The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Do you have a better solution to the fat epidemic than me?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 99976
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




In America it amazes me how many fat people there are. Everywhere I go I see fat men and women stuffing food into their enormous mouths. This is a critical situation which needs our attention for a number of reasons.
How do we stop the fat zombie-like hordes from eating Americas reputation, as the greatest country on Earth?
We can not allow our legacy to die like a fat person would die from a blocked artery. We must purge this fat, fleshy growth that is maturing on the underside of Americas vital industries.

Round 1: Acceptance. Please state your weight and gender.

Round 2: My solution to this critical epidemic will be presented.
You may present your solution, or argue that there is no fat epidemic or whatever it is you fat people argue about.

Round 3: I will continue to bash fat people and maybe even present a rebuttal for your argument.


1: If your skin tone is darker than Obama's, then you may not accept this debate.

2: If you're a stinking Jew you may accept this debate. On the condition that you don't mention my hate for Jews.

3: No Muslims. Period.
I'd rather not have someone who is liable to sling s.h.i.t around, join this debate.

4: I will allow fat people join this debate, because I think fat people should have a say from time to time.

5: Finally, NO ad hominem attacks. let's keep this civil guys.

Good luck and may the least fat amongst us win.


Hey Masterful, Looking forward to a friendly debate. I wish not to see this debate turn into a racist, mud-slinging shouting match, so I agree, let"s keep it civil (though I don"t approve of your racist comments in your first round).
In answer to your questions, I weigh approx. 156 lbs and am a male.
Good Luck, Masterful!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. I've decide you're of average weight, therefore I will respect your opinion.

What is the purpose of this debate?

The purpose of this debate is to find a solution to the fat epidemic and help save our fat people. It's clear that fat people can't help themselves and are currently a drain on our society.
Fat people increase the cost of health care and increase the waiting times. These people are less productive and use more fuel in their cars, because they increase the weight of the car exponentially.
Possible solutions:

Solution 1: Don't feed the fat people, Use the fat people as feed.

Listen, I know this sounds bad, but it seriously could work.
We set a weight limit, where if someone passes 300 pounds and their BMI shows it's mainly fat. Then we would load them onto a boat heading towards Africa, once this boat reaches Africa we load the fat people into a large truck and drive to a village full of hungry Africans.
The idea would then be to give these fat people to the hungry Africans, who would let the piggled chubs graze upon the fields like livestock. When the Africans need a meal they'd slaughter a plump fatty and the whole village would gorge themselves.
This solution prevents world hunger. It also serves as a powerful incentive to stop people from going over 300 pounds. Whatever way you look at it, it's a win, win.

Solution 2: Hate campaign.

We start a violent hate campaign, where we abuse and mistreat fat people until they're no longer able to either A: Live. B: Stay fat.
Obviously we would opt for option B, but either one would lower Americas obesity.

To summarise these 2 solutions:

Both are pretty controversial, but they would lower America's obesity. There is no denying this.
For those of you that dislike my two proposed solution, that I believe to be the most effective, I will present one, final solution.

Solution 3: Mandatory UFC fight arenas for people over 300 pounds.

It's simple. When a person become more than 300 pounds we would force them to fight, which would be their contribution to raising money for their health care.
These matches would primarily be fat person vs fat person, but we"d mix it up occasionally. To include 5 fat people take on large grizzly bear, or 10 vs 10 fat battle.
People would die occasionally, but this would lower America's obesity rate, so it's no big deal.
I believe that these fat arenas would generate a lot of money, which would go back into helping fat people. It would also serve as an incentive to train and therefore become fitter.


I know what you're thinking.
"We don"t owe fat people a damn thing."
You're right we don"t, so why help them?
Look, despite the fact the most of us hate fat people; we can't give up on them. They are people too. Even if you don't agree with helping fat people, then we can still make money out of them, we can still use them to solve world hunger. It's not all that bad.
If nothing else, I just hope you all can learn to one day tolerate fat people.


First, I will rebut your solutions, and then I will present my own on the topic.
1.Fat Lives Matter
You claim that solution 1 is a "win, win". However, have you considered the opinions of the obese in your analysis? Yes, the cannibalistic natives may enjoy the set up, and so may the narcissism filled people who proposed the plan, but anyone with any sense of conscience would not tolerate such a proposal.
2.The "Hate Campaign"
A "hate campaign" of these proportions is more akin to savagery and mob violence than anything else. This grim proposal would lead to a murderous campaign of death.
3.UFC fights
Again, this is a subhuman resort to violence not fitting for any civilization.

Even if all your plans were implemented, would they really decrease obesity rates? Many new people become obese annually. Wouldn"t it be more practical to discourage obesity by killing it where it starts? That is, by discouraging it in fit people?
Debate Round No. 2


Two wrongs don't make a right, but two fats do make a fight.

Round 2 was where you should have proposed your solution to the epidemic. You had plenty of text left to post your solution, instead you made it so I can't provide a rebuttal to your solution, and therefore I urge voters to provide me with the point for conduct.

It's not like I can compare my solution to that of my opponents, because he has so far, failed to provide one. With the sheer lack of input my opponent has provided, all I can do is defend my solution.

My ideas are not perfect, simply because there is no perfect solution. However I believe we owe fat people our support, not because they're fat, but because they're fellow human beings.

