage of people serving in the military is 1%. Only the fittest can be selected to serve in the military. The effect to the military is negligible. In any case, the goal of a runway model is not to provide potential recruits to the military so this point has no impact.(iii) Economic stimulationI showed that the economy is too complex for a single industry to affect it. He says that gym memberships, health foods etc will be purchased more. However, television viewership will decline and may result in lower prices for broadcast and cable television in addition to the decline in the fast food industry. For every upside, there is a downside. The economy could go either way, and Pro gave no conclusive proof that it will in fact stimulate the economy.R2) Sexual deviancePro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give a part of their profits to the porn industry. The purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, increase viewership, and expand the business, not to stamp out what Pro calls "sexual deviance." "you could get crushed under the weight of your sexual partner if they are obese." This is not true. Muscle is a lot heavier than fat. Most obese people are comprised entirely of fat and as such would have a lower body density than a person of normal weight. Compared to a leaner person, the obese are like big, fluffy puffballs filled with cotton candy, and as such have no capability to crush their partner in bed.R3) Public health"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."Pro saying that there already exists a de-facto limit negates this entire argument. he said that it negates my argument because people will try to be thin regardless of whether a limit is imposed. If that statement is true, then what is the point of imposing a limit? His arguments are negated as well. At this point the only arguments that still stand are my points about decreased profits, legal problems and low sales.R4) BeautyPro just claims that "many people" believe our culture to be the pinnacle of society. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy, so throw out this point right away.Pro again says that he would prefer that he would rather see a modern day model than Catherine the Great in a miniskirt. This fails to answer my question: If people during Catherine's time were successful in defending their perspective of beauty, she would still have been considered beautiful now, which Pro does not consider a desirable scenario. ConclusionWhile I have humored my opponent by engaging with all his arguments, in reality, they are null and void. He never contested my definition that the purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, not solve world hunger or prevent nuclear warfare. So, throw out his entire case and vote Con.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

As those gentlemen who are regularly out on the pull in the pubs and clubs of Britain will readily testify, there is an increasingly desperate shortage of attractive women to choose from in this country. Yes, there are a few girls with attractive personalities (which is very important of course), but you would have a hard job finding one that didn't also have a dirty great toilet on her. For those of you lucky enough to live in countries where most girls do not fall into the category of "fat slags", here's a typical assortment of the sort of foul-mouthed munters the average Saturday night offers English gentlemen out on the lash: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.cupcakepdx.com... Now, contrast that with the sort of Asian babes a man about town in the Far East gets to choose from: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://a66.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://photos-897.friendster.com... So, when it comes to the dash for gash, most British blokes are obliged to either accept some third rate tart or go home empty handed. But why us and not Japanese, Korean or Chinese guys? That's because British women's average weight has increased dramatically over recent years. http://www.esrc.ac.uk... So what is the Government doing about it? Well, they have implemented a cross-department strategy to tackle obesity, but as the figures show, it has failed. Miserably. http://www.dh.gov.uk... But wait, my totty-deprived British chums, do not despair! I have the solution, and here it is: Since most girls spend a great deal of time reading fashion magazines and waste a hell of a lot of money shopping for clothes, it would be fair to conclude that fashionable clothes are important to them, right? So why not ban the manufacture for sale of all dresses over UK size 12 (UK) / 40 (EU) / 10 (US) and make the overweight women wear either old dresses, homemade dresses or coal sacks with holes cut into them for the neck and arms? That would provide a real incentive for girls to shed the pounds and thus provide British men with a decent selection of nice, fit birds to choose from on a Saturday night. I can't see how there could be any objection to this proposal, but since the Government hasn't already adopted it, I assume there must be some flaw in the plan that I have missed. Perhaps my opponent can spot something?

And we can offer them everything but your topic sentence is "Obesity In America Should We Do Something" They,the obese people, have to do something first they must take actions. They have to do something first which is why I say we cannot do something. Because they have to do something.

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?

