The Instigator
Seaners
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

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...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 24053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Seaners

Pro

I would take the time to make my resolution that people with a healthier weight in American society are oppressed more than those with an unhealthy weight. My arguments stem from the weight acceptance movement in America which attempts to normalize unhealthy eating habits. The more people accept unhealthy lifestyles, the more unhealthy people there will be. The more unhealthy people there are, the chances of seeing other healthy people on the street becomes more rare. The more rare a type becomes, the less chances of being able to associate with a type besides ourselves becomes. So, we cannot have true freedom of association. Those with a healthier weight are becoming more rare in American society, therefore that particular type of group must be oppressed. In addition, no government action to reduce the issue has seen results.

On the other side, you see obesity being promoted as something of a crutch that doesn't need attention, such as the welfare carts at Walmart. It sounds more accepted, therefore there are more people with obesity every day in America.
TheOrator

Con

I'll take the neg on this case, arguing that healthy people are not more oppressed than the obese.

Opression is defined as: the act of subjugating by cruelty, force, etc. or the state of being subjugated in this way[1]
Although my opponent states how there are groups which advocate that the obese be treated equally, this does not prove that the unhealthy are being opressed in any way whatsoever. My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become, the more obese people there will be, and the more obese people there are, the less healthy people there are. However, this is a logical fallacy as shown by Occam's Razor[2]. Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false. This applies because my opponent's entire case revolves around the fact that the more accepted obesity becomes, the more people will become obese, which is a huge assumption. To make this argument is the same as making the argument that th emore accepted Homosexuals become, the more Homosexuals there will be, which is rediculous.

Further more, simply there being less healthy people is not oppression unless the government comes down, forces food down your throat, and thus strips you of your right to be healthy. I don't advocate Obesity as an actual disease unless you have a legitimate medical condition that affects your metabolism, but there is no reason to assume that either the healthy or the obese are being oppressed.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2.) http://math.ucr.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Seaners

Pro

Thanks TheOrator for accepting this challenge. In acceptance of my opponents claim of logical fallacy, I will explain that if the theory that I previously stated were irrefutable, there will be unforeseen consequences in terms of psychological and social well being. In fact, they are being claimed today. Many severely obese people show reluctance of attending to public outings[1] because they are self-conscious, mainly about their appearance. As such, self-esteem problems and anxiety sets in the long run.

Furthermore, assuming a realist perspective (realism: awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life[2]), the position that we should accept the unhealthy health-wise, equally shouldn't go ignored or accepted, but healthiness shall remain a necessity of life. And by claiming that I "proved" something when he refuted it, he really meant what I believe was "burden of poof."

Psychologically speaking from an individual perspective, you can say that the naturally unfulfilled longing to being with one's own kind is oppression. My original argument had to do with the reason for oppression is at the least, such a longing and desire among certain individuals.

Works Cited:
1.) http://thinforlife.med.nyu.edu...
2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
TheOrator

Con

My opponent's round two focuses around the following:

" In acceptance of my opponents claim of logical fallacy, I will explain that if the theory that I previously stated were irrefutable, there will be unforeseen consequences in terms of psychological and social well being."
Although a term being called irrefutable does not neccesarily mean they are not based upon something fallacious (check out the numerous Kalam Cosmelogical Argument debates on this site), I'll bite and say if my opponent can make the statement that acceptance of a group (especially the Obese) irrefutably leads to more of that group, then this will be proven true.

" Many severely obese people show reluctance of attending to public outings[1] because they are self-conscious, mainly about their appearance. As such, self-esteem problems and anxiety sets in the long run."
I'm not arguing that the obese have low self-esteem or have other negative attributes, but that in no way means they are being opressed, or that this opression leads to the opression of the Healthy, which is what we're arguing. I would also argue that these negative effects actually act as a deterrence of obesity, as many people don't want to be fat, so simply treating them equally isn't meaning that everybody's becoming obese all of a sudden.

