The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
freedomsquared
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The food, the fat and the gluttony: it's time to help the obese help themselves

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,858 times Debate No: 17950
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Two news stories caught my eye this week.

Firstly the misery and suffering of the acutely malnourished children in the world's largest refugee camp in Kenya.

http://edition.cnn.com...

Some might say these children are the lucky ones as thousands of other kids have already starved to death in famine stricken East Africa.

The second story that took my attention concerned a New Jersey woman, Donna Simpson, who weighs in at 602lb (43 stone / 273kg) and who has pledged to carry on gorging herself until she weighs 1,000lb (71� stone / 454kg). Simpson, a mother of two who pays her $750 (�460 / €528) a week grocery bill by prostituting herself on the internet for the sexual gratification of voyeuristic perverts, said she "has a right to eat what she wants and weigh what she wants" even though her calorific intake would feed ten starving children in Africa.

Furthermore, Simpson's shameless greed is likely to cost the American taxpayer dearly: the obese in United States place a huge financial burden on the health system there - an obese with diabetes costs $11,744 (�7,216 / €8,262) more per year than the average person in health care costs.

But malnourished children or the cost of their gluttony to the taxpayer doesn't seem to concern obese people like Simpson who boasted "I can sit and eat 70 big pieces of sushi in one go," before adding "I do like cakes and sweet things, doughnuts are my favourite."

While it may be true that some people are more prone to gain weight than others, most of the obese are grossly overweight simply because they are lazy and greedy - Daniel Emmer, public relations manager of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, says "lifestyle choices and behaviors drive 87.5 percent of the cost for health care claims."

http://www.foxnews.com...

That's why you didn't see any obese people in the CNN report from the refugee camp.

So, clearly the obese deserve to be hit and we should hit them where it will hurt them most – in the stomach. Not literally, of course, but rather by making the sale of junk food to the grossly overweight an offense, just as it is an offense to sell tobacco and alcohol to children.

Although this plan would likely make the obese squeal like pigs in protest, the measure would, in fact, improve their health.

Equally importantly, this proposal would save the American taxpayer billions in reduced health care costs. Furthermore, the reduction in demand for crops would also allow the United States to send more food aid to starving children in the developing world.

So let's not waste any more time, let's help the obese to help themselves by restricting their access to fatty food.

Thank you.
freedomsquared

Con

I started on this site 3 years ago, and even then, brian's debates were always entertaining to read. However, I never got the chance to debate him, and I revel in the oppurtunity. I will try to keep this debate in a humorous light.

After reading through the above content, I found the exact proposition of my opponent. That proposition is as follows:
" making the sale of junk food to the grossly overweight an offense "

Below I will state what I surmised as my opponent's arguments.

R1: Donna Simpson (the fat lady) is Killing African Children

My opponent states that her caloric intake could save 10 African children, however, this would leave no calories left for poor Donna. In fact, her extra caloric intake is probably only killing 7 African children. I'm sure that we can all agree that Donna has shown great restraint and benevolence in saving those other 3 children.

Now, to be (somewhat) serious. There is no set amount of calories to be handed out in the world, where if one person gets extra another gets less. The fact of the matter is that even if Donna did not eat all those sushi and cakes, those children would still be starving. Economically, it makes no sense to send sushi and cake overseas because it will spoil [1] in a very short amount of time (2 days for sushi, and varying with cakes). So, is that what you want brian? To send spoiled leftovers to starving children? As if there lives aren't hard enough without you shoving in their faces the wastes of our luxurious lifestyle.


R2: Fat Lady Will Cost Tax Payers

While it is very likely that Donna will cost tax payers money on health care, that is a problem with the New Jersey health care system and not Donna's lifestyle. I would suggest at the very least adding in a qualifier to the public health care bill saying that people cannot receive health care if they are obese (of their own fault, excluding obesity from health-complications).

Don't blame the player, blame the game.

I believe I covered all of my opponent's arguments, so I will now move onto my own contentions.

C1: Economic Downfall

Fat people are essential to the economy of the world. Without fat people, we would be without fantastic victuals such as the pancake-sausage on a stick [2]. There is no way this glorious creation could survive without those who are willing to eat all that they can find, when they can find it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where my pancakes and sausages cannot be combined together on a stick.

It is estimated that 2.7 million Americans work in the fast food industry [3]. Regulating who could buy this food would cut immensely into the profits of the different fast food corporations. America is already in an economic crisis, we can't afford the addition of another 2 million unemployed.


C2: It Wouldn't Work

Obesity (generally) is caused by both caloric intake and by inactivity.

First: Caloric Intake

Obese people would not stop eating entirely, just the junk food. This means that they would still be able to get a high dosage of calories and stay fat.

Second: Inactivity

Even if junk food is banned, this will not stop people like Donna Simpson (or even those who don't have a half ton goal). Obesity is only so widespread because of the couch potato lifestyle which has gripped many Americans [4]. You can give them the calories needed on average for a healthy lifestyle, but it doesn't matter if they still lack a healthy lifestyle.


