Question: Is obesity a disease?

Title: Obesity is a disease Content: Resolution: "Obesity [1] is a disease [2]."I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the "Pro" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a "disease" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.

Title: Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity Content: YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!

Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it

Title: TTHW prohibit the sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals Content: Obesity is a public health issue .

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.

Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: Obesity is a subject I have spend copious time researching.My stance My position is that both morbid obesity and obesity are complex biological subjects that have many causes. Fat-shaming is both cruel and counterproductive. Say no to fat shaming.

Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: Outline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer "Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder"Diabetes "Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers." [2]Heart disease "Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart." [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence "CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity." [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber "It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake" [5] Sleep "Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals." [6]. Exercise " Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%)." [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent con states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice."He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)

Title: Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating Content: Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.

Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: I do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)

Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Title: Fatness ! Content: Okay so firstly, I don't know what the definition is for disease, and more importantly, it is not relevant. What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time). Nor does it even creep up on them like things such as cancer or strokes may do. By this I mean people are aware that they are overweight and it happens gradually. So you seem to be implying that fat people have no choice in their condition, this is frankly wrong. So although the American Medical association define it as a disease, that does not change the fact that it is self inflicted. So your point, though theoretically true, has no relevance to this discussion. People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people. Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem. You say only 8% of women have the 'perfect' shape. You need to tell me why this is relevant for me to respond to it. But I assume you are meaning that only 8% of women aren't fat and so magazines not showing fat people will make everyone depressed. 1. 92% of women are not 'fat'. I am not saying only have the 'top' 8%, I am saying don't glamorize fatness. Also, the reason why only 8% of women have this 'perfect' shape, and so many people are 'chubby' or 'plump', is not because of some natural phenomenon indicating that 50% of women (or whatever) are classed as overweight - it is because of bad practice in the culture. Again it is 'self' inflicted. Not what people typically consider a disease. You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying... I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone. But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem. And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can. Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana. Also you may argue that these things are also shunned because of the lifestyle they typically associate with - but marijuana at least is smoked in many cultures without problems, I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour. It always requires laziness or greed or ignorance. (not to mention mental weaknesses and problems). You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition. No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not "choose" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.

Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: My opponent starts with the premise that obesity is a bad thing. Yes certain things like diabetes and cardio vascular diseases come due to obesity, but my opponent makes the assumption that such thing is bad because people are opposed to the idea. Now my opponent has no grounds to say that this is the case, there are people who are for, against, and impartial to obesity. Therefore this obesity issue is subjective, and if my opponent is arguing that we should ban things that promote such subjective things, then my opponent would be proposing to ban all other subjective promoting things. Now there is a weight "problem" in the U.S. in general, not just obesity, but anorexia. Therefore for people with anorexia the may be a good thing. Also junk food promotes variety since it adds a different category of food to whole bunch of foods.

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated "Cancer is a disease". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.

Title: Fatness ! Content: Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... “Obesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.” Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a “perfect” body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... “The Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.” Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of “perfect body.” http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed “too fat” women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are “too fat.” Harm 4: Women who are deemed “too fat” may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro’s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.

Title: DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools Content: (INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? “The condition of being grossly fat or overweight.” (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person’s health? “Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.” {1} {2} “Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.” {1} {2} “Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma." {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: “Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity”{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don’t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly ‘well you go to your classes and academic subjects’ but I have reason to believe your reaction could be ‘go to P.E.’ I will provide multiple studies showing why: “Look at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.” {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can’t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn’t it? Here is some more studies: “The California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed — kids who were more fit performed better academically.” {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: “Charles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control” {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. “Stress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.” {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc… makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? “25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol” {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: “7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana” {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! “Physical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.” {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...

Title: It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Content: I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing "rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. " Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent/incompetent") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; "it was beneath his dignity to cheat"; "showed his true dignity when under pressure" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; "physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: "It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London " Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.

Title: Obesity Content: Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.

Title: Smoking is as bad a Obesity Content: Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;

Title: Solving the obesity problem - my method Content: The only rule regarding this debate is that a sense of humour is required Obesity = a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, exceeds healthy limits. It is commonly defined as a body mass index (weight divided by height squared) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. Obesity is a growing concern (pun not intended). I have a few suggestions on how to solve this problem, if you disagree, well you know what to do! 1) The overweight people are simply "slagged out of it", i.e. full permission would be given for people to mock or ridicule the unfortunate fatties. Suggested methods of slagging are as follows: a) verbal abuse b) a rubber stamp with "fattie" or "please don't eat me" engraved on it would be made available to all healthy people (i.e. people a healthy weight). They could use this stamp as they pleased on the nearest obese person c) hanging posters of healthy people on the walls as a constant reminder of what they have to achieve The obese person would become so ashamed that they would eventually be pressured into losing the weight 2) If that didn't work, then the obese people would be forced to work on a reality TV program, named "Fat Camp" or something along the lines of that. In the show the obese people would be put through various army style exercises, while they all lived in a house together or a compound. The camp would be run by a very extreme ex army officer. Not only would this make great TV (it would be big brother fatty style!) it would be providing the facilities for weight loss free of charge. To make the camp more unbearable, if you didn't lose a certain amount of weight every week you would be made run about in a circle after an ice cream van driven by some beautiful thin person. Now if that aint great TV, I don't know what is!

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.

Title: We should shame fat people. Content: My opponent and I agree that obesity is a problem and should be addressed. He then claims that we disagree on how it should be addressed, but then he outlines a solutions that is almost perfectly in line with my suggestion in round 1. My opponent states "If you are talking 'fat' then it must always come from a good place. You are talking about it because you care". This is very similar to my statement "and treated (medically speaking) with compassion and respect". The similarity comes from the words "care" and "compassion". We both agree, it seems, that we should try to show children who are at risk of becoming obese and those who are obese ways to change their lives in a compassionate, caring way. This seems contradictory to idea of "fat shaming" which is defined as "An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person". This definition is also not in line with my opponents "ideas" as his ideas are largely stemming for feelings of genuine concern for the obese while "fat shaming" is fundamentally malicious. I believe my opponent meant to say "we should use tough LOVE on fat people to encourage them into healthy habits" instead of his original contention which has very little room for the compassion he claimed he had for the obese. I would like to continue to contend that what I have defined as fat shaming is detrimental to society and is not desirable. If this what my opponent meant then I will continue the argument. If my opponent did not mean "fat shaming" as it is defined then I would like to extend the option of an agreed upon tie since I only agreed to this debate under the premise that my opponent meant fat shaming as "An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person".

Title: Being fat causes problems for everyone Content: Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].

Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.

Title: It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants Content: I don't really know what a "food disorder" is but guess it would be when an obese goes into a restaurant intending to order the poached salmon with green salad but when the waiter comes he mistakenly orders a 28oz porterhouse steak with fries instead! Otherwise my opponent may be referring to people who are obese due to medical conditions. However, this accounts for less than 1% of the obese (1) and, in any case, no doctor would ever prescribe huge portions of junk food as a treatment for an obese's illness. Finally, I used BMI as a definition because it is the most scientific and widely used definition (2) but, of course, restaurant employees will be able to use their discretion and not unduly penalise athletes such as rugby and American football players. Please remember, voters, this proposal will not prevent obese people from eating in restaurants, it will only prevent them from over-indulging themselves. Now, to address my opponent's contentions: C1 – I would not agree that the majority of people are obese, either in the US or the UK. In the US around 1 in 3 adults are obese (3) and in the UK around 1 in 5 are (4) – we should not confuse being overweight (which most people are) with being obese. In any case, this law would not "oppress" the obese, as they will still be free to visit restaurants freely. Furthermore, it would not restrict their freedom of choice: if it is someone's ambition is to become obese and they are too lazy to cook they will still be at liberty to use the drive-thru facility or order a take-out. C2 – I agree that fast food is cheaper than organic produce but this is a false dichotomy because fast food merchants such as McDonalds offer low fat alternatives. Please compare the two following meals taken from the McDonald's menu (5): A - Angus Bacon and Cheese burger, Large Fries, 5 Chicken Select strips with Creamy Ranch Sauce, Chocolate Triple Thick milkshake, Large Mocha coffee. Total calories: 3710. (162% of adult daily calorie intake) B – Premium Bacon Ranch Salad with Low Fat Vinaigrette, 4 Chicken McNuggets with Barbeque Sauce, Fruit ‘n Yogurt Parfait, Large Coffee. Total calories: 550. (27.5% of adult daily calorie intake) You see, fast food doesn't necessarily have to be fattening. So, if an obese walked into McDonalds and ordered meal B, he would be perfectly entitled to sit down and eat his food. However, if an obese ordered meal A, under my proposal, he would be refused service unless he agreed to order something with fewer calories. Incidentally, restaurants would not be losing out financially as a result of my proposal as my opponent claims because, as my opponent himself rightly pointed out, healthy alternatives are often more expensive than the fatty items. Now, moving on to my opponent's comments regarding normal people taking offence at the fat. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. It is not the obese that are offensive - it is gorging themselves on obscene piles of fatty food that causes offence. It is very important to understand this distinction. Take the drunk in the pub. He wouldn't be offending anyone if he was sober, or if he was drunk at home. Similarly, a smoker that refrains from lighting up in a restaurant and goes outside to smoke causes no offence to his fellow diners. It is not the individual, per se, that is offensive, it is their behaviour and that same principle applies to the obese. All my proposal aims to achieve is to encourage the obese to adopt a proper sense of decorum and show some respect for other customers by eating in moderation when in restaurants and I don't think that's too much to ask. Thank you. (1) . http://www.nhs.uk... (2) . http://www.nhs.uk... (3) . http://www.cdc.gov... (4) . http://www.nhs.uk... (5) . http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com...

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

Title: We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese' Content: Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like "obesity" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like "dangerously" "morbidly" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.

Title: Fat Tax Content: Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...

Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Semantics prove nothing. My opponents entire defence relies on the word fat not being associated with the word obese. HE IS WRONG. Obese and overweight are both medical terms. Whereas fat is a casual/colloquial term. So when I use the word fat, I'm casually depicting an over weight or obese individual. His arguments are arguments from semantics where he is only able to dispute definitions of words. rebuttal "Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either." Fat people are a fetish for normal people AT BEST. So what if some fetish bound skinny guy likes a fat greasy pair of buttocks? This doesn't mean he wants to have children with it, nor does this mean he would want to start a relationship with it. Fat people mainly breed with one another resembling some form of pathetic hippo mating scenario where neither one can see their own genitalia. When it comes to sex, fat people are on the bottom of the social hierarchy. This creates the notion that fat people are unattractive and tells us that potential mates find fatties unfit to breed. For whatever reason pro has made claims without sources to back those claims up, he also wants sources to be used only in the final round, how can the legitimacy of sources be argued if they're provided in the final round? This shows that my opponent is unreasonable, also shown by the fact that he claims to love fat people made apparent by his insight into "Big Beautiful Women" yet he disproves of people being obese. He seems ignorant to the fact that being defined as fat on any level is a gateway to being obese and anything that makes you susceptible to being obese can not be considered healthy. Despite my opponent claiming to not be talking about obesity he bought up the obesity paradox, which suggests that people who are fat have extra defence against some form of cancers, thus a defence against cancer is healthy right? Not necessarily, a lack of cancer does not mean you're healthy, but having an increased risk of heart disease does mean you're unhealthy, so this argument does not prove that fat people are healthy. ""Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance." "No, being excessively fat, or obese is." My opponent claims that being fat does not reflect bad self maintenance, yet tells us that being excessively fat does, this suggests that being fat to some degree does reflect bad self maintenance. The point is that the lack of self maintenance is responsible for one gaining weight. This clearly tells us that being fat is not associated with a life style that would be considered healthy or fit. "I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'." When I described fat heart attack I mentioned that it was fat people who were susceptible to them. I don't think someone who has not got visible abs should be considered fat, by the above statement my opponent does.This shows his lack of understanding of the word fat. "My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless." I'm suggesting that you're dangerous by telling fat people that they're healthy, this false information will cause them harm. it's like telling cancer patients that they are fine and they don't need to find treatment. You are a dangerous man by spreading your lies and I stand by that statement. "Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to "preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants". Unlike you I'm not denying that fat people need our help, if I'm urging readers to donate to a charity which saves fat kids then I think that's a damned good thing to do. Not only do you deny fat people the medical help they need, but you seem to be against CHARITIES NOW? Thus far my opponent has proven to be ignorant and thoughtless when it comes to fat people's needs and charities. At least I care about our fellow human beings. To conclude this round Aside from the obesity paradox I don't think my opponent has forwarded any arguments that support the notion of fat people being healthy or fit. My opponent has done nothing but argue semantics and use capital letters to excess, to the point where it feels like he is raging due to his own lack of substance. I've forwarded points such as -Fat people are the lowest in the sexual hierarchy, indicating they're considered unfit to breed. -Fat people are unhealthy for society, due to eating more than they input. You wouldn't be fat if you worked harder than you ate. This is known as leeching. -Being fat is not natural or normal, made apparent by fat land mammals being an anomaly in the animal kingdom. -Fat people struggle with physical exercise due to carrying more mass, more blood needing to circulate, additional pressure on the arteries and fat acting as an insulator which raises the temperature. This suggests they're physically, unhealthy. -Shorter life expectancy for fat people with an increased risk of heart attacks, heart disease and strokes. -Athletes are overwhelmingly thin and muscular, suggesting fat has no place in fitness -Not only is weight gain unhealthy, weight gain can be caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. Suggesting the two correlate These are all reasons why fat people can not be considered healthy nor fit. I believe my opponent has thus far failed to properly address these critical points, without resorting to a semantic based argument.

Title: Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality. Content: Since a pressing issue has come up, I’m afraid my responses will be brief. “Unlike homosexuals, most overweight people are not in denial about the health issues that comes with being overweight. Aso, there are all kinds of weight loss programs. overweight people are not calling people bigots for that” My opponent has failed to address the fact that many homosexuals, including myself, are aware of the health risks our “behavior” is prone to. For that reason we take preventive measures. (i. e. wear condoms, get blood tests, et. al. ) When he says there are all kinds of weight loss programs, I can make the analogy that there are all kinds of medication for STDS. Lastly, my opponent makes the faulty claim that obese people do not call people objecting their behavior has bigots. Because, in many cases they do. And, in many cases, they, like homosexuals are right. “The original structure of the debate was set up to lure the voters away from homosexuality's main problem in which is the fact that homosexual behavior is a health hazard and a threat to public health. ” My opponent is incorrect. The structure of the debate was to address multiple issues of homosexuality. He did not. If he has addressed both marriage and adoption, THEN made his arguments on the STD epidemic in the fourth round, he would not have ignored the structure of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent has made one argument against homosexuality, asserting that it is a health risk factor. However, he fails to address that heterosexual behavior can also be a health risk, according to his arguments. While homosexuals may be hold the mass percentage of documented AIDS cases, heterosexuals 1. ) are prone to AIDS as well, and 2. ) are prone to a plethora of other STDS. To make a long story short, my opponents arguments do not justify the denial of acceptance of homosexuality. They are merely used as an excuse to continue to support open bigotry. I have argued two cases in which homosexuals actively contribute to society, asserting that they operate on a very similar basis as heterosexuals.

Title: Should Cars be Banned Content: There are over 1 billion people overweight, and about 300 million of them are considered obese. If we did not have cars, and people started walking, running, riding their bikes, and just exercising in general, the number of obese people would drop and that would also save many lives.

Title: Genetic Engineering in Humans is Bad Content: disease

Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un"health"y adjective harmful to health. "an unhealthy diet" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?

Title: Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights Content: Yes, the risk for developing various health issues increases. We as humans need to remember that most people are not educated about the health issues that will arise from being obese. This should not be overlooked. People can not talk about obesity without talking about education on obesity. So yes, this debate is just as much about education as obesity. Should kids be taken away from their parents for not having control over their parents influenced the child.

Title: The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity Content: And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...

Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, "Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain." Sources http://obesity.procon.org...

Title: People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people Content: "Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there." It's great that the both of us are working together to disprove your statements, I think it provides a real sense of unity :P "Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again." As I pointed out repeatedly in the debate, I'm not trying to disprove the negative effects of obesity, simply that the healthy aren't opressed. "This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic." 1.) I have no idea where you got that link, so I think you're just trying to throw out random arguments to make your side look better. 2.) this argument can in no way be applied to the topic. The only way this would work were if the obese were literally forcing the healthy to change their eating habits or vice versa. " Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out." You refer to obesity as if it were a contagous disease that can be caught through contact with the obese. No. I live in Alabama, one of the most Obese states in the nation. I have both fat and skinny friends (I don't know where the line between overweight and obese lies), and in all the years I've known both, neither side has changed their weight. This is proof against the fact that Obesity is "out of control", or that the healthy are "oppressed and squeezed out" which is just rediculous. I'm sure the experiences of the entire audience go against this outrageous claim as well. Furthermore, my opponent drops the fact that his claims are just as rediculous as the homophobic claims for Don't Ask Don't Tell, that the negative effects of obesity actually act as a deterrent for the healthy, that most people don't want to be obese in the first place so treating them equally won't change anything, that accepting the Pro's case oppresses the obese more than the healthy thus negating the resolution, that what he's treating as oppression can't actually meet the definition of oppression, and that using his logic means that someone moving here from Zimbabwe is being oppressed by the Americans because he can't find others from Zimbabwe. And yes, there's a whole paragraph full of things he dropped :P I urge a Con vote because the Pro has not served to prove that the Healthy are being oppressed, the only thing he's been able to prove is that there are weight equality activists. His examples of oppression don't actually meet the accepted definition (in the case of wanting to be with "your own kind", even though this is normally the case with racial barriers or extracurricular activities rather than obesity) and can't be proven to actually happen (in the case of the healhty being "squeezed out" or the obese being "out of control and growing). Furthermore, the pro case is less of a claim that the healthy ar being oppressed more than the obese, and more of a case where he states ignorant biases similar to homophobia (which he did not refute) only with weight. And so, because my opponent cannot prove that the healthy are being opressed, and is instead arguing that if one person is obese he's going to make everyone around him obese, I respectfully urge a Con vote.

Title: Obese customers should pay more for flights. Content: - OBESITY IS PREVENTABLE - I have a few problems with this rebuttal. First, we have already established that obesity is not always preventable! Genetics and other factors (including mental health) contribute to the disease. Further, sometimes the medications that people are on have a side effect of weight gain. If my opponent concedes that people cannot prevent all forms of sickness, than he concedes that people have no choice but to take medicine... medicine which can lead to obesity, therefore my point is upheld. Regardless, while obesity may very well be preventable in many cases, consider the fact that my opponent completely neglected health risks attained from things like smoking in his rebuttal. It's easy to say that obesity is more preventable than asthma; however, medical problems associated with contributing factors such as tobacco, marijuana and other drugs, alcohol, etc. all contribute to an additional increase health risks... yet we don't charge SMOKERS extra for "insurance purposes." So clearly the cost of insurance cannot be a contention in favor of my opponent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- if this ideology does not cross apply to other flyer demographics, than obesity should not be singled out. Not without a law suit anyway (more about this later). - STATISTICS - My opponent has written "since my opponent insists on an argument of statistics and precise percentages..." which is completely false. I'd just like to clear the air and say that I do not want nor expect this to be a debate revolving solely around percentages. However, for my opponent to make an incredible, highly exaggerated claim in his favor without supporting sources is extremely abusive. No one is saying that you have to provide statistics for all of your reasoning, but what I AM saying is that it wouldn't be right for either one of us to just make stuff up on a whim and present it as factual evidence. - OTHER TRANSPORTATION - My opponent has noted that buses do not charge for individual seats. That is correct. They charge per passenger. My opponent then says, "however, if obese passengers are indeed causing problems for the remaining passengers, perhaps extra fare is necessary." Right here it becomes apparent that a primary contention for Pro is the comfort of other passengers. The problem with this is that transportation's primary purpose is just that: transport. Comfortable circumstances are a LUXURY - not a necessity. If a customer deemed comfortable seating a priority, he or she would have several options: upgrading his ticket to first/business class; choosing an airline that specifically accomadates for larger seating; finding other ways of transport (car, boat, etc.) and so on. Personally I'm from NYC and have taken many forms of transportation. I cannot tell you how many times people ride the bus/subway and HAVE NO SEATING AT ALL, regardless of the fact that they paid for the ride. - FLIGHT ISN'T A RIGHT - Nope. It's not. But here my opponent is trying to straw man my argument and completely turn my point around. He said, "If a customer from a low-income bracket cannot afford the price of the flight, it would be advisable that they seek alternate forms of transportation." I agree. So what's the point? Nothing. There isn't one here. MY point, however (supported with cited factual information), was pointing out the fact that there is probably a 10% chance that your neighbor on an airplane flight will be obese, due to statistics regarding obesity and its link to poverty, etc. Therefore if one is so concerned about this HORROR, they have the option of buying an additional plane ticket just in case. Otherwise they can just take their chances and 90% of the time be a-ok anyway. So here my opponent is trying to make you believe that I have suggested that healthy people buy additional seating on airplanes. I have done no such thing. My point was that if it is a huge concern to them, then they can. If they can just deal with it - or accept the fact that they have a 90% chance of being in the clear - then they DON'T have to buy an extra plane ticket. Simple as that. But my point here is why should an obese person have to buy an extra plane ticket to make someone else more comfortable? If it's about common courtesy and respect, then people should respect the obese too, by doing things such as 1) not smelling bad, 2) not bringing a crying baby on board, 3) not stinking up the bathroom, 4) not smoking as to up insurance, etc. However nobody has to pay for these inconveniences, so WHY SHOULD THE OBESE? Singling them out is wrong, and even if you disagree, my opponent has yet to prove otherwise. For instance, in response to the above, Pro has said, "A crying child one may mute by putting on airline-provided headphones. Foul smelling passengers one may endure by simply turning on the airline-provided air conditioning. They do not lessen the product you purchased (the flight itself), even if they do make it slightly less desirable" ... which is my exact point, except in reverse, obviously. That exact logic proves my case to be true -- having an obese passenger sitting next to you may make your flight less desirable; however, it is not lessening the product. Cramped space, smelly areas and other disruptions are inconveniences that ALL travelers face and deal with as a consequence of not being rich enough to afford their own private jets. - WEIGHT & FLIGHT - Pro acknowledges that an increase in gas prices is the #1 reason that the cost of flights has significantly increased. Another reason is that less people are flying due to the troubled economy. As a result, airlines are looking for every excuse to charge a little extra. They're pinching pennies at every opportunity. Thus, the charge for extra baggage is obviously going to increase. Now according to Pro, people pay for their seat... never did he mention that people ALSO pay for CARGO space. When people bring luggage on a plane, they are costing the airline money for things like, oh, the electric that powers the baggage claim area, the employees who transport the luggage, etc. Additionally, just as flying on a plane isn't an inherent right, neither is bringing luggage on a plane. Thus assuming that one does in fact pay for a seat on the plane, airlines have also agreed to say - okay - you can bring up to 100 lbs of luggage (for example). If you bring more than that, you pay. Those extra charges pay for increasing expenses in every aspect of flight, including gas. Similarly, an airline can charge you for things like soda on a plane. But to charge you extra per pound of body weight is discriminatory... - RESPECT FOR PASSENGERS - Obese people are not the only individuals who fit uncomfortably on a plane. Tall or larger people in general (not necessarily obese) may also be the cause of some discomfort. To discriminate against them could lead to a few things. First, it could upset customers so much that they choose not to fly at all... meaning that airlines are selling less tickets, meaning the 'skinny' people will face *INCREASED COST* to compensate for those lost sales. Second, while this idea sounds good in theory, putting it into practice would inevitably lead to countless lawsuits (amongst other burdens). This would not only be a waste of airline resources but government ones as well, and again cost others MORE MONEY... be it in taxes, other fees, etc. - FUEL - Back to the whole fuel thing, it has been said that 350 million more gallons of fuel are being used per year thanks in part to obese passengers. I don't have a lot of characters left for mathematical reasoning (though I'd be more than happy to explain it further in the next round!), but that comes to about 2.5 more gallons per flight - if that. So 2 gallons of gas is what...? $8 more per flight? So just how much extra should obese passengers be charged? That's it for now...

