The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

There should be a minimum weight for runway models.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,658 times Debate No: 18724
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (7)

 

thett3

Pro

This is for Dninjas tournament, he's asked me to fill in for Grape.

A runway model shall be defined as a fashion model. If my opponent has a better definition I would ask him to specify it in the comments.

Please, no semantics. Minimum weight refers to body weight, nothing else.

Good luck!
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I thank Thett3 for this challenge. Accept the definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

I would prefer to use the original definition.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to discuss an extremely important issue. One that directly or indirectly relates to incredibly important issues such as world hunger, sexual deviance, public health, and (yes, really) U.S. hegemony and nuclear war. The issue we're discussing: should here be a minimum body weight for runway models? I believe the answer is yes, and hopefully I can convince you into my line of thinking.

C1. A minimum body weight discourages obesity

Obesity is a major problem in the developed world. Indeed, the United States in particular suffers from this, with over 1/3rd of its adult population being obese[1]. Creating a minimum body weight for models sends a powerful message that obesity is no longer acceptable. This will show the obese that they are by no means accepted among our most beautiful people, which will lead them to, in an attempt to be beautiful, exercise and lower the amount of obese people. The psychological principle of conformity tells us that once one person/institution does something, others are far more likely to follow. By restricting the weight of models, we open up the doors to allow for other instituions to follow the same path. This would logically lead to the obese feeling ostricized and zealously work towards reducing their obesity. The effects of this could be monumental. I'll explain a few.

(i) Decline in world hunger

With less obese people, more food could be sent to developing nations becuse the obese will both eat less, and feel a need to do something else other than sit and watch T.V. When the worldwide demand for food declines, the law of supply and demand dictates that the price will go down. Therefore, charitable organizations can buy more food with their strectched budgets, thus saving more lives and helping more people. Also, the spurt of activity following a decline in obesity will help this. People who aren't obese will feel a need to do something productive, and perhaps will invest in a donation to a charity instead of a new reclining chair or television.

(ii) U.S. hegemony will increase

Obesity obviously hinders health. When 1/3rd of the members of a country is obese and likely can't run a mile without getting a heart attack, how can that country expect to remain successful on the battlefield? Although much of the modern battlefield involves technology and marksmanship physical strength is still very important. So if the U.S. has a huge percentage of its population unfit for military service, how can iit be expected to remain the military hegemon? Imagine how differently we would've fared in the second world war if 1/3rd+ of potential recruits were unfit to serve? Furthermore, the U.S. is consistently mocked for its obesity. Destroying this perception would increase our credibility in the international community. Even if the minimum body weight rule didnt actually effect obesity in the U.S., our hegemony would still be increased because nations will respect our obesity fighting efforts. U.S. hegemony allows us to project our power more effectively, and use our military muscle to discourage nuclear proliferation by hostile powers. Our ability to do these things could save literally millions of lives.

(iii) The economy will be stimulated

With more people trying to lose weight, more people will buy things such as exercise equipment, sports equipment, gym memberships, ect. This could stimulate our economy greatly. At the absolute minimum these positive effects will take place among potential models who need to lose weight.

C2. Sexual Deviance is discouraged by a weight limit

Morality is the fiber that binds our society together. Since the vast majority of people do not find excess body weight an attractive feature, those that do are likely deviants with a sexual fetish for obesity. Creating a minimum body weight for models gives a firm message to them that their lust for fat people is unacceptable. This will result in more of them turning to religion, or going to a therapist to solve their sexual frustrations rather than acting on them. Less sex means less STDs, less unwanted pregnancies, and more time spent doing productive things. This could save lives.

C3. Public health increase

Models are, in general, very beautiful. Most people admire beauty, so when there is a minimum body weight, some of our most beautiful people who would have previously been outright rejected will now turn to reducing their weight to meet their dream of modeling. Hearing insiring success stories like this will encourage people to eat right and exercise, so public health will increase. At the very least the health of potential models will increase.

