The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Con (against)
Winning
66 Points

It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants

Do you like this debate?NoYes+19
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 14 votes the winner is...
Sky_ace25
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,416 times Debate No: 10622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (14)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Preamble:
======
For the sake of the health of the grossly overweight and also for the sake of the sensibilities of normal people who have to watch them with their snouts in the trough, I affirm that it's time to introduce a law that will make it illegal for the obese to over-indulge themselves on food in restaurants.

Observation:
========
This is intended to be a light-hearted debate, not meant to cause offence and it is therefore requested that any opinions expressed herein, by either Pro or Con, unless otherwise stated, should not be considered to be a reflection of their own personal beliefs.

Definitions:
=======
Fattening food – Food unduly high in calories such as burgers, pizzas, deep-fried chicken (often referred to as junk food) or extra-large or multiple portions of food with a low or medium calorific content such as salad, soup and rice, noodle or pasta dishes.

Restaurant – Premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public.

Obesity - A condition that is caused by a combination of eating too many calories and not doing enough physical activity (being greedy and lazy).

An obese – A person who has put on weight to the point that it could seriously endanger their health, and for the purposes of this debate has a BMI of 30 or over as adjudged by a constable or restaurant employee.

Full Resolution:
==========
A new law should drafted and passed into legislation as follows:

Sale of fattening food to an obese:
---------------------------------------
(1) A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—
(a) sells or attempts to sell fattening food to an obese, or
(b) allows fattening food to be sold to such a person.

Obtaining fattening food for an obese:
-------------------------------------------
(1) A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain fattening food for consumption on those premises by an obese.

Failure to leave a restaurant etc.
-------------------------------------
(1) An obese commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse—
(a) he fails to leave relevant premises when requested to do so by a constable or by a restaurant employee, or
(b) he enters or attempts to enter relevant premises after a constable or a restaurant employee has requested him not to enter.

Contention:
=======
In many countries it is illegal to serve alcohol in a bar or restaurant to someone who is drunk (1). This is because it is unhealthy to become over-intoxicated and it is also unpleasant for other customers to be within the same proximity as such a person.

That's why when a drunk comes to the bar and asks for more alcohol the bar tender has a legal and moral duty to refuse them service and ask them to leave the premises.

However, even though obesity is now one of the most serious health problems in the Western world (2) and some big fat slobberchops devouring a huge pile of fatty food can be just as unpleasant to be around as any drunk, when a grossly overweight person goes into a restaurant and asks for a half-pound cheeseburger, instead of saying: "I'm sorry sir, but I think you've had enough – I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave" the server usually says: "Would you like fries with that?"

Now, any right-minded person will recognise this is wrong and inequitable and that this outrageous state of affairs should no longer be tolerated. That is why I reaffirm that the law drafted hereinabove should implemented without undue delay.

Thank you and Happy New Year!

(1) http://www.opsi.gov.uk...
(2) http://www.nhs.uk...
Sky_ace25

Con

I'm very happy to have the chance to debate this issue that I find very important.

I'd like to state that my opponent's main resolution is that a law will be passed to make it illegal for the obese to over-eat. I'll agree with my opponents definitions except for the definition of obesity and an obese. I'd like to point out that although generally my opponents definition of obesity is right their are other reasons why a person may be fat such as a food disorder.

As for my opponent's definition of an obese he uses the cut-off line of a BMI of 30 or over. I'd like to point out that this makes my opponents case contradictory because a person can have a high BMI by being a hard exerciser and building up a huge mass in terms of muscle. Thus my opponent wants to essentially punish people for doing exactly what he is proposing; being exercised and avoiding eating bad food.

To further refute my opponents case I will offer up the following contention:

C1: The government's main job is to represent the general majority of a given body.
My opponent will agree that the majority of people are obese in the U.S. or I assume in his case the U.K; thus that means that majority of people want to be fat. A new law can't be passed into legislation restricting fatness because it is misrepresenting the majority body in that country and thus the government is essentially become oppressive and tyrannical. Further more my opponent has made it very clear that an obese "chose" to be fat; that means the majority of people have the desire to be fat. Thus a law should not be passed because they are doing a morally wrong thing to do by oppressing their people's free will to be fat. The only way a law can be passed restricting this is if my opponent can prove that all fat people have a desire to lose weight which my opponent has obviously been insisting that fat people want to be fat because of their "pigging out".

