The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
darsan9
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Height vs. Weight

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 3 votes the winner is...
darsan9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 63361
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

Max.Wallace

Con

Politicians in the USA, have allowed scienticians to define what the correct height/weight ratio is and label the imperfect as needing help from the profiteers of table making. That is just the plain old truth.
darsan9

Pro

okay so first off as the proposition for today's debate i feel i must first reiterate somewhat of a stale tune that has been sung by the comments there is not enough information for this debate to be pondered seeing as it is and that the proposer of this debate has conveniently chosen con i shall be setting the standards for this debate.
first off the first round will only be used for description and details so that the opp can come up with an argument in the given time. the next few rounds will be standard debate.org structure while the last round will be left for reply speeches and for final reiterations

as the description of todays debate the term "height vs. weight" as the proposition sees it is the current norm of some nations to set a standerds via studies and experiments which then come up with the ideal parameters for the average male/human of the region while taking into account surrounding conditions unique to each region and other contributing factors such as lifestyle and diet.

to correct a few of the mistakes the con made in the span of 36 words:
1.politicians have to accept scientific studies for the benefit of the nation (i will explain this in my own arguments)
2. scienticians are scarce for a reason at the last count there are only around 200 in the world most employed in national institutions among other "scientist" therefore it would be unfair to just pin the problem on them for doing a role.
3.the con has narrowed down the topic unconciously or willingly labeling the help provided as unfair profiteers. to this i say "innocent until proven guilty"which the con should do so and then address them as profiteers.
4.there is no plain old truth that is why we are debating today.
the above four points are just for reference and cannot be considered as part of the debate. only to be taken as a reference issues found by the side prop
i hope the con will take this into heart in future when proposing topics and adding labeling without an actual necessity in the topic.
good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Con

There are far more the 200 scienticians on earth. The IPCC is full of them. Nostradamuses posing as the book of knowledge. To me your argument is flat sided.
darsan9

Pro

before delving clearly into today's topic i would like to make a few rebuttals to the cons current stance as follows:
1.there are only around 200 scienticians around and i will provide link to prove so. but provided even if you are right, they are still in the clear minority when it comes to decision making.
2.I hope the con is aware as to what the IPCC really is......it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control and it has in no way propagated a change in human lifestyle as stated by the con. please do clarify in your next statement
3. the issue of labeling- it will be dealt in my own arguments

so moving on to my own arguments, at first i was going to clearly show the house point by point how this is well withing the bounds of the government and it is in merit to the society as a whole but seeing the CON misconception i have changed my format to who and why

so first moving on to who:
first taking on the party that majority of the blame has been placed on,ie the scienticians, they are a group of individuals who have an expanded knowledge in both the sciences and mathematics. now it is well within their right to carry out experiments and investigations, after all we all have the right to knowledge and isnt this exactly what it is the right to knowledge? the only case in which they could have been in the wrong is when the governing body of the area in which they are carrying out said investigations or any other calculations directly forbids them not to do so, which is clearly not the case. so they were in the right.

secondly the ruling body(referred to as state for convenience)- they are a group of individuals who come together to form a coalition of people who will oversee the running of their designated area. they may debate and pass legislature provided that it is in their power, in the cases of the cons argument the USA has such authority.now i would like to futher analyze this in 2 ways:
a)using the said example of USA again i would like to point out that the ruling body is chosen by society taking that train of thought they also run by norms set by society, so when the question of subjectivity is raised it should be noted that the government is subjective to legislature put forward by the objective people thereby leading to the conclusion that it is in fact the society that wants such a move.
b)this state decision will indefinitely affect all civilians which is why the outrage of CON is seen, well the politicians too are aware of this and they are often known as people pleasers do you really think they they would have made such a call without already being aware of their repercussions of such an act? clearly in their rare decision making minds the pros have outweighed the cons or we would not be discussing this today.they would have had larger arguments than the con today and yet decided it is better to pass it.