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 AcCepT. i DoNt KnOw WhO tHinKs CorN iS hEaLtHy bEcaUz iT is NoT. Is tHiS a QuEsTioN Or DeBaTe? tHe pRo iS a mOroNic IdIot. vOtE cOn. iCe CrEaM iS tHe MoSt HeLtHy aNd TaStY fOoOd beCuz it LoWeRs YoUr blOdOD pReSSSuUre aNd hAs No suGar. iT iS aWesoMe lIkE hOw gOoGlE iS eVil anD wIll TaKe oVeR tHe WoRlD! sOrCes: www.tinyurl.com/debateDDO

Before I start I would like to clear terms. bad; 1. of poor quality; inferior or defective. Diet Pepsi; drink that is from Pepsi, less in calories then Pepsi. Now that terms are cleared up I would like to make my arguments. 1) Diet Pepsi a healthy diet? Usually when you hear the word Diet Pepsi you think of a healthy drink that taste good, but if you think that you are mistaken. Most people that drink Diet Pepsi are drinking it to lose weight and be more healthy. Diet Pepsi will not do this for you. I did some research on diet soda's and how they are bad for you and I actually found out that not only is it bad for you, it says one of the things diet soda's can do to you are give you belly fat, which is the complete opposite of what the people who drink it want. Unfortunately that's not the end of it for diet soda fans. Not only can it give you belly fat it increases the chances for things like diabetes, stroke and heart disease. "In a study published in the journal Circulation in 2008, which followed 9,514 people for 9 years, drinking artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 34% greater risk of developing the metabolic syndrome. " - Authority Nutrition. "Also another study found a 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome and a drastically increased risk of diabetes in diet soda drinkers. " -Authority Nutrition. That doesn't sound that healthy to me. 2) Diet Pepsi and Depression What I have said already may be pretty shocking, but that's not where it ends. Diet sodas (including Diet Pepsi, which is a diet) have shown that the diet sodas can increase depression in you. "In a study of 263,925 adults aged 51-70, individuals who drank soda were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with depression over a period of 10 years. " - Authority Nutrition. Not only depression but diet sodas can increase the chance of preterm delivery for babies. "In a study of 59,334 pregnant women in Denmark, 1 serving per day of diet drinks was associated with a 38% increased risk of preterm delivery. 4 servings per day increased the risk by 78%" - Authority Nutrition. 3) Wrapping up arguments Now that you have seen all of these bad things about Diet Pepsi think about it the next time you go to get a diet Pepsi, because for me you really have to like the drink to drink one after knowing this information about it. If you want even more information about the bad things diet soda's can do to you go to the link below on my source that got the facts from. I wish the best of luck to my opponent and that we can have a thoughtful debate. . http://authoritynutrition.com...

Good luck and good debate. 1. Health Benefits - "A recent study indicated that the average vegan diet is higher in vitamin C and fibre, and lower in saturated fat than one containing meat. In addition, statistics show that vegans have a lower BMI (height-to-weight ratio) than meat eaters " in other words, they are skinnier."[1] 2 Weight Loss - "According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Centre for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry."[2] 3. Longer Life - "If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. 'People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.'[3] [1] http://www.jamieoliver.com... [2] http://www.vegetariantimes.com... [3] Ibid


Question: Is Obesity Considered a Medical Condition?

Obesity

The topic of fast food seems to be a constant in the news, often due to its ingredients, such as trans fats, or its links to health issues like diabetes and obesity. While it's tempting to blame fast food for the obesity epidemic, the reality is more nuanced. Weight gain is primarily caused by consuming more calories than the body can burn. This means that regular fast food consumption doesn't necessarily lead to obesity, as long as calorie intake is balanced with physical activity and overall diet. Research supports this, indicating that while fast food's high calorie content and large portions can contribute to weight gain, it's not the sole cause of obesity.