C2: The government is hurting their own economy.
My opponent admits that fat people "pig-out" at restaurants. Thus by denying restaurants the ability to serve fast food, which generally tends to be cheaper than fresh produce; my opponent is essentially arguing that unfair burden should be put on the food industry that would result in a massive lost of money as they would lose their best customers. Why should a government have any incentive to hurt their own economy; should fast-food restaurant owners go bankrupt and thus put their families in deep suffering and a lack of affordable food?

I'd like to also address that in many cases a fresh organic meal is much more expensive than your average quick meal at a fast food joint.

To refute my opponents sole-contention I would like to point out that he has basically countered his own contention; the general majority of people at any given time are not drunk. At a bar we deny alcohol because we don't want people being intoxicated, thus having their actions impaired, resulting in physical and mental suffering at the expense of another patron. Now then if we utilize the fast food argument; first of all at the instant the majority of people are fat then their is more likely to be fat people in a bar then un-fat people as fat people by my opponents rational would always be at a "fat" place. If anything I argue that the majority fat people will be offended by the super-skinny people who can sometimes seem anorexic, be pale, and appear malnourished.

Further more the state of being "fat" doesn't cause any actual physical or mental anguish to another person. My opponent argues that people don't want to see fat people yet he argues that the majority of people are obese and the majority of people at these "pig-out" restaurants are fat. So again it would be more weirder and awkward to see a very skinny person in one of these places. Further more the server says "would you like fries with that", because he wants to keep his job and have money to help his own family. The whole point of Capitalism is to increase one's capital; essentially his material possession. At the instant that the modern day economy is built on the theory of Capitalism then the whole point of a restaurant is to maximize its income. Thus they are doing themselves a disservice by denying fat people. Finally, if a fat person wants to make the rational choice to eat fattening foods then why should their right and choice be oppressed on; bear in mind that fat people are the majority opinion.

To summarize my case; a government can't infringe on the rights of fat people without undermining their legitimacy by going against the majority, harming their economy, or taking away the right of a fat person to freedom of choice.

I will now hand over the debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank sky_ace25 for his considered rebuttal and address his objections as follows:

My opponent challenged my definition of obesity stating that "their [sic] are other reasons why a person may be fat such as a food disorder".

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...
Sky_ace25

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to sky_ace25 for his continued interest in this subject and his observations regarding the possible consequences of implementing a law designed to crack down on obese customers who behave anti-socially in restaurants. Some of these observations, however, are more valid than others.

For example, the intent of the law would be solely to prevent the obese from offending other customers so drive-thru's and supermarkets would fall outside its scope, and this is the way the legislation should be implemented by law enforcement officers and applied by the judiciary.

It is also difficult to envisage the fat black market that my opponent eluded to developing whereby shifty-looking characters stand on street corners approaching the passing obese and whispering: "Pssst! Wanna buy some donuts, Fatso?" since fatty food will be freely available for consumption except inside restaurants.

That said, as with any law, there will be loopholes that the determined individual will exploit. For instance, everybody must pay tax but many rich people use offshore investment vehicles and other tax-avoidance rackets to avoid doing so. However, that doesn't mean the government should say that "everybody must pay tax, except rich people because they usually find a way of dodging them anyway".

So, it may well be that certain unscrupulous restaurateurs will continue to allow the obese to stuff their big flabby faces on their premises but, just like restaurateurs who flout no-smoking bans, it only takes a few complaints from offended customers to attract the attention of the police.

My opponent also wrote:

"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."

Firstly, there is actually a great deal of concern about the obese being allowed to gorge themselves on fatty foods in restaurants, most notably from the quarter you might least expect – from the obese themselves. That's right, because the morbidly fat are so unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their excess weight they instead blame fast food restaurants for serving them fattening food.

This is why the obese have been known to take fast food restaurants to court in class actions known as "McLawsuits" (1, 2). In court, the obese have sought damages from the fast food merchants for allowing them to eat fattening food in their restaurants. In light of this, my new legislation should be welcomed by both the obese (who will lose weight) and the restaurants (who will not lose money).

In addition, at least one state in America has proposed "to make it illegal for a restaurant to serve anyone with a body mass index of 30 or more". (3)

Furthermore, The latest research shows that the obese are "getting greedier" with 93% of restaurateurs believing that the obese are a problem. (4)

So, the fact that ‘all you can eat' buffets will become off-limits to the obese should be welcomed by weak-willed, heavy-treading customers who are unable to resist going back for second, third and fourth helpings and but also by the restaurants who risk being bankrupted by these gluttons' gargantuan greed.