C4. Defends our perspective of beauty

At one point in human history, being fat was considered attractive. We must not allow that to happen again. I will link he readers to this, a picture of Catherine the Great, considered highly attractive for her time: http://www.nndb.com...

Here's a pic of a modern day attractive woman, Rosie huntington-whitley (new girl in the transformers movies)


http://www.modelinia.com...

Surely we can all detect a difference. Thus, to defend our perception of beauty you must affirm.

Thank you.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

To those who are still unaware, the resolution says minimum weight but Pro argued why there should be a maximum weight. Pro and I agreed to change the resolution in the comments section. The new resolution is:

Resolution: There should be a MAXIMUM weight for runway models.

Some clarifications: Weight by itself does not constitute obesity. Not wanting to take advantage of semantics, I will assume that Pro is talking about Body Mass Index (BMI) which is a far more accurate indicator of obesity (this was confirmed in a PM). Since he provided no suggestion as to what the maximum weight will be, I will assume that the intended cap will be at a BMI of 25 (also confirmed via PM). People with a BMI above 25 are considered overweight and over 30 is considered obese [2].

Unless Pro contests this, I will assume that most models are of normal weight or underweight with a few models being overweight or obese. It is common sense and a reasonable assumption but Pro is of course free to contest this.

I am arguing for the position that people with the BMI of over 25 should not be automatically disqualified from launching a career as a runway model.


I have 3 arguments to make after which I will adress Pro's 4 contentions.

ARGUMENTS

Before we consider whether a maximum weight needs to be imposed on models, we must first ask what the purpose of runway models is, and whether putting a cap on the maximum BMI will further that goal.

Purpose: Runway models showcase clothes from fashion designers, fashion media, and consumers [1].


C1) Imposing a maximum weight destroys business

Pro says 1/3 of Americans are obese. If you add in the overweight, the number goes up to 3/4 of Americans[3]. Putting a weight limit on models would also limit the size of clothes that the business can sell. Overweight and obese people have their own styles of how they wear their clothes such as wearing solid colors and horizontal stripes. The primary purpose is to make them look thinner. Obese and overweight people do not necessarily wear the same types of clothes as a person of normal weight or underweight. Models who are heavier may be required in order to advertise this type of clothing. A total lack of overweight models will lose this segment of the market.


C2) Discrimination is not good for HR and PR

If the fashion industry does not automatically exclude overweight models, they have a choice of choosing who would best represent their clothing, ending up with many underweight and normal weight models and a few overweight. Automatically excluding overweight models will create a media backlash, boycotts, as well as legal problems which would further decrease the profits.


C3) Will create self-esteem issues and depression

As for public health, it will create more problems than it solves. I am assuming we are talking about female models from Pro's pictures. Let's look at the demographics that will want to be like them: High school girls and college aged women. Both demographics are prone to anorexia, and other weight disorders. They are already under tremendous pressure to fit in at school and college. When they see size zero models displaying clothes that they want to buy, they will want to be like them. Putting in a weight cap increases the insecurity. The extremely overweight won't even bother trying.



REBUTTALS

R1. A maximum body weight discourages obesity

Pro suggests ostracizing the obese, which he suggests will lead to people losing weight. Fat chance (pun intended). This would more likely lead to the fatties grabbing their pitchforks and filing a lawsuit in court.


(i) Decline in world hunger

Pro says there will be excess food because the obese will eat less. But, when demand decreases, supply will decrease as well. This stifles the economy which also negates Pro's contention about the economy. Why does Pro assume that food will continue to be manufactured to be sent to the developing countries? Does he consider corporate America to be one giant charitable organization? Excess food will also be thrown away so as to not reduce it's price.


(ii) U.S. hegemony will increase
More likely than not, it is not the obese 1/3 but the remaining 2/3 who serve in the military. The US is currently the most powerful military in the world. There are plenty of fit people who serve. Decreasing obesity in the US won't increase the strength of the military unless Pro is assuming that the entire country should sign up for military service. With the current technology, this is unnecessary.