"Furthermore, assuming a realist perspective (realism: awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life[2]), the position that we should accept the unhealthy health-wise, equally shouldn't go ignored or accepted, but healthiness shall remain a necessity of life"
I'm not arguing (it seems I'm using this term a lot, but it's important) that being unhealthy is better than being healthy by any means, simply not that the"People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people". However, if you state that healthiness is so important you begin to strip the unhealthy of their rights to eat or live the way they choose, that in turn is being opressive, and you lose the argument based on the fact that the unhealthy begin to be opressed more than the healthy.

"And by claiming that I "proved" something when he refuted it, he really meant what I believe was "burden of poof." "
Yeah, sorry about that, looking back I used the term "prove" way more often than I should have. I'll include a section at the end of this rebuttal to straighten everything out.

"Psychologically speaking from an individual perspective, you can say that the naturally unfulfilled longing to being with one's own kind is oppression"
Yeah, you [i]can[/i] say that, but it's not true. Opression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something [i]because[/i] of your will. You can't really opress yourself :P

"My original argument had to do with the reason for oppression is at the least, such a longing and desire among certain individuals."
Yes, however, you must first prove that A.) Treating the Obese equally will mean less healthy people and B.) wanting to be with your own kind is opression. A.) Is like the argument you used to hear "If you take away don't ask don't tell every man in the military is going to have sex with other men!" which is incredibly biased and not based in fact, and B.) is like saying that someone who immigrates from Zimbabwe, and can't find anyone else from Zimbabwe in America is being opressed.

Corrections of the last round:
"My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become"
should be "attempts to prove"*
"Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false"
Should be when an argument that assumes to much claims to be true*
Sorry about the confusion.
Debate Round No. 2
Seaners

Pro

Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there. Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again.

"Yeah, you can say that, but it's not true. Oppression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something because of your will."
This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic. Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out.
TheOrator

Con

"Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there."
It's great that the both of us are working together to disprove your statements, I think it provides a real sense of unity :P

"Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again."
As I pointed out repeatedly in the debate, I'm not trying to disprove the negative effects of obesity, simply that the healthy aren't opressed.

"This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic."
1.) I have no idea where you got that link, so I think you're just trying to throw out random arguments to make your side look better.
2.) this argument can in no way be applied to the topic. The only way this would work were if the obese were literally forcing the healthy to change their eating habits or vice versa.

" Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out."
You refer to obesity as if it were a contagous disease that can be caught through contact with the obese. No. I live in Alabama, one of the most Obese states in the nation. I have both fat and skinny friends (I don't know where the line between overweight and obese lies), and in all the years I've known both, neither side has changed their weight. This is proof against the fact that Obesity is "out of control", or that the healthy are "oppressed and squeezed out" which is just rediculous. I'm sure the experiences of the entire audience go against this outrageous claim as well.

Furthermore, my opponent drops the fact that his claims are just as rediculous as the homophobic claims for Don't Ask Don't Tell, that the negative effects of obesity actually act as a deterrent for the healthy, that most people don't want to be obese in the first place so treating them equally won't change anything, that accepting the Pro's case oppresses the obese more than the healthy thus negating the resolution, that what he's treating as oppression can't actually meet the definition of oppression, and that using his logic means that someone moving here from Zimbabwe is being oppressed by the Americans because he can't find others from Zimbabwe. And yes, there's a whole paragraph full of things he dropped :P

I urge a Con vote because the Pro has not served to prove that the Healthy are being oppressed, the only thing he's been able to prove is that there are weight equality activists. His examples of oppression don't actually meet the accepted definition (in the case of wanting to be with "your own kind", even though this is normally the case with racial barriers or extracurricular activities rather than obesity) and can't be proven to actually happen (in the case of the healhty being "squeezed out" or the obese being "out of control and growing). Furthermore, the pro case is less of a claim that the healthy ar being oppressed more than the obese, and more of a case where he states ignorant biases similar to homophobia (which he did not refute) only with weight.
And so, because my opponent cannot prove that the healthy are being opressed, and is instead arguing that if one person is obese he's going to make everyone around him obese, I respectfully urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
SeanersTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see a claim that supports the resolution. I saw a weird and unsourced definition of oppression that tried to make more obese people = oppressed non-obese people, but Con pointed out that's not what the word means, gave a sourced definition, and that was it for the debate.