My opponent also wrote: "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!'"

Frankly I very much doubt that we will ever see a ‘Fat Pride' march because the obese are usually too lazy to walk any further than the fridge so it's highly unlikely they would heave themselves off their sofas to spend the day walking the streets!

Notwithstanding, the grotesque public consumption of obscene quantities of food by hideously fat people is anti-social and society does not have to tolerate anti-social behaviour. That's why lawmakers should introduce legislation that will stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.entrepreneur.com...
(2) http://www.urbandictionary.com...
(3) http://www.consumeraffairs.com...
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Sky_ace25

Con

I'd like to thank brian_eggleston for a very interesting debate.

I will refute his points in the general order that they are written:

2. My opponents second paragraph seems to be an attempt to butter up how harsh his legislation is.
"Restaurant – Premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public.", As you see his definition legally applies to any place that can sell food. Hence a supermarket and drive-thru (a legal place to sell food) would clearly be under this legislation. The fact that my opponent is basically changing his own policy is essentially him negating the resolution for me; for to win this debate I only have to prove that their are flaws that means this exact wording of the legislation not be passed. Second I'd like to add that if obese were offensive, and since people seem to be so obsessed with staring at their habits, then even if they were at a drive-thru or at a super-market somebody would still be staring at them. "Behold the fat creature in its natural habitat".

3. I still don't see how fatty foods will be available...Remember by my opponents definition of restaurant is any place that sells food is applicable to this law; I repeat if he is changing his policy then he has negated the resolution.

4-5. My opponent here has basically given up the point that the law will have giant loopholes in it. Note, I'd like to point out that currently customers ARE allowed to go to a restaurant owner and make complaints about an uncomfortable guest, my opponent has not yet warranted that this happens in such mass amounts that it warrants government control over the subject. Further more I repeat why would restaurant owners want to lose their best customers? Remember by my opponents definition of fattening food fat people are forbidden to buy large quantities AND fat food. So a fat person can't even come and get the biggest salad on the menu, because that would also be considered fattening food. My opponent is basically willing to give up all civil liberties the obese have to eat the food they want.

6-7. My opponent here does not establish that OTHER people take offense to fat people. He claims that one state in America has proposed to make it illegal to serve fat people, however that is one state. 1/50, that's 2% of America. So my opponent has basically made my argument here...the law is so unpopular that it can only gain support in 2% of America, I'd also like to point out the word "proposed", the fact that it was not passed easily means that the law was not popular enough to even gain ground within that state. So therefore if my opponent has not even proved that 1 state, 2% of the country, wants to ban fat food their is absolutely no justification that a majority vote of 51% would ever get passed; in America that would be called oppression.

6-7 cont. Regarding the McLaw suits from my opponents (1) source.
"Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H.R. 554). While the bill has drawn some criticism as potentially overbroad, it enjoys solid if not overwhelming support with Congress, the states, the foodservice industry, and the public (Frumkin 2005). A recent Gallup poll reported, for example, that 89 percent of Americans believed that restaurants should not be held liable for an individual's obesity or weight gain " I'd like to point out that we believe in the principle of buyer beware, further more I'd like to point out two things to my opponent.

(6-7) cont. If 89% of Americans believe in personal responsibility that means only 11% of the people do not believe in personal responsibility. My opponent has stated that 1/3 of the population is obese, hence their is at least 22% of obese that are absolutely fine with personal responsibility, and thus again their is no justifiable reason to have a permanent law. Further more I'd like to point out that all McLawsuits were not by fat people,
"Similarly, in the case we mentioned above, McDonald's paid $10 million to settle a class action by Hindus and vegetarians over beef essence contained in the company's "pure vegetable" frying oil."
As you can easily see their are other reasons why one would wish to sue McDonald's and thus my opponent can not make the claim that only obese are doing it; however we are not arguing over McDonald's ethical policy.

8. I have already addressed the one state issue, remember it is only 2% of the population...still needs another 49%.

9. My opponent;s source source says ,
"93% said that they believed obesity was a serious problem", I'd like to first point out this was a survey of only 1,000 workers. Their are very easy ways to target specific locations to get the evidence and poll data you like. I believe the UK is capable of having way more than 1,000 people in the food industry; so I find it hard to believe that only 1,000 people can represent the broad majority. Second of all I'd like to point out the main point of his article were the obese are demanding larger portion, (#4)

"71% of chefs and waiting staff believed customers were becoming greedier, with 64% claiming that consumers were demanding bigger portions."