There are several other factors that contribute to obesity, including:

- Lack of Energy Balance: When the energy consumed from food and drink (energy IN) exceeds the energy used by the body (energy OUT), weight gain occurs. This imbalance is a common cause of obesity.
- Sedentary Lifestyle: Many individuals lead inactive lives, spending significant time in front of screens for work, school, and leisure. This lack of physical activity is linked to obesity.
- Environmental Factors: The environment often discourages healthy habits. For instance, the absence of sidewalks, parks, trails, and affordable gyms makes physical activity difficult. The availability of oversized portions in restaurants and at home, and the lack of access to healthy foods in certain neighborhoods, contribute to obesity.
- Genetic Influence: Studies of identical twins raised apart show a strong genetic influence on weight. Obesity tends to run in families, influenced by both genes and shared lifestyle habits.
- Health Conditions: Certain medical conditions like hypothyroidism, Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome can lead to obesity due to hormonal imbalances.
- Emotional Eating: Some people overeat in response to boredom, anger, or stress, which can lead to obesity over time.
- Smoking Cessation: Quitting smoking can result in weight gain due to changes in taste and smell sensitivity, and a decrease in metabolic rate. However, the health risks associated with smoking outweigh the potential weight gain.
- Lack of Sleep: Research indicates that insufficient sleep increases the risk of obesity across all age groups. People with less sleep tend to prefer high-calorie, carbohydrate-rich foods, contributing to weight gain.

Sources: [1] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... [2] http://weight-loss.emedtv.com...

I am still waiting for you to prove that it is a plague using my definition. Also, you must prove it is a plague by all of the definition. Or else, it is not truly a plague.

And we can offer them everything but your topic sentence is "Obesity In America Should We Do Something" They,the obese people, have to do something first they must take actions. They have to do something first which is why I say we cannot do something. Because they have to do something.

The debate is whether fat tax should be implemented. Fat tax is defined as a form of sin tax implemented on unhealthy foods that are linked to obesity. The motion is limited to first world or developed countries as these are the countries facing high level obesity and would benefit from such taxes. Fat tax is proposing tax on food and drinks which are considered unhealthy. These foods are believed to increase the obesity levels. "Fat tax" is another form of sin tax - taxing on items such as cigarettes. A sin tax refers to popular vices and comes from prostitution in the 16th Century. It is proven to be success. In the US for every 10% price increase there is 4% reduced consumption. To combat the epidemic that is obesity it makes sense to implement this tax which has proven to decrease societal vices. When unhealthy food costs more it is proven that consumption will decrease. The excuse for "junk food" consumption is that it is cheap. However, a tax would make it more or less the same level as healthy food in which people would choose the healthier food as the issue is not healthy living education but affordability. Sin taxes are proven to decrease the consumption of taxed goods falling in to the category, thus the solution to the obesity epidemic is "fat tax." An an unimaginable amount is spend on medical expenses because of obesity and related weight issues. In countries where medical services are given by the state, this cost then falls to the state to cover. It is also important to remember disease and other medical conditions linked to obesity. Diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension are only a view diseases. The diseases in this list are chronic and therefore need lifelong therapy which usually include expensive and complex procedures. Even if these are not all taken on by the state this puts pressure on the household to produce enough income not only to treat the medical issues but also to keep the rest of the household running. Not to mention the loss of income caused by obesity in ways such as decreased productivity, absence and premature death. This makes it clear the the "choice" to obesity and unhealthy living should be restricted - (note: not taken away). Therefore the government would have a legitimate reason to implement such a tax. Finally, fat tax would allow for healthier decisions as the prices across healthy and unhealthy foods would no longer have such an immense gap. The simple fact that sugary, salty and unhealthy foods are more popular is the prices. These foods are not only less expensive but also less likely to be affected by inflation. It is also important to note that obesity is prevalent in lower socio economic households. Thus proving that food choices are dependent on price. For theses reasons I propose the implementation of "fat tax"