so why should they do it?
there are multitudes of social, economical and cultural values involved as follows
1)social aspect
so what is it they are essentially trying to do they are trying to set a perfect body structure for natives of that region. in doing so they are ensuring that a larger number of people are healthy and fit.this has many social implications. let us the example of a fat kid, now maybe society has gone past the "fat kid hate" but we still see many people who shun away fat people which is proven by the social experiment given below. this legislature provides them with a rule to conform to and will help the outside the margin children to take better care of their bodies since they regulations will not be extremist rather the moderate healthy range of the height/weight ratio. it will also help society to get over their regular condescension of people who are obese or extremely underweight since they will no longer exist.

to deal with the issue of labeling- it is much like peer pressure in this case the proposition feels that this is in fact constructive as what does it lead to? it leads to more people wanting to be fit and if we can use this labeling to achieve something like that when we already use it for things such as alcohol and tobacco, why not do so??

2)economical-there is a economical side to this debate , in ensuring that people follow such guidelines which are set it will result in a nation that is much more healthy and fit in turn allowing larger number of people to join the workforce and to help the country's economy. leading to a stable nation. which is clearly the interest of all person in any given society.

social experiment-https://www.youtube.com...

so without moving into any further arguments i hope i have already clearly shown the house how this is a step forward in a nation and although many of us may resent this we must all admit that in the end it is for a greater good. it has social and economical benefits and clearly even if it is a wrong decision, it is one society made.

"we may be right we may be wrong; but how will we know if we do not try?"-darshan

Note:CON seeing as you have yet to bring up any arguments to the house I concede to let you use the last round to bring up new points.

good luck
Darshan
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Con

Congrats, you won again! Does your ability to regurgitate factoids funneled into your gullet make you happy? Happiness is not for everyone. Look at the world beneath you, of which there is far more of then your kind. Good luck! To you!
darsan9

Pro

In my final statement I would like to carry out a social experiment. This is not one where you have to post the answer,rather it is one for you to help acknowledge the necessity of this defining legislature. Think back in your life as far back as you want until you come to that one point where maybe you didn't tell them that but you really thought they were disgustingly fat. This is not something to be ashamed of. 94% of the subjects to this test have tested positive. And I am among them, I know it is unfair so spare the hate,this debate is not about my beliefs . But seeing as a phenomenon is present the state has a duty to protect its citizens all of them and this is exactly what a state in principle will do. Now I quote the con " look at the world beneath you, of which there are far more of than your kind" I do not need to belong to either side of this apparent rift that the con has created to tell you that in essence this move will effectively cover that rift letting us to be equal in terms of physical appearance and mental perception of factors.

I had much more lengthy arguments but seeing as the con couldn't tear down my previous down the policy of this house has not changed. Side prop has clearly shown you the stakeholders analysis and shown you why each stakeholder wants it. Proposition has also not only dealt with the explicit meanings of the very short arguments made by con and shown you how this bill would infact cushion such social disparities we have also given you an indepth analysis of all his arguments and clearly broken them down. Only insults were ignored.

Thank you for your time con and thank you members of the debate.org society for making it a watched debate last but not least to the con although not putting out all the fight I expected for being there till the end. Voters please read all arguments before voting.

Darshan
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Sorry, but I prefer freedom of form as opposed to being formatted like a disc.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Ahem, by "job" I implied that as the debate instigator, it's expected that you outline a defined argument.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
SMH. Max.Wallace, you really need to learn what a debate entails. You need to provide definitions and an explicit explanation of the topic of debate. You have a habit of confusing everyone who reads your debate topics.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
CON probably has trouble pushing away from the table.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
common sense is mas confusion to the masses. Go to mass.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
My job is not this, this is a hobby.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
That's your job.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Define it then. Or have you already
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Your "debate" isn't exactly defined.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Just sleep on it sheeple.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Max.Wallacedarsan9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con concedes.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Max.Wallacedarsan9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession (Conduct and Arguments to Pro), Pro used a source, and Con had fewer grammatical errors than Pro.
Vote Placed by TheTom 2 years ago
TheTom
Max.Wallacedarsan9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't even an argument. This was some guy spouting conspiracies for attention, and someone trying to debate it. Con didn't even bother trying to argue his point. Con, if you want to win debates in the future, learn what a debate is. You must first define what is being argued, and then you must back up your opinion with evidence. If you don't do this we will assume that you are merely here for the attention, not for the purpose of debating like this site is intended for.