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

The obese should be made to wear odour-combatting undergarments in pubs and bars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,107 times Debate No: 20321
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Now that many countries have banned smoking in pubs and bars the dominant smell is no longer that of tobacco smoke, instead it is the all-pervading stench of intestinal gases that have leaked out of certain customers' pants.

Obviously, because the obese eat far more than average they naturally emit more gases than normal people - and these emissions needs to be mitigated.

The most simple method would be to produce undergarments from converted adult diapers (nappies). These would have air-tight seals around the waist and legs and would be fitted with an exhaust pipe which would run from the rear of the diapers up the wearer's back.

Then, as the pressure of the gas inside the diapers builds up to a certain level, it would trigger a valve to open and as the gases travel up the pipe they would be ignited and the gas will be burnt off harmlessly, in a very similar way to gas flares on oil rigs burn off excess gas.



Thus, the air in the pubs and bars will be rid of all the putrid gases that emanate from digestive systems of the obese and will once again be pleasant places to drink in.

Thank you.
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for the this intriguing, yet bizarre topic.

Since My opponent provided no definitions, I will then provide evidence that I feel will provide more clarity:
Should be made: Mandatory
Intestinal gas: Everyone has gas and eliminates it by burping or passing it through the rectum. However, some people may have symptoms that may be bothersome, such as abdominal distention, bloating, belching, and passing gas. {1}


While my opponents base for his reasoning is quite funny and, the fact remains that it makes absolutely no sense nor has it been proven. Not only is his base for his entire argument flawed in many ways, we must also look into the fact that it is without a doubt offensive. With this said, I offer you my first contention:

Contention one: Flaws
When looking into my opponents case, we find that there are several flaws that has not been addressed by my opponent. These flaws including: its flaw in design and its flaws in terms of realism.

Sub point A: Flaw in design.
When looking into the design presented by my opponent, we find that not only is it flawed in terms of concealment, but it is also flawed in terms of safety. Based on the design presented by my opponent, this so called odor-combating undergarments are clearly visible to the point were it is almost impossible to try to cover them. This design thus creates a situation in which an obese citizen is unable to comfortably move without been ridiculed by fellow citizens. The fact that the resolution makes it mandatory that these citizens were this undergarments at all times in Pubs and Bars where hundreds of people reside, is also interfering with ones happiness at ones again, it increases the amount of ridicules directed towards these people.

Sub point B: Discrimination.
The fact that my opponent makes this undergarments mandatory for obese people and obese people only, we find that it then becomes discrimination without just course. Making it mandatory for the obese to wear specific undergarments designed just for the obese is equivalent to Hitler making all Jews move to a camp designed just for the Jew. My opponents justification for such a treatment was "because they release more intestinal gas than ordinary people." Why is this justification flawed? My opponent provided no evidence to support his claim that obese people release more intestinal gas than regular people. Intestinal gas release is not dependent on ones weight, but the following reason: Smoking
Lactose intolerance
Eating certain foods
Swallowing too much air
An overabundance of bacteria in the colon {2}
Looking into the list above, we can clearly see that the type of intake , not the quantity of the intake plays a large role in the amount of intestinal gas released. In conclusion, saying that a certain group releases more gas than the other without giving factual evidence is absurd, and making it mandatory for a specific group of people to wear something as insane as these undergarment is discrimination without a just cause.

Sub point C: Safety
Lets examine the design of these undergarment. The extended pipes that go with these undergarments might be compatible with oil rigs, but it is clearly not compatible with direct human contact. Wearing this is not only uncomfortable to the wearer, but it is unsafe to the point were one might hurt his/ herself trying to get up. My opponent makes the wearing of this garment mandatory in bars and pubs only, however the state in which these wearers might be in simply makes the device unsafe. With a limited clouded/ limited judgment, one might hurt themselves or even other people around them. My opponent states that these gases are burnt away harmlessly, however, he neglects the fact that these valves emit heat hot enough to burn the wearers skin.

In other words, these undergarments should not be made mandatory as :
1. It interferes with ones liberty to make personal decisions
2. It is a form of discrimination as it is directed mainly at obese people alone and since it is mandatory, leaves no room to say no.
3. The entire resolution presents no factual evidence to support its claim.
4. The resolution is simply offensive.