"i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument" (2) That's right. I crushed your Round 1 argument. "and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad" (3) First of all, the opposite of "smoking is good" is "smoking is not good," and not that "smoking is bad" (it could be neutral for all I care.) In addition, I showed that smoking is bad because it raises your blood pressure and your heart rate. Furthermore, I did provide evidence. I also gave instructions to an experiment that can be performed to verify my claim. Since I showed that my argument is correct, it should be considered so unless you refute it. (To lay it out plainly, that means I win this point.) Obesity ------------ It is true that smoking suppresses the appetite, and it does help people lose weight. Models sometimes smoke cigarettes in order to lose weight. It is true that there are high obesity rates in the U.S. So? What about it? You did not make a point... Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective way to eradicate obesity in the U.S.? Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective solution for individuals to lose weight? Dementia ------------- "There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias..." (4) You are correct. Smoking can be beneficial in certain cases. In addition, marijuana can help people with glaucoma. However, this does not prove your point, as I will proceed to explain. The title of this debate says "Smoking is good for you." Although it is understood that you do not mean ME personally, it is understood by the statement that smoking is *generally* good for people. Because the consumers you picked for this argument are the exception rather than the rule, whether smoking or not is good for this particular audience does not prove your position on the topic of the debate (i.e. "smoking is good for you"). Good luck (you're gonna need it lol)

I accept and will be debating that fat shamin women is not ok and that it is cyber bullying.

Yes it does show why healthcare is a right. Healthcare is a right because people own their bodies. My body, my right to choose. If I don't want to besick or injured, I don't have to.

Okay many countries are opting for healthy food but that hasn't happened yet so as of now it's not there. 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!!!! And I know you said we aren't debating with diseases and stuff but it is an inevitable fact that obesity is in the gene pool. So like it's already in the genes and the parent has no controll over that. So how is it the parents fault?!?!?!?!? And this is off the subject but do you have any idea where i can find decent Values and Value Criterion for school debate cases!?!?!?!?! And how can kids play outside when they have homework!?!?!?!?! Where I go to school there is alot to be tackled; like the debate case I have to have done by 4th period tommorow for instance..........

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

:: 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...

These days, many parents do not allow their kids to walk or cycle to school as they may have done themselves when they were teenagers. This is largely due to the risk, perceived or real, of their children coming into contact with any of the numerous paedophiles and drug pushers that now infest our neighbourhoods. However, there is another category of undesirable people that kids would be very unlikely to encounter either walking or cycling to school: the fat. However, when they get to school, normal children are forced to mix with overweight children and, worse still, they are made to treat them with dignity and respect. This is despite the fact that the unhealthy eating habits that lead to obesity are "contagious" and there is "a strong link between teenagers own weight and that of their closest peers." http://news.bbc.co.uk... As a society, we don't allow teenage drug addicts to be educated alongside regular students and we don't allow convicted paedophiles to become teachers, so why do we continue to put our kids in harms way by allowing fat children to attend the same schools as them? Obviously, some people are overweight due to medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and Prada Willi syndrome, and these unfortunate people should not be considered part of the problem. However, the fact is that over 99% of the fat are overweight because they consume more calories than they expend, in other words they are gluttonous and lazy. This is their choice, just as drug addicts choose to snort cocaine or inject themselves with heroin. http://www.nhs.uk... Isn't it about time we woke up and realised that sex offenders, illegal drug users and the fat should be housed in separate communities in order to prevent them from harming decent, hard-working people and their children? Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...


Question: Is Overweight Condition Considered a Disease?

Obesity leads to significant health issues. Attempts to link dietary fat intake with heart disease by the National Institute of Health (USA) have been costly, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on research. Despite this, five major studies have failed to establish a clear connection between fat consumption and heart disease onset.

Although the fast food companies are providing the food, they do not promote it as being healthy their is and do not intend for it to be eaten regularly. McDonalds is a burger chain and hence sells burgers, people go to McDonalds to eat burgers, if people wanted salads they would go to a salad bar. It is McDonalds' job to sell burgers and not to keep their consumers healthy. Eating in moderation does not make you addicted and as McDonalds does not advertise their food as something you should eat everyday, it is not their fault that people are obese

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...