C3: Freedom

As you may have guessed (given my name), I have somewhat positive afflictions towards freedom. Our Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness, so long as that pursuit does not conflict with any other US laws. Controlling what people eat cannot be Constitutionally supported and would be the greatest infringement upon American rights since [insert particular American governmental injustice here].


C4: It Would Destroy America

I want to have fun with this debate, so I decided to add this last contention. If this law should be put in place, here are the resulting two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Revolution

The sun rises on a hushed and strained Washington D.C. President Obama looks at the clock, 4:36 AM, and wonders what could have awakened him at such an hour. Then he hears it, the marching of a thousand tons of lipids. Outside, the fat army has finally broken through the White Houses' defenses. They are closing in on the food tyrant, who sought to take away their sustenance. For months and months the obese troops have swept the nation, rolling over all obstacles in their path. Now they have reached the end of their struggle, the tyrant is within their grasp...

4 years later

America still lies in ruins from the Fatty War. The winning group, the obese, lost all initiative once their demands for junk food were satisfied. They lost all interest in rebuilding their war torn nation and America has become rife with anarchy and chaos. The silver lining is that the overthrow of the government allowed for a few Libertarian communities to emerge, shining utopias in a land of darkness.

Scenario 2: Immigration

The edge of the river surges, rising foot after foot over the bank. The resulting flood devastates the border towns, and Mexican officials can only help but chuckle meekly at the irony as 100 million obese Americans cross the Rio Grande into their country[5]. In search for food, the obese herd has migrated for days, weeks, and now months in pursuit of junk food. Mexico, which still allows such luxurious treats, has been the target of their desire. This wave of illegal immigration leads to decreasing diplomatic relations with Mexico, and eventually round 2 of the Mexican-American War. Mexico, of course, is easily defeated once again. However, this situation also leads back to Scenario 1, as the obese people who migrated are unwilling to give up their right to junk food.


Conclusion

We need to allow all people, big or small, to eat as they please. Actually, I take that back, DON'T FEED TROLLS. That is all for this round.




[1] http://answers.google.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.obesitymyths.com...
[5] http://www.cdc.gov...;
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

It is indeed a privilege to debate such a worthy opponent as freedomsquared and I thank him for his most comprehensive, eloquent, intelligent, and, above all, humorous rebuttals, which I should like to address in turn as follows:

R1: Donna Simpson (the fat lady) is Killing African Children

It would appear that I have seriously misjudged Ms Simpson. I thought that she was a selfish, lazy, greedy tart who was only interested in her own self-gratification – how wrong I was! It appears, according to my opponent, that she is actually some kind of modern-day Joan of Arc who very year spares the lives of three starving African kiddies by not eating even more than she does (supposing that were possible).

I wonder who else I may have misjudged. I always thought of Hitler as being a cruel ad heartless fascist dictator but on reflection I may be wrong. After all, he didn't send all the Jews, Gypsies, cripples and political dissidents to the gas chambers – instead this kindly old soul mercifully allowed hundreds of thousands of them to work in forced-labour camps. This act of compassion is too often overlooked and from now on I won't have a word said against the Fuehrer, who was, at the end of the day, a jolly good egg.

R2: Fat Lady Will Cost Tax Payers

The obese everywhere expect all taxpayers to pick up the bill (check) for their greed and over-indulgence but my opponent is right – it is the fault of the system – we should change it so that the mega-fat can no longer exploit our generosity.

C1: Economic Downfall

Don't worry, those pancake / sausage kebab things will still be available to normal people and the people employed serving greasy burgers to the obese will instead be employed serving them bowls of lentil and cabbage soup.

C2: It Wouldn't Work

It would work. If fast food wasn't available to them, as it isn't to people in East Africa, they would all lose weight – no obese people in the refugee camps, remember?

C3: Freedom

People have the right to pursue happiness, but not at the expense of others, in this case taxpayers and starving kiddies.

C4: It Would Destroy America

I think scenario 2 is the more likely – Mexico is the only country in the world to have more obese people than America – they would be happy there and the united States' taxpayers would no longer have to subsidise them. In short, everyone would be a winner!

Sorry I didn't have time to write more but I urge you to vote Pro nonetheless.

Thank you.
freedomsquared

Con

I am sad to see that this is the final round of the debate. It was truly a pleasure to debate with my opponent.

REBUTTAL

R1) Donna Simpson (the fat lady) is Killing African Children

My opponent has truly opened my eyes. I had not realized that we could directly compare the food intake of people in America to people in Africa.

His assertion that the money we spend on food here could be used on African children has made me wonder about our own homeless people. Why the hell are they asking for so much money? If an African children can be fed off of 19 cents a day [1], why do the homeless need so much cash(an average income of $367 a month)[2]? Even subtracting food costs (at a generous 25 cents a day), that still leaves about $355 in spending money. Clearly, these homeless are actually very acomplished scam artists. I will stop giving money to charities and homeless on the streets immediately, to stop the gravy train for these lazy conmen. I thank my opponent for outlining this crime.


R2: Fat Lady Will Cost Tax Payers

I admit that I'm not sure if there is some clever argument hidden in this rebuttal by my opponent. However, I think he meant to concede so I will leave this contention as it was previously.