(iii) The economy will be stimulated

Pro assumes that the economy will be stimulated because more people will buy exercise equipment because they want to lose weight. Under this assumption, however, they would also have to reduce their indulgence in fast food as well as eating out in restaurants. The biggest fast food chains such as McDonalds are notorious for serving unhealthy food. If people stop eating fast food, the fast food industry will fail. The fast food industry is much bigger at nearly $150 billion [4] than the gym and exercise equipment industry, therefore this will actually result in a net economic loss. Another thing to consider is that there is no guarantee people will spend on exercise equipment and may choose to exercise at home or go for a jog.

This shows that the economy is far too complex to be stimulated by a single industry. A stimulation in one industry may lead to the loss of another.


R2. Sexual Deviance is discouraged by a weight limit

Pro says that those who find "excess body weight" attractive are sexual "deviants." The reasoning he gives is that the vast majority of people don't. Why is being in the minority considered deviance? Many people have their own preferences for a partner. Those in the minority cannot be considered deviants just because they are in the minority.

Pro assumes that they will go to a therapist. How can he guarantee this? They might watch porn involving fatter people instead of runway models. This again will lead to a loss of business of the clothing manfacturer. Even if they do go to a therapist, it will still lead to a loss of business as these people are no longer watching fashion shows so attendance and television viewership will decline. The purpose of runway models is to gain customers and make a profit, not to lose them.

Why should the fashion industry give a part of their business to the porn industry? (or to therapists)


R3. Public health increase

People who have the best chance of making it as a model are those who are already thin. They would likely develop an eating disorder and try to be even thinner. So, an imposition of maximum weight might actually do more harm than good. The obese people have already given up on trying to be thin. What do they care if a maximum weight was imposed on runway models? It is highly unlikely that they have a secret dream to be a model since overweight models are rare. What does happen is after the overweight models get fired, the overweight people will have more trouble finding clothes and the business that imposed the max weight will lose its customers.


C4. Defends our perspective of beauty

Why must our "perspective" of beauty be defended? "Perspectives" change with the times. If the ancient people insisted on defending their perspective of beauty and succeded, we would still have people like Catherine the great considered beautiful. Would Con consider that a desirable scenario? That is what would have happened if people were able to successfully defend their "perspective" of beauty.


Conclusion
The purpose of a model is to sell clothes. The imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal. None of the benefits that Pro mentioned help sell clothes or increase profits.


Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(person)#Runway_modelling
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.forbes.com...
[4] http://daniel-workman.suite101.com...

Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

Everyone please give f16 the conduct vote for not screwing me over.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal

Destroys business

My Opponent argues that imposing a limit on the size of models limits the size of the clothes businesses can sell. This is false, because there is already a de facto weight limit on models. Do you see any obese models, or obese hooters girls? No. Yet factories still produce clothes for the obese and overweight. Con argues "models who are heavier may be required in order to advertise this type of clothing" my response: why? After all, he even states that the purpose is to make them look skinny, so wouldnt it be even more effective to avertise using SKINNY people? The ideal that the obese wish to be like? Of course it would be, which is why there are few if any over weight models. Also notice his use of "may", so he is trying to avoid hving to defend this argument, which speaks volumes of how shaky it is.

Furthermore, consider the impacts. My case reduces world hunger and deters nuclear war, and possible extinction. Even if we give con his impact mine masively outweighs.

Discrimination bad

Con argues that media backlashes and boycotts may occur. Ok, what impact has he argued? The answer is none. Besides, he hasn't shown why those things prove that the weight limit is bad. The end of racial segregation led to widesread protests in the south, but that doesnt prove that civil rights advances are bad. He further argues that it would create legal problems, but he hasnt explained how. Besides this "impact" is absolutely and incredibly outweighed.