Hey you big perfectly shaped molocko! You called me fat you Snort head. sup wi dat? 6' 200lbs, well built is your fatness sacrifice to your god? I have more muscle mass then you I bet, in sheer mass that is, not related to height, or whatever a legal definition of a fat person is. How would you define a fat person. My fat fingers are from hard work you split head.

As those gentlemen who are regularly out on the pull in the pubs and clubs of Britain will readily testify, there is an increasingly desperate shortage of attractive women to choose from in this country. Yes, there are a few girls with attractive personalities (which is very important of course), but you would have a hard job finding one that didn't also have a dirty great toilet on her. For those of you lucky enough to live in countries where most girls do not fall into the category of "fat slags", here's a typical assortment of the sort of foul-mouthed munters the average Saturday night offers English gentlemen out on the lash: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.cupcakepdx.com... Now, contrast that with the sort of Asian babes a man about town in the Far East gets to choose from: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://a66.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://photos-897.friendster.com... So, when it comes to the dash for gash, most British blokes are obliged to either accept some third rate tart or go home empty handed. But why us and not Japanese, Korean or Chinese guys? That's because British women's average weight has increased dramatically over recent years. http://www.esrc.ac.uk... So what is the Government doing about it? Well, they have implemented a cross-department strategy to tackle obesity, but as the figures show, it has failed. Miserably. http://www.dh.gov.uk... But wait, my totty-deprived British chums, do not despair! I have the solution, and here it is: Since most girls spend a great deal of time reading fashion magazines and waste a hell of a lot of money shopping for clothes, it would be fair to conclude that fashionable clothes are important to them, right? So why not ban the manufacture for sale of all dresses over UK size 12 (UK) / 40 (EU) / 10 (US) and make the overweight women wear either old dresses, homemade dresses or coal sacks with holes cut into them for the neck and arms? That would provide a real incentive for girls to shed the pounds and thus provide British men with a decent selection of nice, fit birds to choose from on a Saturday night. I can't see how there could be any objection to this proposal, but since the Government hasn't already adopted it, I assume there must be some flaw in the plan that I have missed. Perhaps my opponent can spot something?

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?

As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished. "Lets look a bit closer at some of the following statements offered as proof of conspiracy and the will of supposedly evil Doctors to poison their patients. "The act of imprisoning patients causes an anxiety disorder. Although before incarceration a patient would not have an anxiety disorder he would succumb to one in a hospital. " No, just no. This is obviously wrong on so many levels. Patients are no prisoners or convicts as you imply. you just can't help but troll can you. .English, although not most used, is most abundant around the world. There are often many English courses available in schools with open seats. Google first comes up with, "Typical Woman Syndrome," "Tivoli Workload Schedule," and the "The Wildlife Society. " TWS is not a common acronym. The 1st is very sexist and of no meaning while the 2nd and 3rd too simply have no meaning. It is important to speak in a manner which is of understanding to the receiving party. For example very common acronyms and proper English. Forgive me I have no idea why you are talking about this, is it relevant somehow? "I understand the fact that formal permanent diagnoses is very stupid. "In some cases it is appropriate. ie Diabetes"These days, support for patients includes: arts and crafts"Nope you are thinking of the 1970's. Recovery focus does not mean arts & crafts. "The parents brought in a psychiatrist who declared the patient was having a psychotic episode. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. "How does this help your resolution. If anything you are pointing out why we need MORE treatment not less. "I know a child who was abused by his upper middle class parents his entire life. He was not permitted to learn to write nor make friends. The abuse was so bad his health failed and he could not survive on his own. His parents forced him to see a psychiatrist and take medicine. In a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, I was witness to his major withdrawals from an incorrectly prescribed muscle relaxant. Death was a likely possibility to the patient. " Cool story bro. But seriously, suggesting we should abolish treatment for mental health because you knew a kid once for whom what you know of didn't go well. . "Mentally ill patients should not be left to suffer unavoidable circumstances and be given the opportunity, very often with pressure from abusers, to ingest poison. " Vulnerable people need more support. We know and do this already. This is not what you started out suggesting as your resolution. In fact quite the opposite. "If a wife does not understand why her husband cheats on her, parents abuse their child, students bully their classmate, should the unable victim be prescribed, like a drug addict, medications or should he be guided on what action to take and given assistance? "What has cheating wives got to do with anything ? More loaded arguments. "At this point through the fog and chemicals in his mind the patient exclaimed his parents were trying to murder him. "He sounds paranoid to me. Definitely in need of medication and support. But hey maybe they were trying to murder him? If you think that's the more likely answer. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. OK, I think you haven't given anywhere near the full story of that case and you have dramatised it to try and push your own agenda. I think all you care about is your agenda, not the well being of people suffering mental illnesses at all. I work with severely delusional people , they all have a way more realistic view of mental health services than the one you have put forwards. Please consider what you say to people as you can do great harm with your right wing ideation/ideology.