SOURCES:

{2} http://www.northshorelij.com...
{1} http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Thank you and I hope to receive your response soon.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Wierdman for accepting this debate and respond to his arguments as follows:

Design Flaws

The design of the device, provisionally named the Fat Fellow’s Flatulence–Fighting-Flare Fabrication, was never intended to be discreet: indeed, even if it were possible to conceal the devise beneath the wearer’s clothing, the intermittent flames that shoot out over the obese drinker’s shoulders would be likely to belay its presence. Of course this contraption will humiliate the wearer – that’s part of its appeal – it will encourage the obese to lose weight in order not to have to wear one in future, or otherwise avoid visiting pubs and bars where the beverages served tend to be of a high calorific value.

Discrimination

Discrimination in pubs and bars is already widespread: people who choose to light up cigarettes are ejected, young people suspected of being underage are ejected, alcoholics who are drunk and disorderly are ejected from the premises - all with the full backing of the law - so why should grossly overweight people who make themselves unpopular by polluting the atmosphere with noxious emissions be singled out for special favours?

Of course, I understand that certain medical conditions can give rise to increased incidence of flatulence amongst normal people but these conditions are rare and, generally speaking, the obese pump out more methane than the average person because they eat more than the average person.

Safety

Obviously there is an element of danger in having exposed flames in confined areas which is why I would expect the obese wearer's to take out public liability insurance and normal people to give obese people in pubs a wide berth.

Thank you.
wierdman

Con

I would like to thank brain for his quick rebuttal. With that said, I would like to then post my Re-Rebuttal:

Design Flaws

My opponent agrees that the device cannot be concealed and thus humiliating to its wearer. Rather than giving up this idea in search of a better solution or even modifying this device to avoid this problem, my opponent accepts the problem and indirectly claims that the problem can serve as a good one. His only justification to this claim, is that it will encourage the wearer to loose wait. What is the problem with this statement? The fact is that going through with this design, and deliberately humiliating thousands if not millions of people so you can "help" them; is going against there personal freedom. What will happen to our already stretched free will, if we force people to change there life style, or be humiliated in public. Affirming this resolution, is affirming a totalitarian form of government in which the government can tell us what to wear, what to eat, what WEIGHT is acceptable, and most importantly, what we should believe in. If these people truly wish to loose weight, then he or she should do it on his or her time and personal liberty.

Discrimination

My opponent claimed that discrimination in pubs and bars are widespread. He then goes on in naming not one, but several forms of discrimination practiced today. Lets now go through some of his so-called discrimination and how the idea of viewing it as discrimination is flawed. 1)"people who choose to light up cigarettes are ejected,"---> This is hardly discrimination. Upon visiting the pub or bar, the individual agrees to the pubs/ bars policy of no smoking in the interior of the building. This is not directed at a specific group, but the entirety of the population that comes into the pub and or bar. 2)"young people suspected of being underage are ejected"---> Young people who are suspected of being underage are not immediately ejected. They are asked of there ID and if indeed they are too young, they are then asked to leave. This is not discrimination as the pub and bar are just following the law. It is illegal to acquire alcoholic behavior when you are underage. Unless being obese is now illegal, this analogy cannot be made. 3)"alcoholics who are drunk and disorderly are ejected from the premises"--->This is not discrimination in any way. These alcoholics where only ejected as they were a THREAT to both themselves and others. To protect and maintain the right of the other customers within the establishment.

Ones again, my opponent claims that obese people release far more flatulence than normal people; however he provides no evidence to support this fallacious claim.

Safety
My opponent recognizes the danger that comes with this product; however, he provides a rather vague solution. His solution being that these people acquire "public liability insurance and normal people should give obese people in pubs a wide berth." Is being so fat really that disgusting that you will put both the life of this person and the life of innocent people at risk? to the solution, customer liability is no guarantee what so ever that these people might not get hurt. To the second solution, there is no way that people will provide enough space in a crowed pub to the point of absolute protection from this device.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
brian_egglestonwierdmanTied
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: conservativepolitico summed it up pretty well...
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
brian_egglestonwierdmanTied
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: lol this debate was hilarious but Con proved that Pro's suggestion is dangerous and degrading (even if that's part of the appeal aha). In the end I found myself saying that this should not be implemented.