The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
llama212
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

In crowded places, the obese should be made to walk in single file

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,048 times Debate No: 31426
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro


Firstly, I would like this to be a politically correct debate and I would be grateful it my opponent avoided using derogatory terms such as: ‘fatso’; ‘hefferlump’; ‘slobberchops’; ‘pig-in-panties’; ‘porky’; ‘lord of the pies’; ‘salad-dodging lard-arse’ and ‘big, fat, sweating pile of stinking blubber’ when referring to a gravitationally challenged person. Now, onto the debate.

If you want to transport loads wider than 8ft 6in (2.59m).by road you have to apply for special permission to use the public highways. If such permission is granted, however, it is only on condition that the loads travel in single file (rather than side by side) as this system allows faster traffic to overtake.

Today I am arguing that similar rules should apply to those gargantuan grease-guzzling gluttons who cause congestion in busy public areas by walking two abreast.Not impeding the progress of other people is a simple matter of common courtesy and, in fairness, some of the obese do walk in single file in order to minimise the inconvenience they cause to other people but, unfortunately, all too many of these ponderous porcine pedestrians are too ignorant and selfish to care about anybody else and that’s why I affirm that the police should issue these overweight offenders with on-the-spot fines as a punishment for causing undue congestion.

For too long now these lumbering leviathans have hindered decent, hard-working people innocently going about the lawful business by placing a barely-moving blockade of blubber In their paths and it’s high time that legislation was introduced that obliges the obese are to walk in single file in crowded places.

Thank you.

llama212

Con

I will be the first to admit that obese people do cause some congestion problems. But why should these overweight individuals have to be punished for not walking in a single file line when other people are allowed to with no consequences? sure obese people take up more room but so does a family with 3 kids walking side by side, or a group of school kids or a group of everyday less overweight folks. To target those who are obese is unfair and unjust. Also if something was passed to force obese individuals to walk in a single file line where does it stop? just at the obese or will the taking of these peoples free will to walk side by side with a friend or family member just be the beginning to making it a standard form of living to make everyone walk in single file lines so as to ease congestion on our walkways? Also what happens when two obese people are walking side by side and someone tells them to walk single file because they are to fat, and it turns out these two people are obese due to a medical condition they have to live with every single day of their life, how is it fair to those two people to be told that when they never had the chance or choice to be skinnier. Obese people already have to pay for two seats on airplanes isn't that enough? Is it really our right to say "Stop obese people and get in a single file line now or else" no it is not.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thanks Llama212 for accepting this debate challenge.

My honourable opponent misses the point that the main reason the obese cause so much delay is that they take up so much more space than normal people do while walking so slowly: a family or group of friends walking two or three abreast will not slow the people walking behind them nearly so much because they walk quicker and are faster to get out of other people's way when necessary.

Regarding my opponent's supposed reason for becoming obese as being medical rather than lifestyle choices, I am afraid he is mistaken: the reason most people are obese is because they eat too much and do too little exercise [1]. That's why you don't see photographs of obese people in Nazi concentration camps or on TV charity appeals for starving Africans.

Still, it is nice that my opponent to feel sorry enough for the obese to defend them, I just hope, for his sake, that they don't chuck his sympathy back in his face by getting in his way the next time he is walking along a crowded city centre pavement (downtown sidewalk).

Thank you.

[1] http://www.nhs.uk...
llama212

Con

You haven't been stuck behind a family with a few kids before have you? They can be just as bad as obese people if not worse. Also I myself have been stuck behind a group of people who just stand their and don't get out of anyone's way and expect everyone to go around them.

It's not a supposed reason and I in now way think it's the only way people get obese. But I know a young man who is quite large and it is because of a medical condition he has and the medication he has to take. I think you missed the main point I was making with that statement which was if a law of some sought was passed to fine obese people for taking up to much room on a walk way, then how is it fair to those people who didn't make the choice to be obese but are obese due to a medical condition, even if it is only a small percentage of people who fall into this category.

Also if a law of this sought was passed how on earth could it be enforced? The police already have a busy time as it is and have quite more pressing matters to deal with than going up to obese people on walkways and fining them for not walking in a single file line.

Obese people have rights like all of us and one of those rights is to freely walk together.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
This resolution makes me giggle.
Posted by Lovebotlass17 3 years ago
Lovebotlass17
"Firstly, I would like this to be a politically correct debate and I would be grateful it my opponent avoided using derogatory terms such as: "fatso"; "hefferlump"; "slobberchops"; "pig-in-panties"; "porky"; "lord of the pies"; "salad-dodging lard-arse" and "big, fat, sweating pile of stinking blubber" when referring to a gravitationally challenged person. Now, onto the debate."

Seriously, LMAO!!

Silly debates.
Posted by campbellp10 3 years ago
campbellp10
I apologize, I accepted the debate and then completely forgot about it. If you would like, you can reinstate the debate and I will offer my rebuttals. Again, my apologies.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonllama212Tied
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: I guess Con should have explicitly attacked Pro's premise that everything that is thought better should be made law. If spinach is good for you, then there should be a law requiring it. That's nonsense. Con's arguments were adequate to refute the implicit virtues of authoritarian rule. It helps that Pro had no data to show a real and substantial problem to the publc, so the prima facia case was not made.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
brian_egglestonllama212Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never got a case together. The choice is obvious
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonllama212Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This is one of the few joke debates that persuaded me to change my mind about an issue. Pro makes good arguments comparing the obese to large trucks. Con could have attacked this two ways (as with all joke debates). He could have either made serious persuasive arguments to refute Pro's jokes or he could have been funnier than Pro. He does neither as his arguments were not persuasive or funny making it lose-lose.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
brian_egglestonllama212Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL Jesus Christ. Another classic. This debate actually presented some substantive arguments, which were welcome. Pro argues that the ridiculously rotund both take up space and slow down pedestrian traffic. Con argues that other types of foot traffic are equally obtrusive (e.g. families with children) and that the obnoxiously obese may be suffering from a medical condition. Well, the fact that others may be equally irritating does not dismiss Pro's point, the contention about slowly pedestrians is similarly unaddressed, and the point about medical conditions is non-resolutional. Fun debate, arguments to Pro.