Self esteem and depression

Sadly, we live in a cold and cruel world. Already young women are consistently rejected for modeling jobs because they dont meet the interests of the modeling company. We live in a world of reality, not equality. The sad truth is that most people are not attrcted to the overweight, and models must be attractive to sell their products. Con argues that with a weight limit " The extremely overweight won't even bother trying." This is a good thing! They can justify to themselves that the reason they dont try to be a model is because they dont want to (although their subconcious knows that they are too over weight to make it) as opposed to the status quo, where the bitterness and sadness from rejection happens first hand. Con argued that anorexia may increase, but not only do the health benefits given by my side outweigh, but as I've previously stated there is already a de facto weight limit! So his advantage doesn't apply.

Defense

Discourages obesity

My Opponent rebuts this point by bringing in an epic and inspiring pun, however he hasn't disputed mmy logic from the previous round. This is highlly significant, and I hereby extend it to this round.

Here's what I said:

" Creating a minimum body weight for models sends a powerful message that obesity is no longer acceptable. This will show the obese that they are by no means accepted among our most beautiful people, which will lead them to, in an attempt to be beautiful, exercise and lower the amount of obese people. The psychological principle of conformity tells us that once one person/institution does something, others are far more likely to follow. "

Extend.

(i) World hunger

My Opponent argues that a decrease in demand will lead to a decrease in supply. This may be true long term, but the short term would have around the same supply. Think of it this way, if a farmer has 250 acres of food that he's growing that have always been bought, and the demand decreases by 5%, do you think he would really bother with only growing 237 acres now? No, that would be silly. Nowhere was it argued that the decrease in demand would be very significant, bu any decrease in demand can decrease the price and gve charities more leeway to stretch their strained budgets. Also, he's dropped the logic that this would encourage the obese to get up and do something producctive, so extend that. We are saving lives here, no sob story of how its unfair to "discriminate" can outweigh that.

(ii) US heg.

Con argued that those who serve in the military are the 2/3rds not obese. No doubt, but my point was that A) The obesity causes ptential recruits to be unfit to join up, and B) if we continue this slippery slope, than the military will have no choice but to lower their physical standards, or there will be no one left to serve. (his own source claims that 3/4ths are overweight)

(iii) Economic stimulation

Con makes a pretty good response to this. However he claims that the fast food industry would FAIL...this is very unlikely to happen. It might experience a slight decline, but the increase in sales of exercise equipment, gym memberships, health foods, dietary suppllements, hiring of aids to help with diets, visiting healthy fast food resturants like subway, and the monumental effects of the obese doing productive, non-television watching activities economically outweighs this.

Sexual deviance

Con tries to dispute the sexual deviance of those who lust after the obese, asking "Why is being in the minority considered deviance?" because, sexual deviance is defined as[1] "

a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her. A paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme"

Thus, by definition those who lust after the obese are deviants. It might be objected that lusting after the obese might not cause problems, but you could get crushed under the weight of your sexual partner if they are obese.

" Pro assumes that they will go to a therapist. How can he guarantee this?" I cant guarantee anything, but its a lot more logical to think that a societal rejection of obesity would lead to them recognizing their problem.

Public health

"People who have the best chance of making it as a model are those who are already thin." You can vote Pro. This shows that all the negative disadvantages he argues are rare occurences. He never argues against my lgoic, he only states that people starving themselves to become models will outweigh. But consider agian that there is already a de facto weight limit (which he's essentially conceded to) so this disadvantages applies to th status quo (his plan) as well, where as the rejection of obesity specified by MY plan isn't present in his. Thus mine outweighs.

Beauty

Of course perspectives change, but many people believe our culture to be the pinnacle of society, so a change in our perspective would be a bad change. Still consider the two pictures I linked, do you really want to see catherine the great walking down the runay modeling a dress or blouse, or even worse (God forbid) a mini skirt? I wouldnt. Sio unless you want these things, you must affirm.


Thank you!

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I am going to start off by saying that the purpose of Runway-models is to sell clothes. Nothing that my opponent mentioned furthers this goal. His entire case needs to be thrown out because he does not address or refute this definition, neither does he show how imposing a maximum weight helps the purpose of runway-models by selling more clothes.