Title: physical education should be abolished Content: Thank you for your reply. Pro says: "obesity can cause diabetes" My answer: Maintaining a child's health is not the school's responsibility. The school is solely there to educate the child. The child's health is the parent's responsibility. If the child was fed properly and healthy at home, there would be no "obesity" for these children. This PE period takes away from the child learning.

Title: Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Content: Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: "the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. " - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote "overeating and physical inactivity" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.

Title: Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra. Content: First of all I have no sound in my computer so the documentary are worthless to me. Sorry about that. My opponent admits to his personal experience and his first point to be invalid as the debate topic says overweight and not obese. Even so where do we draw the line? I win the debate as my opponent agrees with my side."Regarding the 60% obesity rate, you are correct. I had not remembered that the majority of the U.S. population was overweight. I should have been more clear as to what I thought overweight was". My opponent agrees to the con side of the debate so I urge con ballot. I recommend to my opponent to redo the debate with better wording.

Title: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse Content: I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.

Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.

Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.

Title: Obesity Content: yes, exercise is important. I guess what my main concern is people's assumption's about obese people. If you see someone over weight, do not assume its because they over eat. If you see someone thin, do not assume it's because they are healthy. The idea of being over weight has misled people into judging "fat" people.

Title: Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains Content: Thank you brian_eggleston, for this debate. First off, the majority of overweight people do not become grossly obese because of "hormone disorders", but rather because of over eating and lack of exercise. Yes, a select few of them actually have disorders that makes them obese, but almost all of them become fat by their own unhealthy choices in life. I do not feel sorry for them, because they brought it upon themselves, and the chances of them having a hormone disorder (the most common is in the thyroid) is around 1 and 25 (being conservative), and you can't just assume every fat person you see has this. Also, standing in a crowded train is good for the obese person's health, instead of letting them sit down and devour another Big Mac. And besides, how do you know there is not a problem with the healthy gentlemen? What if he's depressed, just been fired, sprained his ankle, or ill? This happens to many people, yet no one feels bad for every man they see on a train and gives up their seat for them, so why should we all just assume that every fat person we see has a disorder? I'd also like to point out that while there is obesity in developing nations, the highest amounts of obesity are still in developed countries like America, UK, New Zealand and Australia, I wonder why. Thank you sources- http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.thyroidproblems.net...

Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.

Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: Yes I agree that it is delusional to think that "any" size is beautiful. As soon as they become unhealthy, some might consider it unattractive, but some obese look only mildly overweight and still be attractive. However I disagree that obesity is a choice. My brother classifies as "obese" but he did not chose to be the way he is. Sometimes obesity occurs along with other conditions, in my brothers case, autism, which is not a choice. His doctor said that if he wasn't autistic his weight would have been fine. So no, obesity (in most cases) is not a choice. And most (obese) people don't just wake up one day and decide to just become unhealthy with a bigger chance of death at an early age. Some obesity is developed in childhood, where a child has little to no control over their lives.

Title: Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ. Content: If I may say obesity and smoking are two totally different things. Smoking: An act or spell of smoking something. Obesity: The condition of being very fat or overweight... I rest my case... The healthcare system could hardly refuse to treat people in need (smokers), after all how would that reflect on NZ? If someone needs treatment they need treatment, it is not something we can control. Smokers are PURPOSELY wasting their lives away, signing a death warrant and costing our health system a heck of a lot of money. Where as obese people are victims of fatty food, they just eat and eat, a guilty pleasure that in some cases can not be controlled.I will not argue that smoking is very addicting and once you start you cant stop but self control is a skill smokers need to master... Obese people are not costing the health system half as much money as careless smokers, that is a fact in concrete. Something you cannot deny... Here is a list of diseases caused by smoking... Gum disease Lung Cancer Heart disease Lung disease Diabetes Impotence Blindness... The list goes on and on... I recently interviewed a smoker and questioned her about the pros and cons of smoking, here is what she said: Zoe: I made a list of what I liked about smoking vs. what I hated about smoking ... and though I really missed it at first, looking at this list made me see that I didn't like smoking as much as I thought I did. What I Liked about Smoking: The bonding I experienced with other smokers. The feeling of creating a ritual. Watching the cigarette burn and watching the smoke swirl. Momentary gratification. What I Hated about Smoking: The after-smell on my clothes, furniture, car, house, everything. Yuck. Not being able to breathe properly. The constant nagging cough. All day, all night. Lots of phlegm, lots of throat-clearing and losing my voice mid-sentence. Painful heartburn every night and every time I drank coffee. Feeling winded after extremely mild activity. Severe throbbing headaches, occasional migraines. Lingering colds and bronchitis. Racing heartbeat, more sweating. Increased rate of hypertension. Dizziness after smoking too fast or [having] too many cigarettes. Nausea from smoking too much. The constant coppery, ashy taste in my mouth. Yellow skin, teeth and fingernails. Scaly, unhealthy-feeling skin. Anxiety from the fear about what I was doing to myself and the consequences. No relaxation, always feeling in need of something. A constant feeling of not being satisfied. Mini-withdrawals throughout the day. Feelings of shame while spending time with nonsmokers. Not accomplishing tasks because of wasted time smoking. The late-evening/middle-of-the-night trip to the gas station. Going out in bad weather to smoke alone. Feelings of inadequacy and substance dependence. Driving my cat out of the room every time I lit up. Dry mouth and constant feelings of thirst. Coughing so hard that I made myself sick. Trembling hands and fingertips. Fear. Of being unable to quit, of dying an untimely, painful death. The stinging feeling in my lungs when I tried to take a deeper or slower breath. Getting smoke in my eyes. Burning my lips on the filter. Trying to light short butts and feeling my eyebrows singe. Ouch! Re-lighting a previously torched cigarette, so I don't "waste" any tobacco. Overflowing ashtrays, ashes and dust everywhere. Burn holes in my car upholstery and on my clothes. "Will I fall asleep smoking?" "Will I catch something on fire?" Dry, chapped lips. The cost. All that money wasted on ruining my health and well-being. My nails and hair grew very slowly. Smoking fueled my compulsiveness relating to other bad habits, such as nail-biting and binge-eating. Having to reapply my lipstick after smoking. The filthy taste of cheap tobacco. Having to crack the car window in the pouring rain. Wet leg, wet arm, water in my eyes. Tar build-up on windows and furniture. The way my hair and skin smelled. Limited motivation and energy. Spilled tobacco in my purse, on my dresser, on my computer desk. Lighting the filter end by mistake... Dropping a cigarette while driving. Trying to tap my ashes out the car window ... while the window is rolled up. Dropping hot ashes or losing the tip of a cigarette. Oops! Tapped ashes in my drink. Feeling "exiled" in the smoking section/smoking room. Dulled sense of taste and smell. So here she was aware what smoking was doing and had done to her and yet she still to this day continues to smoke, she is trying to stop, she is doing everything in her power to out a stop to the bad habit but all her efforts are pointless. Nicotine patches and gum haven't worked for her. The people selling and distributing cigarettes are ending peoples lives, they have lost sight of everything and have been overwhelmed by greed. They do not care that every second of everyday people are dying, due to the effects of smoking... Let me tell you a story... My mother's father, a famous politician, smoked. They lived on a farm with animals, aside from the abundant fruits and vegetables they grew, they had also a small tobacco plantation. He dies at age 60, a waste of a life, my mother was at his side when he died and she has since vowed to try everything in her power to stop friends and family from smoking. I , nor my siblings ever got to meet our grandfather, a real shame as we have been told several stories about him, I am told I am like him but that is not enough, I wish I had the chance to meet him. He is just another victim of smoking. Smoking is a disgrace, I wonder what the reaction would be if smokers knew that an ingredient in rat poison is also found to be in cigarettes... Once again, I rest my case...

Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.

Title: Fat people live longer than skinny people. Content: Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines "fat" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that "fat" means " having more body fat than is optimally healthy". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Marï¿½a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.

Title: The New York Soft Drink Size Ban Content: My opponent's most recent argument is very flawed and unproductive. The opponent also puts in a false absurd quote that I supposedly said, when I literally stated the opposite. That is were I would like to begin my rebuttal. Blatantly false statementMy opponent says, and I quote "despite my opponents claims that obesity is not a problem"Absurd. I clearly stated in the beginning of round two, and I quote myself,"I do not disagree that America has an obesity problem. It is a problem,"My opponent put false words in my mouth. I would just like to point out to the audience that, as you can tell because I stated it above, American Obesity is a problem. I truly believe that and I stated it above, and my opponent tried to put a false accusation in his response. Please listen, America Obesity is a problem! I agree with that statement one hundred percent, the way of fixing it though is not by taking away drinks from a whole group of people. That's taking too much from too many people. Already Causing IssuesIn my opponent's previous argument, he has this title, only followed by the words, "What issues?" Actually, like I said before, there are a lot of large issues arising already. New York is being sued! That is quite a big issue if you ask me, maybe not to my audience or opponent though. Also, New York City and Governor Bloomberg are not being sued by one person or group, they're being sued by multiple large businesses, crucial to the economy in New York. When you have multiple large companies suing the city, it is a drastic issue, in my mind. http://gothamist.com...http://legalnews.findlaw.com...Freedom! "Not at stake"Here are some direct quotes from my opponent, that shows that freedom indeed is at stake. My opponent says-"This ban is a restriction to the providers ability to sell to much," Providers, in a free country, should be able to sell whatever and however they want with no restrictions from the government, unless of course it is illegal or extremely harmful to citizens in the sense it is unsafe. An 8 oz. different is not extremely harmful to the people of America, in comparison to selling steak infested with disease. My opponent says-"I think the government should let people make their own choices," Ok, so if you, (my opponent) believe that people should let their government make their own decisions, why are you standing for the idea that we should restrict what sizes of drinks people should buy. Lets, like you said, let the people make their own decisions in the sense that they can order whatever size drink that they want. My opponent then continues to talk about the tobacco industry, which is indeed a problem, but it is not what we are discussing. We are talking about restricting the sizes of drinks we, as citizens can buy. This is AmericaOverall, my main concern for this new ban is that I do not like the government telling me what to drink and how much of it. I don't mind a little instruction from the government, but when I say little I mean minimal. Sure, the government warning me about disasters and how to stay safe, but when they get involved in what I can eat or drink they cross the line. At my school in Mid-Ohio, we are not allowed to drink anything at lunch except for milk and water, and are not allowed condiments, salt, and pepper. This is America, if I want ketchup on my burger who is the government to tell me no? The same concept in New York. If I want a large coke who is the government to tell me that I can't? If I want to be overweight, (I don't know who would set that as a goal) than I can be over weight, because this is a free country! Nobody should be able to tell me what kind of drink size I can have.Not only is the ban absurd, but could lead to more bans. So lets say this ban follows through despite all of the current law suits, now we loose drink sizes. Then maybe certain drinks. Then maybe soda. Then maybe this, and that, and soon the government tells us exactly what, how much, and when to drink things. Is it a highly possible theory, not likely, but could indeed happen.The bottom line is that the government should not be able to tell us, U.S. Citizens, how much to drink. We are free for a reason, and part of freedom is being able to pick what to eat and drink, and how much of it. The government should not tell us how to act, and telling us how much we can drink is telling us. If I want to drink a large soda in New York, I should be able to drink a 24 oz. beverage.Thank you, I now turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources-http://legalnews.findlaw.com...http://gothamist.com...