DEFENSE

D1: Economic Downfall

Why in the world would normal people want pancake/sausage kebab's? Those things are disgusting! No one but a deprived obese person scarfing down everything he can find would eat those things. The point is that I like the freedom to choose a disgusting food option, because it makes me feel better about myself when I get the much healthier ho-ho's and twinkies. Normal people will never eat those pancake/sausage kebab abominations, and so that company and those in similar markets will suffer.

Obese people are fat because they enjoy eating and they are inactive. I did a quick google search for lentil, and found these pictures [3]. I don't know about you, but all I see are various pictures that look like rabbit turds, dog food, or both. I don't think even the starving African children would eat that, and there is no way that food-loving obese will go for it.


D2: It Wouldn't Work

The problem with the belief that getting rid of fast food would cure obesity is two-fold.

First, there would still be plenty of other unhealthy food options for the obese. In fact, junk food is only the #6 ranked food in calories (although this is snacks, not fast food)[4]. Obese would still be able to get fat off of peanut butter, animal fats, vegetable oils, nuts and seeds, cheese, and salads. That's rights, salads are huge on calories because of what we put on them, salad dressings. No one eats a salad without salad dressing and getting rid of these dressings would impact obese and non-obese alike. Also, there is no way I will let the government take away peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those sandwiches are a God given right, and is considered by scholars (note: not actually considered by scholars) to be the unwritten 11th commandment of God given to Moses: Thou shalt allow everyone the freedom to have PBJ.


D3: Freedom

Donna eating her food does not prevent food from going to starving African children. Unfortunately, those children would be starving anyways and that food would simply remain unconsumed. However, if you wanted to advocate taking our money back from this dirt bag hobos who are weaseling all our cash away...I think we can work that out.

Also, the fact that taxpayers are willing to include obese on their health plans is their own choice, and they can't complain about it. That's like inviting Peyton Manning (NFL QB, for you non-football fans) to a pickup football game and then complaining when he dominates your team. If you didn't want to deal with Peyton (the obese taking up tax dollars), then you shouldn't have invited him in the first place (shouldn't have put them on health plan).


D4: It Would Destroy America

Looking back, I agree that scenario 2 is more likely to happen. However, Mexico would not be able to handle an increase of their population by 100%, and would end up closing their borders. The obese, of course, with their insatiable drive for mcnuggets would continue to cross illegally which would lead to deteriorating diplomatic relations with the United States. Mexico would eventually be forced to take extreme measures (such as deadly force and long imprisonments of US citizens) which would lead to a war with the United States. Once this happens...well I've already explained the horror of an obese invasion in the previous round.


Conclusion

Looking at this debate, I know it will be tough to decide how to vote. However, I feel like I'm going to VOTE CON. It just seems like VOTING CON is the right thing to do. CON made magnificent arguments and he should be supported by your VOTES FOR CON. That said, it is still completely the decision of the reader whether or not he or she wants to VOTE CON. Now I remember, I can't VOTE CON on my own debates, so you all will have to VOTE CON for me.

Now that the subliminal messaging is finished, I strongly urge you to VOTE CON.

Thanks for a great debate brian, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.


[1] http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org...
[2] http://www.huduser.org...;
[3] http://www.google.com...;
[4] http://www.healthaliciousness.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
Freedom winning on humor so far.

=P
Posted by mongeese 2 years ago
mongeese
With one look at the title, I knew who instigated this debate, although freedomsquared seems to be keeping up with the comedy rather nicely.
Posted by freedomsquared 2 years ago
freedomsquared
Even though you were short on time, you still put out comedy gold. Nice response brian.
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
brian_eggleston
I haven't forgotten this one, btw, but I won't be able to post until the 11th hour...
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Freedomsquared has already won in my mind. :D

lol. He's convinced me that we need to slay the fatties to quash this possible revolution! :D

Anyway, I like this debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
brian_eggleston
Freedomsquared...that was awesome...funny and clever...let me thik about it...
Posted by freedomsquared 2 years ago
freedomsquared
Yea, I love brian's debates.
Posted by Rockylightning 2 years ago
Rockylightning
dis gonna be good.
Posted by freedomsquared 2 years ago
freedomsquared
Took debate... realized it was made by brian...said a quick prayer.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jd6089 2 years ago
jd6089
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Resons are obvious. con debated while pro put on a good comody skit.
Vote Placed by curious18 2 years ago
curious18
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: That was soooo funny!
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 2 years ago
Lickdafoot
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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: Very entertaining read. Con effectively refuted all of pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con excellently refuted all of Pro's points (i.e. fat people do not kill kids because of spoilage) and brings up other points (such as freedom). I vote Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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: Pro's arguments were supposed to be silly, and they were.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonfreedomsquaredTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to freedomsquared for effectively showing that freedom to choose is more important than having policies where fatties can't make the choice themselves. Normally, I would give the more humorous person (usually Brian) a point for humor. But since freedomsquared matched Brian in the humor department as well, both get an extra one point.