ARGUMENTS



C1) Destroys business

Pro's argument here is that skinny models can be used to advertise clothing to the overweight and the obese. He paraphrases my argument as
"After all, he even states that the purpose is to make them look skinny,"

and then asks:
so wouldnt it be even more effective to avertise using SKINNY people?
"

The problem with this is that clothing for the obese is designed to make an obese person look skinny. The only way this can be advertised is to try it on an obese person and show them off, maybe show them in the competitor's clothing as well, displaying to all how the company's clothing makes a fat person look skinny. It would certainly not make more sense to advertise using skinny people as the objective is to show that fat people can look skinny, not that skinny people can look skinny. So, if the organization removes the fat models, they would have no one on whom to showcase the clothes that they designed for the obese 1/3 of the population. This is what will destroy business.

Pro also says that there already is a de-facto weight limit. I made a reasonable assumption that most models are underweight or normal weight with few being overweight or obese. If Pro is going to contest my assumption, he may say so in the next round. If I am then able to show that there is at least one model who is overweight or obese, Pro's argument about de-facto limit does not stand.


C2) Discrimination bad

"Con argues that media backlashes and boycotts may occur. Ok, what impact has he argued?"

The reputation of the company will tank. This ties back to my first point. A bad reputation decreases sales of clothing which is what the purpose of runway models is.


"He further argues that it would create legal problems, but he hasnt explained how."

I have explained this. The models who were fired or not hired because of weight will file a lawsuit against the company. Lawsuits waste money for the company which again decreases business.


"Besides this "impact" is absolutely and incredibly outweighed."

If the purpose of runway models was to prevent nuclear warfare, then yes it is outweighed, lol. Runway models are supposed to sell clothes, not increase military strength or protect humanity from Weapons of Mass Destruction.


C3) Self esteem and depression

See my rebuttal R3 below.



REBUTTALS

R1) Discourages obesity

Pro simply repeats what he said before. He says that because of confirmity, when one institution does something, the others will follow. Because everyone is now ostracizing obese people, they will be motivated to get thinner. I say again: Fat chance. When any group of people are ostracised such as Black people, White people, Asian people, men, women, disabled people, old people, etc, their best and most likely action would be to take that discrimination to the courts and file a lawsuit. Pro is unrealistically optimistic when he assumes that not only will no lawsuits be filed, but that ostracism is a good and beneficial thing that will help the obese lose weight. Ostracism will create psychological problems and will cause more harm than good.


(i) World hunger

Pro concedes that in the long term, supply will decrease as demand decreases. His argument is based on short-term increases in supply which is outweighed by my point that in the long-term there will be a detriment. Pro wants a short, fleeting increase in supply. How would that do any good?

Pro also argues that even a little saving would be beneficial if given to charities, but never explains why the food companies would give to charity as opposed to throwing the food away. Either way, this is just for the short-term. In any case, the purpose of a runway-model is not to solve world hunger.


(ii) US heg.

Pro argued that more people will become obese and it will decrease the number of potential recruits. There are about 1.5 million active personnel and 1.5 million reserve personnel in the military. Total US population is about 300 million. So the percentage of people serving in the military is 1%. Only the fittest can be selected to serve in the military. The effect to the military is negligible. In any case, the goal of a runway model is not to provide potential recruits to the military so this point has no impact.


(iii) Economic stimulation

I showed that the economy is too complex for a single industry to affect it. He says that gym memberships, health foods etc will be purchased more. However, television viewership will decline and may result in lower prices for broadcast and cable television in addition to the decline in the fast food industry. For every upside, there is a downside. The economy could go either way, and Pro gave no conclusive proof that it will in fact stimulate the economy.


R2) Sexual deviance

Pro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give a part of their profits to the porn industry. The purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, increase viewership, and expand the business, not to stamp out what Pro calls "sexual deviance."

"you could get crushed under the weight of your sexual partner if they are obese."