Title: Fatness Content: Deadly: Drugs and smoking still kill more people than obesity. Not to mention automobile accidents. The world is very dangerous and you are more likely to die from a different reason then obesity. In shape: Where did you see that definition? The problem with that definition is when people are proportionally larger. Theoretically there can be a guy with a six pack and still have a 40 inch waist. That is why fat percentages are used. Unhealthy: What do you mean by unhealthy? America is one of the healthiest due to our healthcare and various laws regarding sanitation and pollution. Conclusion: Being fat is not glamorized nor will be in the for see able future. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. From the evidence you provided I do not believe being fat will be glamorized but the free choice of others will be. Thank you for the debate

Title: Fatness ! Content: I will now clarify my point because it is said that it is confusing. Being obese is disease, it doesn’t mark who you are, your self-worth, or how great you can act or sing. It is relevant to this because it is a fact. Now a fact is not an argument in whole but it adds to your argument itself. So my point “being theoretically true” is relevant to this discussion. I would like to say that my opponent concedes that not all people are fat because they want to be, by saying, “What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time).” He is proving my point that not all people choose to be that way and it is therefore a disease. My opponent says, “People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people.” Now this is not relevant to this debate. The debate is on why fat people should not be in the media, not if it is a hobby or a choice. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing any substantial evidence proving that having “fat” people in the media hurts anyone. My opponent also said, “Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem.” Yes, it does reflect on our society it shows that not all a person is are looks, and they are not just for pleasure, it shows that they are a human being striving to show to us what they are going through and that people with diseases can overcome their outward appearance and look to who they are and what their talents are. He never proved why the reflection on our culture is a bad thing and I have shown you how it is actually turned into a good thing. It looks as if I should clarify this point also. I am saying that 92% of women are not what media shows as perfect. If you glamorize people who are perfect without showing that the other 92% are beautiful or talented in their own ways you are saying that they have little self-worth. “You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying...” There is no response, this is what your logic implies. “I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone.” Good then there is nothing wrong with showing people who have weight issues that they can be beautiful. “But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life.” You have shown no proof why obese people don’t have neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. “Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem.” My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. “And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can.” Of course you can, you could cuss me off if you wanted too but that doesn’t make it right. Now another thing you shouldn’t do is bring up assertions without any facts backing up your claim… My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This point can be discounted. “Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana.” Proof? You must bring up proof for the things you say. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This can be discounted. “I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour.” My opponent has again brought up no facts on why this is not true, just because he has never seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This can be discounted, but first let me educate you on this. :) It is a widely known fact that in Africa there are many fathers and husbands that cannot provide their families with very much food. Now when a woman gets fat it is a sign of plenty, abundance, and good health. So yes, there are cultures that believe being fat is a good thing. “You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition.” Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m also saying that fat people have every right to be in media as anyone else, and that fat people are worth something and have talents that should also be brought to life. You have not proven why this is false, this can be discounted. “No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.” That’s what we have organic food and Michelle Obama for. Also, you can’t just take companies out of production, just because you feel like it. I’d like you all to remember what I said in my first round that Jenifer Lawrence has been deemed too fat, if she has who will be next? Now for all of you who have skimmed through this debate I would like to fill out your ballot for you. Grammar and spelling: Flow Con. Pro has misspelled the words: habits, tackle, and fat. And used the incorrect form of many words such as take and used the word peoples instead of people’s. Conduct: Flow Pro. He has been a great opponent and hasn’t been picking on grammar or facts. Sources: Flow Con, Pro had blind assertions with no facts. And last but not least, Arguments: Flow Con because Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing why beautiful fat people hurt our country and he also conceded that not all people are fat because they are lazy.

Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: Firstly, I'd like to reframe this argument in the context of the debate topic; I'll then take each of Pro's arguments one by one.Pro is proposing that obese people should be charged more for flying airplanes and using public transportation. Many of Pro's arguments attempt to demonstrate that obese people are completely responsible for their own obesity, hence this form of economic punishment is justified.Number 1Firstly, in his refutation of a genetic link to obesity, Pro claims “If genetic factors were the primary cause of obesity, we'd see a more or less even distribution of obesity around the world”. This doesn't make sense – genes vary from country, and are responsible for things as diverse as skin colour or race (which certainly differ primarily country to country). We don't all share the same set of genes globally, and the fact that specific regions are experiencing higher rates of obesity doesn't rule out genetic factors increasing susceptibility to obesity.Furthermore, the fact that obesity rates are increasing in several industrialized regions, which share many environmental factors, simultaneously could imply environmental factors are at play. If this an issue of individual self-control, then how is it possible that so many people globally are being affected? That environmental factors are at play is also supported by the evidence I provided that many species are increasing in body weight – this isn't just an issue about individual humans lacking self-control, but is instead a more systemic problem that isn't any one individual's fault.For Pro's other comments in this section, I'm limited in the length of my response, so I'll focus on clarifying the World Health Organization's position on obesity, since the WHO is the most credible source that Pro uses in his response. The WHO acknowledges that “genes are important in determining a person's susceptible to weight gain,”[1] and that other environmental factors play a significant role, including, “economic growth, modernization, urbanization, globalization of food marketings”. The WHO report that Pro references simply suggests that industrialized nations are consuming a larger number of calories than sub-Saharan countries – it makes no claim that industrialized nations are partaking in the “unhealthy lifestyle”, nor makes any attempt to link that to obesity. In fact, the report acknowledges that “poor countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies,”[2] making them an unsuitable benchmark despite Pro's use of them as such.The same WHO report from Pro claims that the amount of fat consumed (grams per capita/day) in China has increased by 55% between 1967 and 1999 – the highest change experienced in any region, yet their obesity levels haven't increased anywhere near the rate of some other nations (their current obesity rate is under 5% according to the WHO [3]). Clearly, other than caloric intake is affecting obesity.I'm not claiming that lifestyle choices aren't a factor; rather, I'm saying the evidence I provided in Round I indicates lifestyle choices don't explain everything, and that both environmental and genetic factors play a role in increasing obesity in our society. Therefore, before implementing such a pricing policy, we should recognize that there are significant factors at play in developing obesity that are of an individual's control. Implementing such a policy would simply be punishing many people for being born in the wrong region, or being born with the wrong set of genes – both factors out of their control. Number 2Since obesity is not completely in control of individuals, such a pricing policy would amount to price discrimination. Pro suggests we should punish them because they cost our healthcare system so much. I'm not sure what transportation has to do with healthcare, and that's probably out of scope for any policy or regulation; regardless, such a policy would be analogous to charging cancer patients or end-of-life senior citizens higher prices when providing public services – both groups also incur larges costs to our healthcare system, yet we certainly don't target them.Furthermore, obesity doesn't just affect the poor disproportionately. Across many nations, the incidence for obese women was larger than that for men[4]. Obesity is also affects a large number of children[5], and will probably continue to do so in the future. Such a pricing policy would then disproportionately punish a) the poor, b) women, and c) children – as a society, would we really be comfortable with such a policy? Unless we start charging different ticket prices for different races and sexual orientations, I honestly couldn't think of a policy that would send a worse message about our society.Number 3Pro supports regulation that would make airlines 'right-size' seating. We're both in agreement that our society is increasing in size, so in response to Pro's argument, it does make sense that airlines should respond appropriately to accommodate passengers comfort. If as a society our shoulders were getting wider, would we try to hold those wider people accountable, or would we find fault with airlines for not responding to a changing demographic? Holding airlines is the sensible solution, and we have every right to expect they dynamically adjust, both now and in the future. Instead, airlines have a history of implementing policies and forcing customers to adjust (for example, charging for checked bags), so they can pad their bottom line.Number 4There are several reasons why Pro's estimate for total fuel costs are too low. Firstly, Webber was referring to an Airbus A380, which carries 50% more fuel than an A340[6]; so it's not logical for Pro to use an A340 as reference point. Secondly, the cost of aviation-grade kerosene is significantly more than standard automobile fuel; this is even acknowledged in the source Pro uses[7]. The rest of the credibility of this report is suspect; for example, it doesn't have a valid link to the Bureau of Transportation for some of its figures.Nevertheless, even $470 out of the $190,600 figure that Pro calculates is still only about 2%. Again, my main point is that economically, the costs of transporting the obese are not significant for the airline industry, and probably even less so for other forms of public transportation. As an industry, airlines have not embraced such a pricing policy (despite being quick to impose other fees that anger customers, such as charging for checked bags or snacks). This is backed up directly by the most reliable source for this topic – the airlines themselves. For three major U.S. Airlines (Delta, United, American), no where in any of their recent 10-K filings[8] do they talk about obesity affecting their cost structure, though they freely discuss other insights and risks for their operations in these filings.ConclusionI agree with Pro that this is a modern phenomenon, but the causes are certainly not limited to lifestyle choices. Given that, punishing individuals for a consequence that's out of their control, is both unfair (for individuals and certain marginalized demographic groups) and economically unjustified for transportation companies, and so shouldn't supported by charging the obese higher prices.References[1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.who.int...[4] http://www.aeonmagazine.com...[5] http://www.cdc.gov...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://elliott.org...[8] http://www.sec.gov...

Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Dear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance."No, being excessively fat, or obese is. "The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car."The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. "This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - "Britain's obesity death rate" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is "GROSSLY FAT" i.e. "RIDICULOUSLY FAT". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese."This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused."Obesity is not a paradox"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate."Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias."Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either."Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to "preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - "I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - "In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight."Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :)

Title: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Content: Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle

Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay "healthy" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.

Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Being overweight can increase the risk of diabetes. 2. It's bad for physical health. 3. It's bad for your mental health. 4. It also can increase the risk of kidney disease. 5. It makes you weigh more so it takes more energy to walk or run. 6. It reduces life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why being overweight is bad. I thank whoever joins this debate. Vote Pro please. Thank you

Title: It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants Content: I apologize to my opponent for my delay in responding and I will address his refutes as such: I will agree to his points on a food disorder being a very small percentage. I would like to point out an interesting point about his BMI refute. He essentially here proposes that restaurant owners would be able to make their own discretion. At the instant that the modern day restaurant owner can refuse service to a person on their own, and at the instant that they are allowed to judge who is obese and who is not; what's to say that A. this law is necessary and B. it would be properly enforced. I believe that the idea that a restaurant owner would be the ultimate judge would not change anything at all; quite the contrary it would open up a giant loop hole in the law that restaurant owners would utilize. Further more I would like to point out that how would a restaurant owner go by judging who is fat and who is muscle. Does my opponent allow the restaurant owner to do a pat down on customers to tell if their muscle or fat? I believe that is the only way to ensure fair enforcement of this law, but I believe a manager rubbing an obese's thigh may be considered sexual harassment. I would like to point out to voters that my opponent is indeed proposing a law that prevents obese from eating in restaurants "(1) A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly— (b) allows fattening food to be sold to such a person." Essentially I would like to point out restaurants that will be unable to serve fat people. All you can eat buffets, because by definition fattening food can also mean mass quantities and I believe "all you can eat" would qualify as mass quantities. Further more I will agree that the majority of people do not qualify to be obese, however my opponents law proposes that nobody may sell fattening food to an obese. That means an obese may not go through a drive-thru or order a take out, because a drive-thru is technically still a restaurant; further more my opponents resolution states that a restaurant is premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public. Last time I checked a super-market is able to sell food to the general public so essentially super-market would be unable to provide service to the obese. Also, a person is not able to get food for their friend so essentially my opponent is proposing a system that would force obese people to stop eating fattening food. My opponents main case is based on the idea that fat people are gross when they are over-eating yet my opponent is essentially limiting their liberty to be fat; if a person wants to obese he is unable because he has no means to acquire fattening food. He may not buy food to cook for himself because super-markets can be placed under my opponents definition of a restaurant. Henceforth the only way an obese may be fat is an underground black market that would sell fat food. I believe this is a grave injustice to people who want to be fat; let the streets ring out with the call, "I am fat, and I am proud!". For my opponents C2 refute I agree with him that people may order a less fattening meal. However, the whole point of my opponent is claiming that it is the obeses' eating habits we can not stand. So thus does it not stand that they would still "pig out" even on this salad? Further more an obese has a tendency to buy multiple quantities of the same food to satisfy his needs, yet my opponents policy refuses the obese to buy multiple quantities even of healthy food because under his definition of fattening food it is illegal to do so. Thus store would lose money because any store that sells either multiple-quantities of food, large quantities of food, or fattening food would be unable to sell their food. Further more any healthy alternatives will still be limited in quantity therefore defeating the purpose that it would balance out, because an obese would not be able to eat a satisfying meal that would usually include a big purchase resulting in $$$ for the store owner. I would like to ask my opponent if it is only the "visual" eating habits then why must we ban them eating fattening foods altogether? If they are messy eaters they would still be disgusting even if eating small quantities of healthy food. Further more, is a government justified in saying what is the right way to do something? Are we not basically enforcing oppressive paternalism by saying that what they are doing is wrong and what the government knows is right? I'd like to also point out that my opponent has not warranted that their is a substantial amount of people who feel offended by fat people eating out. When I go to a restaurant and I see something I don't like I don't stare in sheer horror at them, I ignore it and I move on. Many people are capable of doing this so denying an obeses' liberty seems like quite an extreme to result too. Further more to address the smoker and the drinker. My opponent basically offers up an alternative with the smoker. Why don't we just separate food stores into a "fat" and "non-fat" section? All people who take offense are easily able to go into their section and thus it would negate the purpose of enforcing a law; further more their would be no costly expenses such as ensuring the law is enforced and the obese will keep their liberty to be fat while people will not have to witness them. Further more, restaurant managers have the right to refuse service in the modern day, and yet I do not see fat people gorging on themselves constantly being kicked out. Further more I would like to remind my opponent that drunks are impaired mentally and thus may make irrational actions; being fat does not make one dizzy, irrational, un-able to think, or have their decisions impaired. Further more my opponents proposal would not allow fat people to be, "messy" in their own homes at the instant that no food store can sell them fattening food and no friend can bring them food, or even mass quantities of food. I would like to point out that the smoker offends people because second-hand smoke can be a serious concern and their is no way to avoid the smell of smoke other than leaving the area. Last time I checked witnessing something "ugly" does not make them have lung cancer, and they can easily ignore them and move on with their lives. My opponent funnily reminds me of people in government. He likes to make the proposal seem innocent and moral while ignoring all the negative effects that would quite clearly have lasting implications. My opponent case has not established a reasonable amount of concern that would warrant such a wide-spread law, his opinion alone does not warrant a mass law. My opponent is proposing a policy that would damage the economy, remember all restaurants would have some form of economic implication; such as all-you-can-eat buffets being unable to serve obese. My opponent allows for restaurant owners to make their own discretion; this already exists as many restaurants have the ability to refuse the right to service. Thus their is no reason why a law must be passed. The major reason I have to point out is that my opponent is restricting the liberty of a fat person to be ..well..fat. They are not allowed to buy fat food from any legal store, they are not allowed to have a friend deliver, and they are not even allowed to buy fat food and cook it themselves as super-markets remember satisfy the definition of restaurant that my opponent has proposed. I would like to say that it is very common for people to have bad habits that people do not wish to see. The idea that we should enforce oppressive paternalism is immoral and unjust. I repeat let the streets sing against this law, "I am fat (obese) and I am proud!" Fat people deserve as much liberty as any other skinny people and thus voters we should reject this law simply for its immorality, however if that's not enough than look too the economic declines it will cause.

Title: Introduce a “fat tax” (Junior) Content: Being fat causes problems for everyone

Title: Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle Content: It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.

Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: Thank you for responding daev, I was getting worried that you wouldn’t. Con is trying to make 4 primary objections to my argument: Obesity is caused by environmental and genetic factors and therefore obese people are not responsible for their obesity. Surcharging customers according to their weight will disproportionately affect the poor. Passenger discomfort is mainly due to the choice of airlines to use smaller seats; and The economic impact of overweight passengers is minimal For number 1, a close look at the evidence surrounding obesity rates and causes will show you that they are not caused primarily by genetic factors. If genetic factors were the primary cause of obesity, we’d see a more or less even distribution of obesity rates around the world, but we don’t. We see it concentrated in first world countries like the US, in countries in Europe and in Australia. This is because people in these countries consume the most calories. According to the World Health Organization, between 1997-99 average calorie consumption in industrialized countries was about 3,380 calories per day compared to just 2,195 per day in sub-Saharan Africa, and 2,403 in South Asia.[i] The additional 1000 calories per day consumed by first world citizens shows that obesity is caused by an unhealthy lifestyle, where people choose to eat foods that are high in fat. Also, if genetic factors were primarily to blame, that wouldn’t fit into the rapid rise in obesity rates in the past 30 years. One Canadian study found that there was a ten percentage point increase in the rate of obesity from 13.8 in 1978, to 23.1 in 2004[ii]. The study also concluded that the primary cause of this increase in obesity rates was an increase in calorie consumption in the diets of Canadians during those years and that obese people consumed on average, more calories per day. The same results have been found in other industrialized countries like in the US where there has been a sixfold increase in the obesity rate since 1960[iii] and in developing countries like China, where increased food availability in recent times is contributing to growing obesity rates.[iv] All of these statistics show that it is the availability of food and a person’s lifestyle choice of what foods to eat that are the primary causes of obesity. Diet and exercise are available options for most if not all the people affected by obesity, therefore it is certainly possible for people to control their weight and we cannot lay the blame on “genetics and chemical influences.” For number 2, I agree that obesity primarily affects the poor in industrialized countries. However, the poor who are obese are already affecting healthcare premiums for all Americans by adding $190 billion to the annual healthcare price tag.[v] That affects those who are of average weight and who are poor. So why is it OK to tolerate obese people who lack the will power to eat healthy and exercise costing us all more in many areas of our lives like in health insurance, while it is not OK to single them out and surcharge them more for their unhealthy lifestyle? For number 3, Con shows evidence that airlines are squeezing customers into smaller seats. Certainly this practice is going to exacerbate the problem I am pointing to and I would support something like a federal regulation preventing airlines from making seats too small or below a certain size. But even in the absence of shrinking plane seats, the expanding waistlines of the world will guarantee that the problem I outlined will still occur. Are the airlines supposed to “size up” to the heaviest passengers? Should there be seating just for the obese at a higher price? My definition of “fat” at a BMI of 27.5 or higher allows those who are reasonably overweight not to be penalized, it is only those who are very overweight and obese who are negatively affecting the experiences of other passengers that should rightly be affected. Like this guy:http://www.nypost.com... The additional revenue that airlines and mass transit systems will generate from implementing my plan could off-set the desire to shrink plane seats to make more money. For number 4, Con says that the economic impact at least on airlines is minimal. I’m not sure how he calculated that $9 million dollar figure for the fuel costs of a 20 hour airbus flight, but if fuel cost $9 million, no airline would ever make any money. It is not that expensive to fuel an airplane. According to airliners.net an Airbus A340 can carry 54,023 gallons of fuel with a maximum range of 7,900 nautical miles[vi]. That adds up to 6.84 gallons per mile and .017 gallons per passenger per mile. With an average gallon of gas now at $3.528[vii], the highest possible price for a fully loaded Airbus A340 is $190,593, far lower than Con’s estimate. And also, studies show that airlines get discounts for fuel and pay on average about $1 less per gallon than the public because they consume fuel at bulk prices[viii]. On Con’s $9 million fuel price tag, each passenger would have to be paying about $36,000 on a plane of 250 passengers for the airline to break even just for that flight. Clearly Con’s math is wrong. The extra $1 million in annual fuel costs for a long distance airline route due to fat passengers is something an airline company will take notice of. According to a 2010 report by the Brookings Institute, the annual jet fuel costs attributed to obesity is a staggering $742 million dollars.[ix] And as obesity rates increase into the future, the problem will only become worse not just for airliners, but for mass transit as well. Implementing a surcharge will encourage weight loss and healthier lifestyles for all people affected, and will encourage a culture in which people take personal responsibility for their lifestyle choices. This will help mitigate the discomfort regular sized passengers experience on planes, busses and trains who are being unfairly chastised. Conclusion So the evidence suggests that the rampant increase of obesity is a modern phenomenon, primarily caused by the easy access to unhealthy foods combined with a sedentary lifestyle. Fat people simply lack the will power to resist eating more calories than average weight people, and their inability to control their desires results in more costs for all of us both in economic terms and in the sheer space they take up. I take care of myself by eating healthy and exercising regularly. There is no reason any able-bodied person shouldn’t be able to do the same. As such, my proposed surcharge only impacts those who are towards the obese end of the scale, not those who are mildly overweight. The hundreds of millions of dollars in additional airline fuel costs, the billions added in health insurance related costs[x] and the impact dealing with the sheer size of overweight people in our personal lives means that it is perfectly reasonable to consider penalizing those whose lifestyles negatively impact all of us, both physically and economically. [i] http://www.who.int... [ii] http://www.statcan.gc.ca... [iii] http://www.forbes.com... [iv] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... [v] http://www.forbes.com... [vi] http://www.airliners.net... [vii] http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com... [viii] http://elliott.org...[ix] http://www.brookings.edu... [x] Ibid

Title: Fat people live longer than skinny people. Content: Thank you for posting your next argument. Here is a clip from the New York times news, "About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease. " You can read the full report here: http://www.nytimes.com... That is one way of looking at it. Another way is this, people who are overweight do suffer from those sicknesses you listed, but even more people die from starvation in other countries. Nowhere in my arguments did I say I was just talking about the USA. In children alone 15 million will die in 2010 of starvation. And those are the reported cases. Most people who live in 3rd world counties are underweight. 30,000 African children under the age of 5 die today, most of these children are underweight. Therefore, people who are overweight do tend to live longer than those aren't. There are many more statistics I could show, but I believe my point has already been made. I thank my opponent and look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). http://library.thinkquest.org... (2). http://wiki.answers.com... (3). http://www.nytimes.com...

Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you

Title: Junk Food Should Be Banned Content: Junk Food Can Cause Obesity

Title: The New York Soft Drink Size Ban Content: Thank you, and now in to the final round. First off, I would like to bring to the audience's attention;My opponent is two sided. When it comes to obesity, my opponent has said two opposite statements, stated by himself on if it is a problem or not. In round two, my opponent says;"despite my clients claim that obesity is not a problem, it certainly is," So by reading this you understand that my opponent thinks that obesity indeed is a problem, for it is clearly stated. Then my opponent, in round three says;"my opponent did rightfully point out that he believes obesity is a problem. I actually disagree" Now, my opponent claims that obesity is not a problem. My opponent's belief towards obesity is two sided and against himself. All of these quotes were taken directly from my opponent's previous arguments. "Dropped topics"Although I did infer ideas of the dropped topics in my previous debates, I did not reply specifically to those exact topics, for I thought that is was not necessary, but if my opponent insists on it, I certainly will. "The cheapness of soda and the benefit of companies to sell it in unhealthy amounts," First, an unhealthy amount is determined by the specific person. 24 oz may be unhealthy for me and not you. 12 oz may be unhealthy for one person but perfectly fine for another. We can not determine an "unhealthy" and "healthy" amount, for it is different for everyone. "This restriction is similar to long standing restrictions on tobacco," We are not talking about tobacco restrictions and bans, we are talking about whether or not you can buy a 24 oz coke from McDonald's. "His idea the people might by more soda is flawed logic," Once again, it is an inconvenience for people not being able to buy as much soda as they want. It is just very annoying, therefore people may go against the cause in a boycott sort of way. Is it a highly possible scenario? Not too much, but it is possible. "The soda industry is paying people to publicly oppose the legislation" Another conspiracy theory. Why in the world would a company spend their money on average citizens to oppose the ban, when the soda company, who in a group has way more power than an average citizen, spend their money for people to appose it, when they could do it themselves for free? They have more of a say and more power, so why pay citizens? Also, no proof. Now, this does not include the private industries suing the city, which indeed there are like my opponent stated. But they are private groups who are against the cause. And like my opponent said, "why would the companies waste their money? " The companies are private, and like most people, are against the ban. Now that I have responded to all, supposed loose ends, I can make a small rebuttal to my opponents most previous statement, then go in to my closing statement. Response First, I do not get why my opponent keeps referring to tobacco, marijuana, cigarettes, ect. We are talking about soda proportion being banned, not the legalization or marijuana. There is quite a difference between the two. He also says "I reject all previous and any further statements that this ban is telling "people" what to do. " I do not know why the quotes around "people," maybe because my opponent stands for the idea of banning the companies and not the citizens. Well the companies are people too, just like you and me. So, you are not banning a company, you are banning the people working in that company, regulating what they can and cannot sell. Now, if that is not what you mean when you say that, and are truly stating that you are not telling citizens what to do, that is absurd. That is exactly what you are doing. You are telling people that they must not buy drink sizes over 16 oz. How are you telling them? You are banning them! 'People can cash their check every week, buy nothing but soda from a grocery store, and hook it up to their veins through an IV if they want," says my opponent in the previous round. Exactly. So why ban it from a restaurant when people can just always get as much as they want? If anything, in an oversimplification, this ban is a very large inconvenience! Final StatementI would like to finish off by simply stating how wrong this ban really is to our freedom in the sense it will take away basic freedom such as eating and drinking. Also, this is America. If I want a large coke at a local restaurant I should be able to get one! Nobody should tell me no. This ban not only violates basic principles of freedom, but if anything, is quite the inconvenience. This ban will be followed by a great deal of lawsuits and protesting. The ban is also not scientifically based that it will regulate obesity, which my opponent has stated is not important, so why the ban? My only question, why? This ban is absolutely absurd in the sense that it is;Violating basic principles of freedom, a large inconvenience to the city and the citizens, and unproductive.

Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: Initially, i'd like to agree with your opinion that obesity is not better than being thin in any case, but there are also some unfavourable problems when your body needs some kind of vitamins, chemical elements such as iron, calcium or zinc. However, your stomach doesn't digest this extremely crucial chemical elements because there is something wrong with digestion system which leds to being thin and having problems with health.

Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.

Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: I agree that obesity is associated with greater risks of cancer, and other health problems which is why something should be done. I think that if more people fat shame women then obesity will be decreased. There will be less television programs which promote fat acceptance, see link below and Roosh's reaction to appearing on the showCon asserts that fat shaming is not only an ineffective method of reducing obesity, but that it actually increases obesity. He says "Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective both through scientific and anecdotal evidence". There are numerous studies including my third source which show that exposure to weight stigmatizing information make overweight women, but not normal weight women, eat more calories and feel less in control of their eating behaviour. However this doesn't prove that fat shaming is ineffective though. Such studies only focus on comfort eating when people are depressed, rather than the bigger picture e.g. they don't mention the people who choose not to overeat and be fat due to fat being deemed unattractive. When someone is fat, they are not depressed simply because people fat shame them, it is their attitude which depresses them and that is something everyone has control of. Here is video revealing a fat woman's viewsShe chooses to believe in thin privilege, blames anything just to feel better about not taking any resposnibility for her health.My opponent blames fat shaming for causing obesity too by saying "I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese" when fat shaming is not the cause of obesity.Here is another video below, this time showing some views from feminists Fat people should not be pitied, they do not deserve to be loved. See video below:Men have to love theirself to deserve love, and women should too. Pitying them just makes them feel depressed and less motivated to lose weight. Fat women need to accept that men find fat ugly, and they need to stop believing in fat acceptance movements. Once they can accept that fat is ugly and learn that they need to earn love, then they will be motivated to lose weight. Telling them to blame fat shamers who represent a tiny minority, and allowing them believe that fat is beatiful i.e. not respect men's opinion, is not going to help them, quite the opposite.Con says 'overeating is one cause but there are many others'. I've provided sources in the previous round showing that overeating can explain almost every case of obesity. He even shows that a small amount of excercise makes a big difference, so obese people are not trying to lose weight. Fat shaming them though can encourage them to seek a doctor and other professionals about their problem. Educating people about obesity is a waste of money and gives people more reason to hate fat people. Everyone is taught at school that to be healthy we must excercise, sleep well, and eat well e.g. eat vegetables and have a balanced diet, not too much sugar etc. What more do people need to learn? Should fat people blame everything like their lack of education about fibre? Surely that would cause women to take even less responsibility for their health

Title: It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Content: Many thanks to my opponent for her continued interest in this subject. With Britain now having one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, the problem has now become one of widespread debate in the general population. Firstly, it should be accepted that overeating is an addiction and obese people deserve proper medical help to overcome their cravings for food, just in the same way as a drug user might be trated for their addiction.. However, just as junkies that refuse treatment, or relapse, face mandatory rehabilitation, usually involving incarceration within a secure environment, so this same principle applies to obese people who persistently refuse to address their weight problem. This is not punishment, it is assistance for those people who damage their health and cost the taxpayers fortunes as a result. My opponent went on to quote Prof. Jane Wardle who said that parents shouldn't be held totally responsible for their children's excessive weight. I'm not a medical practitioner, as I already admitted, but it would appear to me that overweight kids' parents should be held to account. After all, where do the children get the food (or the money for food) from? Perhaps if they steal it, the parents may have an excuse, but if they are knowingly feeding them too much junk food, isn't that child cruelty? Wouldn't' a mum that plied her kids with alcohol or a dad that bought his kids crack be punished? Her final quote from Tam Fry reinforces my argument by suggesting that even with a gene predisposing one to obesity were to be identified, becoming overweight is not inevitable provided one leads a healthy lifestyle. In other words, becoming obese, or addicted to drugs or taking up a life in crime are matters of personal choice. In society, we have rights but also responsibilities, to ourselves and to others and if we neglect our responsibilities, we should expect to receive help in order to rehabilitate ourselves back into society, whether that is through prison for drug offenders or the workhouse for the obese. Thank you.

Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: To address your question, I meant your perception on a human body, I regret not mentioning that, my apologies. If you wanted this to be about obesity, then you should have labeled it "Obese people cannot be beautiful" instead of "Overweight people cannot be beautiful" as they are technically two different groups of (weight) classification (looking at it from a medical stand point).

Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Seeing as I made an argument in round 1 I will not post an argument in this round to make it fair. It has been a good debate. Health risks linked with being fat- https://www.niddk.nih.gov... Obesity rate in America- https://www.google.co.uk... Fat girl problems- http://www.essence.com...

Title: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned Content: Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease

Title: Skipping a meal (pro) vs eating junk food (con) Content: Having some food in your stomach is better than having nothing at all. Our bodies need food to function and when you don't get that you will have a hard time trying to everyday tasks. Eating junk food over time is what can cause obesity. I am pretty sure that if you eat a bag of chips once in a while you are not gojng to turn out that way.

Title: Curb childhood Obesity for USA Content: I would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: "http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.

Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Being overweight can't increase risk of diabetes. 2. Fat makes you warmer so it lets you be warmer in the winter. 3. Anyone can change a commment or post on wikipedia so it is almost no use of putting wikipedia on there 4. It isn't bad for your mental health I await my opponent's rebuttal

Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: I accept your challenge. This seems like a really interesting topic to discuss and I'm looking forward to your arguments.I saw that you did not choose a side on this debate so I figured you let me choose my side of the argument first. For me, being obese is worse than being thin, and I will prove that in the following rounds :)

Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: I would have to disagree. I don't believe the weight problem will be fixed over time, as it has not in the past. I will provide some results given www. obesityinamerica. org 'Approximately 62 percent of female Americans are considered overweight65' 'Approximately 67 percent of male Americans are considered overweight66' MY OPPONENT: "It seems bad now, but it is getting better. " I really find this hard to believe as i see obesity grow around us everywhere. I will prove this by giving a few examples. 1. A box of 12 'ding dongs' = $2.50 One health bar=$5.00 2. Food is everywhere - beaming from roadsides, advertised on television, screaming in bright colors from grocery store shelves, glowing in vending machines down the hall from your cubicle. 3. exercise has almost been reduced from society. Why run when you can get somewhere just as easily by driving? 4. for entertainment, all anybody has to do it gaze into a television screen now. There is not as many motivating factors in society for these people as much as there has been in the past. The popularity issue doesn't help much either. There self-esteem is hurt when they are made fun of, but that often just makes it worse. people who are criticized usually don't do anything to help it. for example: If you tell an emo person not to jump off a cliff, what are they going to do? They will probably explore their options. They think that life is hard and will only get worse for them. Their problems will probably increase rather than decrease. Same with obesity. Why should they stop and try to help their problem when it is EASIER to not do so? Would someone go jog a mile, because someone called them a profain name? or would it be easier to eat away the stress of their problems? MEDICAL TREATMENTS- Medical treatments such as liposuction, Do not help obesity problems. It simply takes away the fat they already have, but their problem won't vanish with their fat. 46% of liposuction patients, grow obese again within the next five years. I believe that obesity is a growing factor in america, and given our condition, it will only get worse.

Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: For number 1, Con’s counter to the evidence I cited on the causes of obesity misinterpreted some of my words. When I said that we’d “see a more or less even distribution of obesity around the world” if obesity was due to genes, I was saying that in populations that have the same genes, you don’t see obesity evenly distributed. For example, African-Americans have much higher rates of obesity, than Africans[i][ii]. Same genes, different rates of obesity. Why? Because the former live in America where they have more access to food, particularly unhealthy high-calorie food, and the latter do not. If African-Americans consumed the same amount of calories as their African counterparts, they’d be just about as thin as them. Laziness plays a large role too. Sedentary lifestyles are a leading contributor of obesity[iii]. If you eat unhealthy high-calorie food all day and never exercise or perform any physically demanding work, of course you’re more likely to become obese. The rise in obesity around the world, like in China is due primarily to these factors. China has just recently become an industrialized country, so of course their obesity rates will be lower, just like America’s were 50 years ago. As more and more Chinese embrace a high calorie western diet, it is only a matter of time before their obesity rates catch up to ours, and the rapid increase of obesity there in the report I cited is proof of that. Con cannot seem to understand this. The primary environmental factors giving rise to obesity are access to unhealthy foods, combined with the lack of will power to refrain from eating more than you need. To say that obesity is genetic implies that obese people cannot help themselves, and could not lose weight if they tried. But that is simply not true. All obese people could lose weight, it is only a lack of will power that stops them, and that means it is a lifestyle choice for which they should be held responsible for when they negatively affect others. That’s why I’m proposing a transportation surcharge based on weight. Con is trying to make a case that the obese are victims who have no control over their weight. I’m arguing that this is nonsense because if genes were the primary factor, fat people would never be able to lose weight, and the billions spent on weight loss every year is a testament to the fact that people can lose weight with proper diet and exercise. All that is required is will power. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to single out those who are negatively costing businesses and passengers. For number 2, Con completely misunderstood what I was conveying. What I wrote was that fat people already contribute to billions of dollars more in healthcare costs, and these costs result in higher premiums for everyone, fat and skinny. I was drawing an analogy here. Why is it OK that a healthy person has to pay higher premiums for their healthcare to cover the costs of the unhealthy lifestyles of the obese? Since the same thing is happening with transportation costs, why is it not OK to tolerate personal responsibility by making fat people pay more on transportation? The addition $742 million in annual fuel costs just to transport obese passengers in not insignificant. As these costs rise as obesity rates rise, airlines will simply pass that cost onto ticket prices, and we’ll all end up paying more for our tickets. So what’s better, that we allow fat passengers to raise airline costs for everyone due to higher fuel requirements and more space they take up, or that we single out those whose unhealthy lifestyles are costing the system more money? If we do not implement a policy of personal responsibility, we will end up with a system where we’ll all be paying for those who are obese. For number 3, according to a WSJ report, for every 100 passengers, the airline’s profit from just a single seat[iv]. The largest expense of each flight, 29%, comes from fuel costs. So the profit margin for airlines is very small compared to their costs. Obese passengers are cutting into this profit margin not just by adding nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in fuel costs, but in the sheer size they take up. Many airline companies are charging their passengers for 2 tickets if they cannot fit into their seat[v]. A pay as you weigh policy that I’m proposing will help discourage unhealthy lifestyles and encourage better eating and exercising, something which nobody can deny is needed. For number 4, Con has not been able to justify his wildly high price tag for fueling an Airbus A380 at $9 million dollars. As I’ve said, if that were the price of fueling a single 20 hour flight, no airline would ever make any money, and they’d have to charge passengers $36,000 per ticket just to break even on the fuel costs. Clearly Con’s math is absurd. According to Indexmundi, the average price of jet fuel per gallon in May 2013 was $2.73,[vi] lower than the average gallon of gasoline for non-commercial vehicular use[vii] and is about a dollar less just as I mentioned. This means that a fully fueled Airbus A380, which holds about 85,000 gallons[viii] would need $232,050 worth of jet fuel, 38 times lower than Con’s $9 million calculation. According to the reports I’ve cited before, the $742 million of additional fuel costs just to cover obese passengers is alarming and is not a small drop in the bucket. Considering that this price tag will only grow higher as more people become obese, we have 3 options: (1) Have the airline companies take a financial hit, making them more vulnerable to bankruptcy, (2) have the airline companies raise airline ticket prices for all of us to cover the additional fuel costs, or (3) implement a policy like the one I’m proposing that makes those customers who are obese and are causing this problem to take personal responsibility for their unhealthy lifestyle choices and pay a surcharge. I think option 3 is perfectly reasonable because otherwise, what is most likely going to happen is option 2, where we’ll all be paying more, and that is not fair. Conclusion The primary causes of obesity are (1) a high calorie diet, (2) lack of physical exercise, and (3) a lack of will power to eat better and exercise. Genetics plays a secondary role. The fact that people can lose weight if they try hard enough shows that it is lifestyle choice that is the most important factor in obesity[ix]. Why should we tolerate fat people raising healthcare costs for everyone, and airline and transportation costs for everyone, and not tolerate surcharging only those who are adding the system additional costs? To me this makes no sense. If I take care of myself health-wise and I have to pay more for an airline ticket because obese people are adding costs to the system & taking up space, why should I have to pay more for other people’s unhealthy lifestyles? I’m being victimized in the process. The surcharge will discourage obesity by penalizing those who are responsible for the costs they incur on everyone else. Considering the small profit margin airlines make, the $742 million in fuel costs for the obese as reported in 2010 could be offset by the surcharge, allowing the airlines greater profit, and lowering ticket prices for those passengers within guidelines. If I could sum up the argument in a sentence, it makes sense to surcharge those who cost others both financially and physically, by making them personally responsible for what the data shows is due to a lifestyle choice, and the method by which I proposed only targets those who at or near obesity. [i] http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov... [ii] http://tinyurl.com...; [iii] http://en.wikipedia.org... [iv] http://tinyurl.com...[v] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [vi] http://www.indexmundi.com... [vii] http://tinyurl.com...; [viii] https://en.wikipedia.org...; [ix] http://tinyurl.com...;

Title: Junk Food leads to obesity. Content: Junk food leads to obesity. Take potato chips for instance. They have a lot of fat in them.

Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: I believe that the weight problem over time is being fixed. It seems bad now, but it is getting better. We are treating it as a psychological problem and creating weight rehabs for those who have this problem. We have medical treatments, and ever day I swear I see less and less obese people. It is obviously not popular to be overly skinny or fat anymore and with this peer pressure comes the decreased amount of over weight people. I believe in the future of America, I believe that we will continue to become greater, and eventually we will defeat obesity. It may be getting worse, but over a larger span of time I know that it will get better. So in that sense, it is getting better, and eventually it will be.

Title: Obesity Content: I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.

Title: The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service Content: My opponent makes an excellent argument against obesity. However, what has failed to be done, is show that transfats are the leading or primary cause of obesity, thus indicating that it ought be eliminated as the solution. While I fully agree that obesity is a serious problem that can no longer be ignored, there are various other, superior alternative solutions. Our obesity (as a nation) is caused by an imbalance of calories intake verse outtake, meaning that we are consuming more then we are using. One very nifty feature of our body is the ability to take energy (i.e. calories) that we don't use and save them for later. Even if you eat an all carb diet (which is highly unhealthy, as the body needs proteins and fats), all unused energy is converted from carbs, into fats for future use (the body will do the same with excess protein too).[1] Therefore, by simply saying "no more transfats" our imbalance problem is not going to be fixed. Lets look at some of the major offenders in school foods, soda and candy. Coca-cola does not have a single gram of fat, infact, most soda doesn't (I cannot find a single one, but I will refrain from making that generalization in case there is one that I did not think of).[2] Let us look at a snickers bar, 13.6 grams of fat, only 0.2 grams of transfat.[3] Or a 3 musketeers bar, with 9.0 grams of fat, no transfats at all.[4] We can even go to McDonalds and see the item with the most transfats is the double quarter pounder with cheese and it has a staggering 2.5 grams of transfats.[5] So we know that transfats are not found in soda, candy, or fast food (the usually suspects of obesity). Well, lets just see what does have transfats? The number one offender (according to Cindy Moore of the CCF) is butter, which now many butters (particularly soft spread) contain very little transfats (though still some) compared to the older, more traditional stick butter.[6] We also, as an alternative solution, ought to look at the other side of the equation, exercise. Right now, many schools are cutting their PE programs, at a time when most kids do not do any exercising outside of school.[7] We ought also educate kids and their parents on the importance of a healthy diet. This does not mean that we should go overboard and complete ban and eliminate all transfats from schools, only that kids should be provided various options and the knowledge to be able to make informed choices on those options. [1] http://recipes.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com... [3] http://caloriecount.about.com... [4] http://caloriecount.about.com... [5] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [6] http://www.vpul.upenn.edu... [7] http://abcnews.go.com...

Title: Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Content: Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.

Title: There Should Be a Fat Tax Introduced Content: Despite the staggering increase in numbers of people who are obese, there is an increasing tendency on the part of health professionals to take a "non-judgmental" approach to such problems. The Labour government"s Foresight report blamed the rise in obesity on an "obesogenic environment" " explaining the problem as an inevitable consequence of modern, sedentary lifestyles. When interviewed on Radio 4"s Today programme recently, Alberic Fiennes, of the National Bariatric Surgery Registry, repeatedly referred to obesity as a "disease" " rather than a self-inflicted condition that people have the ability to control through willpower. Of course there are some illnesses and drug treatments which promote weight gain, but such a non-judgmental approach denies the importance of personal responsibility and passes the problem on an NHS which is increasingly unable to cope " particularly in the current economic climate " with everything that it is asked to do. It is unfair that the huge costs of treating and coping with obesity should be passed onto taxpayers. Why are fat people treated differently when public health policy does not take the same attitude towards people who harm their health by smoking or drinking too much? In each case, a tax is imposed which more than covers the cost to the NHS of treating diseases related to these activities. Tobacco taxes raise "9.3 billion a year for the Treasury " more than three times the "2.7 billion which the NHS annually spends treating smoking-related diseases. Alcohol taxes raise "8.3 billion a year, nearly three times the "3 billion annual cost of treating alcohol-related diseases. One of the arguments against a fat tax has been the fact that it would disproportionately hit the poor who are more likely to eat fatty, cheap and convenience processed foods. Indeed, a study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2004 concluded that a tax similar to that now imposed in Denmark would cost the poorest 2 per cent of the population 0.7 per cent of their income. For the richest 10 per cent of the population, on the other hand, the impact would be minimal. Yet there is an easy way for the poor to avoid a fat tax: buy less fatty food. Meanwhile, as well as Denmark"s new fat tax, Hungary has also introduced a tax on all packaged foods containing unhealthy levels of sugar, salt, and carbohydrates, as well as products containing certain amounts of caffeine. 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. Besides ambulances, the NHS has also had to invest in specialist lifting equipment, including cushions at "2,500 a time and specialist stretchers costing between "7,000 and "10,000. The Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust spent "500,000 on extra-large furniture and equipment. In Lancashire, hospitals also spent "42,010 on giant birthing beds for obese women in labour, while Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon spent "3,000 on just one set of scales able to weigh people up to 78st. Then there is the cost of bariatric surgery " an umbrella term for operations involving the reduction obesity, including gastric bands and gastric bypasses. In 2003/04, the NHS performed 470 such operations. That figure rose to 6,500 in 2009/10. Given that a gastric band costs between "5,000 and "7,000, and a gastric bypass between "8,000 and "14,000, this has become one of the fastest-growing drains on NHS budgets. Yet less than 1 per cent of obese patients are receiving the operations, and there is a great deal of pressure on the NHS to increase this percentage.

