The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us.

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...
Preston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 58740
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The idiom 'living off the fat of the land' refers to the British aristocracy who do no work themselves but, instead, live a life of decadent self-indulgence courtesy of the workers who toil on their vast, inherited country estates to produce crops and animals for sale.

The British landed gentry are undoubtedly indolent parasites but they are not the only ones sponging off hard-working people like you and I.

No, the obese are similarly milking the system so they can stuff their big flabby faces at our expense.

That's right, those grossly overweight people who are so lazy and greedy that all they do all day is lay about shovelling junk food down their oversized gullets until they become obese and, therefore, unfit for work, are sitting at home scoffing pizzas and ice cream while industrious people like us go out to work to pay the taxes that the government uses to dole out unemployment benefits to these bloated blood-suckers.

It's got to stop. The idle scum who wilfully make themselves unemployable by indulging themselves to the extent that they are too fat to work should be denied unemployment benefits. This will mean they will have to go out begging or go hungry which, in the end, will be good for them if it means they lose weight.

Why should we continue to work hard just to house and feed these lazy gluttons? We don't sympathise with drug addicts or alcoholics who make themselves incapable of getting a job so why should we care about the obese? We shouldn't - the next time you see some sweaty fat slob dossing about instead of working remember it is you that helped pay for that greasy, super-sized burger they are shamelessly ramming down their blubbery neck.

No, it can't go on like this: it's time to let the obese fend for themselves; it's time we stopped the fat of the land living off us

Thank you.
Preston

Con

To start off with my opponent Holds the BOP so he must prove "It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us." So now ill start:
Obese people work just as hard as any other individual, its illogical to say that "the obese are similarly milking the system so they can stuff their big flabby faces at our expense" for two reasons;

1) This Statement Refers to ALL Obese individuals;
[1]More than 2/3 of America are considered Obese, that means the above statement says, Only 1/3 of the united states holds any job. However the [2]united states reports an unemployment rate of 6.1%, thus the statement is factually unsound.

2)We don't carry the medical costs of obese individuals;
We also have to see obese individuals are insured and employed, so we don't carry any costs.[3]Th e united states, in 2009, reported that 256 Million had insurance, that's around 85% of the population. This census also explains that it accounted for illegal immigrants, which at the time couldn't receive insurance, thus the 10.8 Million illegal immigrants boost the amount of individuals with insurance to 88%, so 12% of the population didn't have insurance and as I stated above that doesn't cover all obese people.

My opponent has simply insulted 66% of the population and did not supported it with any facts. I would challenge him to show that obese people do anything he says they do, and where does this statements play in "We don't sympathise with drug addicts or alcoholics who make themselves incapable of getting a job so why should we care about the obese?" My opponent has obviously never heard of rehab, AA, or any other organization that helps addicts, and he seems to think that people who are over weight are the same as an individual who is addicted to a substance.

So I offer a counter call to arms; People like my opponent shouldn't continue on, they are the people who attack individuals for their differences, they unaccepting and think its ok, we can only see a ballot in favor of the NEG.




[1]http://frac.org...
[2]http://data.bls.gov...
[3]http://www.census.gov...
[4]
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Preston for accepting this debate but must contest his arguments.

That said, I agree that not all shiftless scroungers are obese and visa-versa but, the fact is, that obese people in the United States are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. {1}

That should come as no surprise, however, as obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy? Furthermore, the same study shows that obese people in work are far more likely to take sick leave than other workers and, therefore, cost employers more.

Meanwhile, in Australia, studies show that "Obesity is costing the Australian economy $637 million dollars each year due to indirect costs associated with increased sick leave, lower productivity, unemployment, disability, early retirement and workplace injuries. This is in addition to the $1.08 billion obesity related healthcare costs." {2}

Similarly, in Britain, the cost of treating the obese is threatening to bankrupt the National Health Service. {3}

My opponent mentioned drug rehabilitation facilities and alcohol addiction counselling services, and similar programmes are available for the obese should they wish to take advantage of them. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim, it takes self-discipline in fast food restaurants and hard work in the gym to lose weight and keep that weight off, but those that manage it should be congratulated.

On the other hand, those obese people who refuse to help themselves and think that the world owes them a living should be made to think again.

Thank you.

{1} http://www.gallup.com...
{2} http://www.myvmc.com...
{3} http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Preston

Con

So at this point I will be addressing the standing issues I have with my opponents case, then talk about why they haven't fulfilled the BOP, then end with a summary.

Issue 1 - Sources and reading sources;

I would like to address the sources my oppoenent has brought up a gallup study, but he obviously didn't read this study. The first paragraph reads "The obesity rate rises from 22.8% among those unemployed for two weeks or less to 32.7% among those unemployed for 52 weeks or more." So only 32.7% of unemployed are obese! the other 67.3% are not. his own study goes against his point of view. The point of this article was to show the increase from 22.8% to 32.7% not to say obese people are the most likely to be unemployed.


Issue 2 - Hate Content;

my opponents arguments are entirely comprised of un-backed hate content so lets look at some examples:

-obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy?
-is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim.
-Why should we continue to work hard just to house and feed these lazy gluttons?
-next time you see some sweaty fat slob dossing about instead of working remember it is you that helped pay for that greasy, super-sized burger they are shamelessly ramming down their blubbery neck.

My opponent hasn't backed any of these statements and all of these statements are offensive and rude. He doesn't seem to understand how terrible statements like this are and how many people this effects.


Issue 3 - Australia V. USA/ UK V. USA

My opponent seems to think that other countries validate action in the US. Australia is completely different from the USA, Australia has a healthcare system that costs more than other countries and has less laws mandating participation in it. while still requiring doctors to treat uninsured patients. we cant compare two entirely different systems to one another and hope they will overlap enough to necessitate action and the same goes for the UK.


Issue 4 - The Magic Wand;

My opponent is at the end of his argument bringing up how " there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim", However I would argue there is; Support from a community, family, friends, and peers can motivate those who are unhealthy to work towards a more healthy life style. But its still up to the obese individual, there's nothing wrong with being overweight and people like my opponent who assume there is often bully those with health issues to the point of duress. We should be more supportive overall of whatever decision is made.


Issue 5- BOP

I would like to point out at this point a BOP has not been fulfilled.

SUMMARY (Standing arguments);

~Opponents sources support NEG

~Opponents arguments contain hate content

~Opponent doesn't fulfill BOP
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
brian_egglestonPrestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I cannot tell if Pro is a bigot or simply trolling, but nevertheless it is nice to see either one beaten back by cold, hard, fact. Pro offers no support for his obscene claims, and Con responds with dignity and fact. Well done Preston.