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


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,549 times Debate No: 25443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




The topic for this debate is fairly simple and Pretty self explanatory. Con will argue that there must be ways to stop the obesity. Pro will argue that it must continue.There are 3 Rounds, voting period is 1 week, time to argue 72 hours, 8,000 characters allowed.


I accept the debate and the terms provided. Before I turn the floor over to my opponent, I would like to state one statement:

If I wanna be fluffy, LET ME BE FLUFFY.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay be "flaffy" but it has disadvantages like:dyspnea,diabet etc


A two line response? Oh this is gonna be fun! Incoming text wall!

My opponent's only sentance just says a few random downsides to obesity. However, this is going to be massively insufficient of a reason to show, as con put it in the first round, "that there must be ways to stop the obesity." If she cannot fulfill her own BOP, then you have to affirm the resolution. My BOP, as stated and agreed upon by myself, is to show why it must continue. I contend that without obesity, as well as leading causes to obesity, the world would end as we know it.

My argument shall make one assumption that my opponent may challenge, if she so desires. That assumption is that Fast food restraunts are a leading cause to obesity, and that so long as fast food restraunts exist, obesity shall always remain constant. I feel like this is a perfectly valid assumption, and that it would be highly counter-intuitive for con to attack this assumption, but if they so wish to then they can do so. Anyway, I shall proceed with my case now.


It's easy to look at a McDonalds and just think "Wow, what a bunch of fatties" or, in my teenage boy case, "God I'm starved. How much money do I have?" without actually considering the worth of that very fast food joint. Fast food is, arguably, a major factor in the American economy. More than 3 million people work in the fast food industry in the US alone[1]. Even in a bad economy, McDonalds has reported an increase in third quarter by nearly 11 percent[2]. The fast food industry spent 4.2 billion dollars in 2009 on advertising alone[1]. Spending on fast food has been rapidly growing ever since the '70s. In 1970, Americans spent 6 billion on fast food[3]. Fast forward 30 years, to 2000, and now Americans spend 110 billion in just that year alone[3]. On average, americans spend more money overall on fast food than they do on things like personal computers, computer software, new cars, and higher education (such as colleges and universities)[3]. American spending on fast food is more than the combined total of our spending on things like movies, books, magazines, newspapers, videos, and recorded music[3]. McDonalds ALONE is responsible for 90% of job growth in America[3].

The impact of places like McDonalds on the work-place are almost indescribable. To quote Eric Schlosser:[3]

"In 1968, McDonald’s operated about one thousand restaurants. Today it has about twenty-eight thousand restaurants worldwide and opens almost two thousand new ones each year. An estimated one out of every eight workers in the United States has at some point been employed by McDonald’s. The company annually hires about one million people, more than any other American organization, public or private. McDonald’s is the nation’s largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes - and the second largest purchaser of chicken. The McDonald’s Corporation is the largest owner of retail property in the world. Indeed, the company earns the majority of its profits not from selling food but from collecting rent. McDonald’s spends more money on advertising and marketing than any other brand. As a result it has replaced Coca-Cola as the world’s most famous brand. McDonald’s operates more playgrounds than any other private entity in the United States. It is one of the nation’s largest distributors of toys. A survey of American schoolchildren found that 96 percent could identify Ronald McDonald. The only fictional character with a higher degree of recognition was Santa Claus. The impact of McDonald’s on the way we live today is hard to overstate. The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross."

Without places like McDonalds, I don't feel like it would an understatement to say that as a society, economically and socially, we would be devastated.


In order for my opponent to successfully refute my case, she MUST advocate for the removal of fast food restaurants, otherwise I'm still fufilling my BOP by advocating them as a massive benefit to our economy. Without the fast food industry, everything that's connected to them takes a massive blow to profits. Advertising, the meat industry, toy companies, all of these things would be hurt. Needless to say, the current recession we're in right now would be nothing compared to what would result from removing fast food from our nation. If our economy is trashed, then the global economy will further fall into the dumps. With our economy in the dumps causing the world economy to go into the dumps, then we would be forced to look to other means to feed our people. As Lieutenant Colonel Bearden writes[4]:

"As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. ... [T]he stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of (WMDs) ... are certain to be released. ... [O]nce a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. ... Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes. ... [R]apid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed."

Thus, if we remove fast food to remove obesity, then we trash our economy. If we trash our economy, then the world economy is trashed. When the world economy is trashed, as Bearden explained, we get nuclear war. Nuclear war will always outweigh harms of obesity on two levels:

1. Nuclear war would mean the essential end of the world and destruction of all man-kind. The death of a few from obesity related illnesses will never compare to the extinction of the human race.
2. Even these obesity related illnesses can be treated and/or cured. Death is unique in that it cannot be treated back for or reverse in the way that most diseases can. Once you're dead, you're basically dead and nothing can really be done about it.

This means that we are going to need fast food if we want to survive. Which means that obesity needs to stay around. Which means that you have to affirm the resolution. Vote pro.


[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
[4] - (Liutenant Colonel Bearden, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000,
Debate Round No. 2


It seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, "Does fast food cause obesity?" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain.

This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating.

What Does the Research Say?
Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity.

Beside "fast food" there are another causes of obesity:

Lack of Energy Balance

A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT.
Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active.
Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use.

An Inactive Lifestyle

Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity.
Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include:
•Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active.
•Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity.
•Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly.

Genes and Family History

Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese.
Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment.

Health Conditions

Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).
Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak.
Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods.
People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat

Emotional Factors

Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity.


Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking.
Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain.

Lack of Sleep

Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well.
People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity.



This round of mine is going to be really short since, to be frank, there's not much left that I have to do or say. The round breaks down really simply.

The con's BOP, as stated by con in Round 1, was "Con will argue that there must be ways to stop the obesity." Con has not done this, but rather has pointed out potential illnesses from becoming obese (Round 2), and causes other than fast food that can make someone obese (Round 3). The only attack my opponent makes on my case is that fast food isn't the only cause of obesity and that people can still not gain weight from eatting fast food, however this is faulty for two reasons:

a) I never claimed that fast food was THE ONLY cause of obesity. This completely takes out virtualy all of my opponent's last round where she's pointing out other things that can lead to obesity.

b) Fast food is still one of the leading causes to obesity,[5][6][7] and with fast food still in play then there's no chance of solving back for the obesity problem, which is my opponent's BOP. Thus, by saying that fast food is irrelevant, she is failing to uphold her BOP. By arguing for fast food being removed, she bites into the negative impact of nuclear war and makes me fulfill my BOP. This is the classic double-bind situation where no matter which route she takes, she still fails to win.

Thus, the only vote here is for the pro debator. Thank you.

SOURCES (for this round):

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Oh god.... I want to take this to troll so badly..... If its still open when I finish my research then I'll take it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: CON was unable to uphold her BOP and therefore loses arguments-wise. PRO also had better S
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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 almost voted Pro after the second round (meaning i almost didn't even scroll down) But, I gave con a chance, and my opinion on con changed ever so slightly (in that a two line Case became a few thousand words Rebuttal. But that's the problem. Con you have NO GROUND because of that round. The fact is, Pro has substantiative evidence, well produced FACTUAL argumentation, and sources, all accumulating from the second round. As such, Pro fulfilled BOP, Sources/Arguments/S.G to pro, tempted conduct