Title: Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Content: I do agree with you in the sense that fat doesn"t necessarily mean unhealthy. After all, The type of fat and the amount of fat in your body greatly determine how healthy you are, And fat is part of our diet and composition. But too much of anything is never good especially when you take into consideration where the fat is being stored. That, I shall explain eventually. I did say before that this whole thing is not a black and white mentality. Skinny obviously doesn"t mean healthy. I could be heavier than you but healthier. After all, Many athletes are considered overweight but what the scales don"t tell you is body composition. Many athletes are heavy because of their muscle while others are heavier because of their fat. I also know for a fact that fat doesn"t necessarily have to be outwardly presented, There"s something called skinny fat, Meaning people who are skinny happen to have their body mostly composed of fat. You really don"t have to have a big butt and gut. And of course, I didn"t forget that there"s diseases like anorexia and malnutrition from being extremely underweight, Picky, Or whatever the cause may be. The thing is, In rich and modern countries, That is not really the case anymore. Food is no longer an issue and is constantly available all around us, We are on a completely different side of the spectrum. We are just getting bigger. Now about the sumo wrestlers, They are definitely healthier because they engage in vigorous activity and follow some sort of regime. But we mustn"t forget what kind of audience the Fat Acceptance movement consists of. A good portion of overweight or obese audience members are not like sumo wrestlers because the majority of them do not engage in as much activity as sumo wrestlers and I can guarantee that the majority of them do not follow a strict regime. That is why the message they"re getting out is concerning. They"re basically telling them to sugarcoat their problems or potential problems and just accept themselves as they are especially when you take into consideration what countries embrace fat acceptance. Fat acceptance was founded in the US and is widely embraced there, It"s also become a thing in places like the UK and Australia of which those countries are already experiencing the consquences. Overall, "the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity" in the US which is completely opposite of what sumo wrestlers do. Because of this, 109, 342, 839 people in the US are obese making it one of the heaviest nations in the world. Now, The placement of fat. You said that that sumo wrestlers are fat and healthy but you did miss something very crucial. The conception of fat is not "black and white" as I said in my first argument. Firstly: "The study revealed that although the wrestlers have enormous bellies, Most of their abdominal fat is stored immediately under the skin, And not behind the stomach wall within the gut or visceral area. In fact, Sumo wrestlers had about half of the visceral fat of regular people with visceral obesity. " The fact that the fat they store doesn"t affect their organs makes them much more healthier than fat people in places like the US or UK. It is not surprising to find millions of people losing their lives to such issues. This leads to my second point. Secondly: "the most significant cause of death were diseases of the heart which were responsible for 23. 1 percent of all deaths in the United States. " "The CDC doesn't list obesity as a cause of death. Instead, It lists heart disease as the No. 1 cause, Killing nearly 598, 000 people a year, While cancer kills 575, 000. Overall, Nearly 2. 5 million Americans died in 2010. " As you can see, It so happens that being overweight and obese correlates with the majority of these deaths. https://www. Nbcnews. Com/health/heavy-burden-obesity-may-be-even-deadlier-thought-6C10930019 https://renewbariatrics. Com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ https://www. Medicinenet. Com/obesity_weight_loss/article. Htm https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/

Title: Curb childhood Obesity for USA Content: My opponent agrees with me that obese people are being discriminated against, that the cause IS because of their surroundings, (like I have mentioned) but he also said that we should not help them. Sir, I would like to point out that many children are being affected by this disorder and the effects that come with it such as: >Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes (an autoimmune disease that results in destruction of insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas.) >Cardiovascular disease >Stroke >Hypertension (high blood pressure) >hypothyroidism (caused by insufficient production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland.) >Dyslipidemia (a disruption in the amount of lipids in the blood.) >Hyperinsulinemia (where excess levels of circulating insulin are in the blood) >Insulin resistance (the condition in which normal amounts of insulin are inadequate to produce a normal insulin response from fat, muscle and liver cells.) >Glucose intolerance >Congestive heart failure >Angina pectoris >Cholecystitis >Cholelithiasis >Osteoarthritis >Gout (a disease created by a build up of uric acid. In this condition, crystals of monosodium urate or uric acid are deposited on the articular cartilage of joints, tendons and surrounding tissues. These crystals cause inflammation and pain, both severe. If unchecked, the crystals form tophi, which can cause significant tissue damage. Gout results from a combination of elevated concentrations of uric acid and overall acidity in the bloodstream.) >Fatty liver disease >Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems >Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) >Fertility complications >Pregnancy complications >Psychological disorders >Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) >Stress urinary incontinence >Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder Not all, but most of these will result in a painful death, and sir, you stated "Why should we help them...?" If we don't help our children prevent these treacherous diseases and conditions, who will? Not the media! in fact, they are contributing to diseases. but that's a whole different debate for a whole different time. Not the government- they have caused more problems than they have solved we have to attack one of the main sources: Schools! As I stated before "schools contribute to this growing epidemic when they limit food sources to saturated fats." We need to gather parents and school administrators and warn them of this disease that is growing before America's eyes. We need to donate money to raise awareness in health classes and we need to raise the number of Physical workouts everyday.

Title: Should Americans get help beating obesity. Content: Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a biological problem. The actual predisposition to obesity of all people is 23%. That's a lot less than what they show on TV. You also got the other thought wrong. Fat people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place. For example, the weird hit "All About That Bass" by Megan Trainor is filled with hate against people who AREN'T fat. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Title: America is NOT obese. Content: True, to say "America is obese" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country "obese", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments

Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Let me educate my opponent by stating a basic debating guidelines. The affirmative side always begins a debate. Affirmative side has the burden of proof most of the times and a proper debate begins by the affirmative side stating their views, and then the opponent opposing the proposition.Con says I broke my own rule about following the debate format and tries to put all the blame on me. But once con started the debate in the wrong round himself, that diminishes the merits of his argument since one can not oppose unless the other has stated. I did the best I could to keep the debate going in a proper way, even if out of format. Once the format has already been damaged by con, I wish to continue the debate and not care much about bringing the proper format back. This debate would not have started turning into a mess had the contender given heed to the rules in the first place. I wish the contender stays on topic as well.I apologise if I offended the contender in any way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Con believes strongly that being fat always affects the heart. His assertions tend to make everyone believe fat people almost always die of heart diseases and heart attacks. (quoting Con - "BAM! you got a fat heart attack and you're dead!" ; "or risk a fat heart attack.")But, heart diseases are based on multiple factors and weight is considered one of the important factors only when the person is very fat, or obese. I believe I should define some terms here to reinstate some clarity - Fat - Having more than average fat tissue. Fit - The state of being healthy.Health - "A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." WHO, 1948.When a person gains excess fat (more than they can use up immediately), it is stored in adipose tissues, to be used for energy later on. This fat wont suddenly get into arteries and clog them. Fat escapes into arteries when it is too much, in the case of obesity. I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity, but my opponent doesn't seem to understand."I bought up a very good point last round that my opponent dismissed as he didn't understand."I understood the point very well. In my opinion, it wasn't a really good point. Reasons - We are not talking about the fitness of the entire population, so why would we need to discuss the survival advantage? Survival advantage is viewed for a species as a whole. Having the kind of bodies carnivores do, or amount of blubber whale have,etc. gives their species advantage. BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THEIR WAS NO INTENTION TO TALK ABOUT A SPECIES. When I said "You can be fit and fat" I did not mean - you = entire homo sapiens species."For my opponent to counter my argument, he would have to show that humans are naturally fat and excessive fat play a role in survival."Fitness and survival abilities are different concepts when applied to a single organism. So, no I won't have to prove what con asks me to prove here because that would be straying away from topic.I have stated sumo wrestlers and power lifters as examples since you did so in the first round. I would have used only power lifters as ONE EXAMPLE in my debate had it been started the proper way. I sense Con is trying to manipulate the debate by starting the argument in the wrong round and asserting some things. If not, I apologise."To further my argument against this claim I would like my opponent to consider the impact fatties have on the health of society."We are talking about how there is a possibility that a fat person can be fit. We are NOT talking about how fat people affect the society. Con seems to have confused some terms.I hope I have made myself clear enough and dissolved any confusion.More arguments.There was a study and the best way to describe the results would be to use an example of comparing the human body with a car. You can love or hate the external looks, but you can't judge the internal efficiency. Maintenance is what matters.A parameter often used to say that fat people are unhealthy is the BMI. But it has been proved in a lot of instances that it's wrong many times. For instance, professional basketball players tend to have elevated BMI scores, even though they have so little fat and more muscle. Football players are big, but the physical activity keeps the heart problems due to excessive weight at bay.Finally, for this round, I would mention the OBESITY PARADOX. Being overweight IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED BY SOME RESEARCHERS TO HELP PROTECT SOME PERSON FROM DISEASES LIKE CANCER, PNEUMONIA, STROKE, HYPERTENSION, etc."For determining health or fitness, hhealthy behaviors, including nutrition and physical activity, matter more than weight." (Quoting from source)People are generally stuck on the phrase 'fat is bad' because they have been told so from an early age. Too much fat is bad, yeah, obesity is a serious health condition; but just fat is not bad. I think I have proved my assertion more than enough.----------------------------------------------------------------------Just to clarify this debate to con a bit more, I say that "Being fat isn't always directly linked to being unhealthy" It should be self explanatory here but I just need to prove one instance where fat is healthy and you have to prove that no such case exists. Thank you for reading :) Have a good one.I await con's further arguments. :)

Title: Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. Content: With thanks to my opponent for such a prompt reply, I should like to respond as follows: At the beginning of his argument my opponent wrote: "Firstly the obese are like vehicles, now they are like drunkards. My opponents sole case rests on asserting obese individuals are like something they are not." And at near the end… "Assuming all obese will react similarly is to say BMI is a personality motivator. Clearly that is not correct either." Of course, one should not generalise in debates, but on the basis of absolutely no research, I had no choice! My opponent, on the other hand, did do some research: "Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project, 2007, predict that if no action is taken, by 2050, 60% of men and 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese. Department of Health, UK Government." Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency. Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads. I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested. http://www.parliament.uk... However, Acts of Parliament usually apply across the entire country, rather than just one city, which is why I proposed a by law instead. Furthermore, I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law. Anyway, thanks Puck, for the debate and thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support!

Title: Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts Content: Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.