Definitons. Fat: the presence of excess fat in a person or animal Beautiful: pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically Links:http: . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... The premise of this debatte is wrong : Fat is not beautiful! What my opponent meant was fat people are not beautifull. So are fat people beautifull? Let's remember the premise fat people are not beautifull If I can proof that at least one fat people is beautifull I win. definiton of beautifull being pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically I only have to proof that there are people interested in fat people and I win ! there are people interested in fat people go lock up porn pages if you don't belief me!

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

Before I start I would like to clear terms. bad; 1. of poor quality; inferior or defective. Diet Pepsi; drink that is from Pepsi, less in calories then Pepsi. Now that terms are cleared up I would like to make my arguments. 1) Diet Pepsi a healthy diet? Usually when you hear the word Diet Pepsi you think of a healthy drink that taste good, but if you think that you are mistaken. Most people that drink Diet Pepsi are drinking it to lose weight and be more healthy. Diet Pepsi will not do this for you. I did some research on diet soda's and how they are bad for you and I actually found out that not only is it bad for you, it says one of the things diet soda's can do to you are give you belly fat, which is the complete opposite of what the people who drink it want. Unfortunately that's not the end of it for diet soda fans. Not only can it give you belly fat it increases the chances for things like diabetes, stroke and heart disease. "In a study published in the journal Circulation in 2008, which followed 9,514 people for 9 years, drinking artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 34% greater risk of developing the metabolic syndrome. " - Authority Nutrition. "Also another study found a 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome and a drastically increased risk of diabetes in diet soda drinkers. " -Authority Nutrition. That doesn't sound that healthy to me. 2) Diet Pepsi and Depression What I have said already may be pretty shocking, but that's not where it ends. Diet sodas (including Diet Pepsi, which is a diet) have shown that the diet sodas can increase depression in you. "In a study of 263,925 adults aged 51-70, individuals who drank soda were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with depression over a period of 10 years. " - Authority Nutrition. Not only depression but diet sodas can increase the chance of preterm delivery for babies. "In a study of 59,334 pregnant women in Denmark, 1 serving per day of diet drinks was associated with a 38% increased risk of preterm delivery. 4 servings per day increased the risk by 78%" - Authority Nutrition. 3) Wrapping up arguments Now that you have seen all of these bad things about Diet Pepsi think about it the next time you go to get a diet Pepsi, because for me you really have to like the drink to drink one after knowing this information about it. If you want even more information about the bad things diet soda's can do to you go to the link below on my source that got the facts from. I wish the best of luck to my opponent and that we can have a thoughtful debate. . http://authoritynutrition.com...

I am still waiting for you to prove that it is a plague using my definition. Also, you must prove it is a plague by all of the definition. Or else, it is not truly a plague.