I urge you, don't let my opponent tell you "there is no fat epidemic" don't let him tell you "we need to encourage healthier eating and more exercise." WE ARE ALREADY DOING THAT! It's not enough, it never will be enough. Don't you get it? They don't want to lose weight, not with all the attention we're currently giving them. They thrive of attention. NO MORE.
Let us not pretend this epidemic will quell itself, for these "fats" hunger for sustenance and attention. I say we give them the attention they so desire, give them all the attention they could ever want, in the ring! Make them fight! Make them find glory, reverence and fame, in my arena!
However could they expect to achieve such heights elsewhere? They have no real benefit to society, so let us stop pretending, because they can"t even wipe their own asses!

Sorry, sorry I am so sorry. I get carried away sometimes. My point is, they can"t help themselves so we must help them. Can suicide victims help themselves? No, we must help suicide victims. Being fat actually can lead to suicide anyway, so it was a good analogy.

I will conclude with this:
My opponents lack of solution, made me go off the wall and I apologise. Don't penalise me because I accidentally come off as racist and prejudice. I'm actually a really nice guy, who hates minorities and fat people, only because I love them.

It's a love hate relationship. And I love to hate em =D


Voters, you have seen how Pro has conducted himself. He has used prejudiced language (putting it mildly). I ask you to give me the point for conduct. Again, I will remind you, Pro's solutions are nothing short of mob violence. Please vote con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
@Cee. I actually agree with your view on fat people, for the most part, but despite being controversial my solutions would lower America's obesity.

Subdeos solution would not
"Wouldn"t it be more practical to discourage obesity by killing it where it starts? That is, by discouraging it in fit people?"

@Cee. The solution subdeos provided is insufficiently explained. "Discourage" Yeah my argument is also built around discouraging.
Posted by C_e_e 1 year ago
It was difficult to take Masterful"s position seriously because it relied so much on jesting remarks. I prefer when debaters peel off crafty accoutrements to their arguments and just speak plainly. Masterful did not do this. As Subdeo pointed out, the racism was unnecessary. At one point Masterful called overweight people "fellow human beings." Yet, the solutions advocated for them did not treat them as such. The solutions more treated them as dispensable subhumans. Subdeo did posit a solution too - to discourage overeating in fit people. It may not be as flowering as the solutions advocated by Masterful. But, I respect concise speech. Such speech evinces respect for the reader's time and intelligence. And, I do think it is a more practical solution. As for my own position on the topic, I differ from conventional wisdom in that I don't think the primary reason for people being overweight is due to their eating. I think most of those who are skinny have been that way their whole lives. I weigh about 140 pounds, and I make no deliberate effort to stay that weight. Whereas, my overweight friends have been that size their whole lives despite all their deliberate efforts not to be. I think about animals like cows, who are vegetarians, yet fat. Clearly, they aren't that size because of what they eat. I guess I"ll just have to wait until science catches up with my suspicions and finds the fundamental factors that enable skinny people to be skinny while eating as much as we do, and fat people to be fat while trying every new diet that gains popularity. But, right now the conventional wisdom says that people are the sizes they are due to what they eat. And, I disagree with that, but can't prove it.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
I want to apologise for this filth. Fats are people too.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
The annoying thing is, I get penalised by voter for use of the ENGLISH language.
Summarise, apologise and penalise, are all correct.

@Jon: You can't adopt our language and then call ours incorrect. Your use of language is incorrect. Learn English you bloody Merican!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: JonHouser// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Due to Con's bigoted, anti-humanitarian attitudes and arguments, and Pro's calm, brief solution of prevention, I give conduct and arguments to Pro. Neither used sources, so I give them a tie. Both used " mark instead of ' in contractions, but Con misspelled "summarise", "apologise", and "penalise", so I give Pro spelling and grammar.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters. Merely saying that one side was calm and brief while the other presented what the voter deems to be "bigoted, anti-humanitarian arguments" is not sufficient. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter may not impress their views of the topic on the debaters, so it is up to them to show that one of the debaters was insulting to others through their arguments. Stating that they were is not sufficient to explain this. (3) S&G is insufficiently explained. It must be clear that the voter had a hard time understanding the arguments given how they were written. A few misspellings do not show that this was the case.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
Eh, I see your point. I'll make conduct tied.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
I don't know why I'd lose a point for conduct, when I was never rude to my opponent. I simply have an opinion of certain minorities that others do not share.

This is discrimination at its finest. Thanks for showing prejudice towards me.
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
Sorry I couldn't post a longer argument, I have been VERY busy this week.
Posted by madness 1 year ago

How enlightening.............................

Having such opinions of fat people and minorities, is a terrible thing...However I will try to look past that.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Thanks for the debate subdeo, you're actually a pretty chill guy and a worthy opponent.

I hope that we have shed a bit of light onto this problem, maybe this will lead to other, quite productive debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The title of the debate makes me tied on my decision beforehand, but afterwards I am swayed by Pro. Conduct gets a tie. Grammar and sources are tied, but I have to give convincing arguments to Masterful. The title of the debate clearly infers that you have to offer a solution to the fat epidemic, and although Masterful's propositions are sort of savage, he does a better job of explaining them then Pro. subdeo DOES have one solution, where he proposes "killing it where it starts" at the end of Round 2. Even though this is a much wiser way of destroying obesity, he does not try to convince or explain this in depth, and that is what the debate is about. So although I agree with the Contender, the majority of my voting points will go to Masterful. (Although Con has links to articles, these do not help his case, so no points for sources.)