9 cont. Hence my opponent has made my argument for me. The obese are demanding even more fattening food so the idea that they don't want fattening food by my opponents own argument is completely illogical. Remember my opponent's definition of restaurant would make any legal place to buy fattening food illegal to sell, so thus he has essentially proved my point. The obese would be oppressed, if they are greedier and they want LARGER portions that means they want fattening food. Hence to pass this law it would be oppressive to the obese.

10. I have already made my point that the obese WANT FATTENING FOOD and thus by closing all-you-can-eat-buffets you are being oppressive to the fattening people. Further more buffet owners tend to serve cheap food with many fillers to ensure that people eat all the rice and not all the seafood; further more the fact that their are stable buffets means that they are more than capable of being stable in an obese society.

11. If their so lazy then how is it they manage to go to the food store in the first place! A "Fat pride" march is more than likely to be possible. Especially since so many of them demand fat food!

12. This is my opponents final argument and I find it to be the most oppressive and offensive of them all. The idea that we should censor something because it is "anti-social" is the most unethical thing that has ever been heard; it is a giant gateway to mass oppression. I'd like to further point out that my opponent has not proved that other people take offense at fat people. He has never warranted this claim so this statement is only his own biased opinion against fat people.

Voters:
My opponent has not proved that their is a critical mass of people that actually want fat food reform. Remember my opponent's sources proves that A. Fat people want food and B. Attempts at this type of legislation have not even been passed by even 2% of the country.

2. Further more I'd like to point out that my opponent has established that Fat people actually want fat food; thus the obese have no right have their civil liberties oppressed. The idea that just because their anti-social they should be censored out of society it completely immoral and unjustified. 89% of Americans believe in individual choice according to my opponents own article and thus their is no reason to mandate and enforce wide-spread government control.

3. It would hurt the economy because remember fat people can not buy fattening food anywhere that legally sells food; thus their are many places that rely on a huge demand to earn a profit. Supply and Demand; their is a very clear mutual balance in the economy between the fast food corporations and the fat people who they serve. So to forbid fattening food to the obese is just damaging the countries own economy.

Thank you, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by koolaid1985 7 years ago
koolaid1985
Just because a person is overweight it does not make them a pig. Just because a person is black does it make them a gangster? Just because a person is latin does it make them an illegal alien? Just because someone is Islamic does make them a threat to this country? Just because a person is Jewish does it make them good at at amth? Just because a person is asian it does not make them smart at math. Before you judge people by what they look like you should take a deep look at how perfect of a person you are.
Posted by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
It is one's choice to be "fat", most of the time (I respect special cicumstances). Most of the time, they know what they are doing. My views were unchanged by this debate.
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
The guy is from Britain so we expanded the frame to include that country too. Britain is not under the constitution.
Posted by drkcloud123 7 years ago
drkcloud123
im surprised no one threw out first and fourteenth amendment right off the bat
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
Funniest debate I've yet read
Posted by republican1021 7 years ago
republican1021
People have the right to be stupid.
Posted by Shift_White 7 years ago
Shift_White
Just because someone is fat doesn't mean they eat like a pig. It doesn't even mean they eat a lot. But even if they did eat a lot what makes you think they're messy, fast, disgusting, and loud about it? There's no reason fat people can't eat like decent human beings. You have this comical image in your head of how a fat person eats that seems like it came right out of a cartoon.
In any case, I agree with con on all points. Pro's argument seems to be centered around sparing people from having to look at something disgusting. Which in most cases isn't disgusting (fat person eating) and the government has no right to make something illegal for being ugly. Do we pass a law that makes people with facial scars wear masks?
Posted by Horse89 7 years ago
Horse89
You can not control what other people do and you are being extremely rude because maybe they have an eating disorder and everybody has to eat. What do you want people on the larger side to do? Starve just because they're fat?!
Posted by WolfSong 7 years ago
WolfSong
i agree with both pro and con. I think it's sick when people are acting like pigs. BUT as long as it's for a special occasion,it's fine. But too often is plain gross....
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
although con wins, I still agree with pro
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dpflames786 7 years ago
dpflames786
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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:33 
Vote Placed by Shift_White 7 years ago
Shift_White
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Bluedebater123 7 years ago
Bluedebater123
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Horse89 7 years ago
Horse89
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSeeker 7 years ago
TheSeeker
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by nightwisher 7 years ago
nightwisher
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 7 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 
Vote Placed by mindwarper10 7 years ago
mindwarper10
brian_egglestonSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07