This is not true. Muscle is a lot heavier than fat. Most obese people are comprised entirely of fat and as such would have a lower body density than a person of normal weight. Compared to a leaner person, the obese are like big, fluffy puffballs filled with cotton candy, and as such have no capability to crush their partner in bed.


R3) Public health

"Most people admire beauty, so when there is a minimum body weight, some of our most beautiful people who would have previously been outright rejected will now turn to reducing their weight to meet their dream of modeling."

Pro saying that there already exists a de-facto limit negates this entire argument. he said that it negates my argument because people will try to be thin regardless of whether a limit is imposed. If that statement is true, then what is the point of imposing a limit? His arguments are negated as well. At this point the only arguments that still stand are my points about decreased profits, legal problems and low sales.


R4) Beauty

Pro just claims that "many people" believe our culture to be the pinnacle of society. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy, so throw out this point right away.

Pro again says that he would prefer that he would rather see a modern day model than Catherine the Great in a miniskirt. This fails to answer my question: If people during Catherine's time were successful in defending their perspective of beauty, she would still have been considered beautiful now, which Pro does not consider a desirable scenario.


Conclusion
While I have humored my opponent by engaging with all his arguments, in reality, they are null and void. He never contested my definition that the purpose of runway-models is to sell clothes, not solve world hunger or prevent nuclear warfare. So, throw out his entire case and vote Con.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

Thanks f16.

Runway models

My Opponent has argued that since I dont further the goal of "selling clothes" that my arguments need to be ignored. The problem is that

A. My arguments have monumental benefits to society; just because a models purpose isn't to prevent nuclear war, if we can use them to prevent it then we're obligated to do so. We need to consider the impacts of each argument made by the debaters. Furthermore, dropped or un-refuted arguments need to be taken as matters of facts. It doesnt matter if you think the weight limit will lower the chance of nuclear war, if I can show the argument to remain valid for this round you have to weigh it as such.

B. In my world, models are still modeling and selling clothes, we just have thinner and more attractive models. Now consider my opponents world, where the obscenely obese are permitted to model. What better way to discredit the modeling profession than to destroy its glory? So in actuality, you can see that it's my opponent who isn't furthering the goal of selling clothes.

With that in mind, I urge you to read my attacks on his arguments, and the defense of mine.

Destorys business

F16 argues that some clothes are made to make the obese look thin, so they buy these clothes. I have a few responses to it.

1. The obese will be more enticed to buy clothing advertised by a thin model than an obese one. My Oppoent never attacks my logic on this, he merely asserts it to be false, without any empirical evidence. Granted, I have not given any either, but lets consider the logic behind these points. If an obese person wishes to look thinner, would they be more likely to buy clothing advertised by a THIN person, or an OBESE person? Think about it. You'll come to the same concusion I have.

2. He hasn't established how he outweighs. How much would business be harmed? How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity? These are things we hasn't done, and so we can't consider this argument valid.

3. A lot of what he says doesn't stand up under scrutiny. For example: " It would certainly not make more sense to advertise using skinny people as the objective is to show that fat people can look skinny" What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not? They wouldnt.

4. Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh.

Finally, he attacks the idea of a de-facto weight limit, and argues that this destroys the impact of my case. Sadly, this misses the point. My impacts stand because A. The weight limit can lead to a societal rejection of obesity (something he hasn't disputed) which keeps the impacts, and B. The impacts stand because a potential model will work much harder to get thin if they KNOW that they can't make it under their current weight, as opposed to just believing it to be so. He argues that if he can show even one coutner-example than the argument falls, but the problem is that this doesnt challenge the general idea. Sure there are exceptions, so what? The fact that he wants to shows ONE counter-example is telling, because it minimalizes the advantages of his case. Recall that many of my advantages come from societal change (supported by the conformiity prinicple).

Discrimination

Con confuses discrimination with an organizations constitutional right to exclude people from membership. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in BSA vs. Dale[1] that private organizations can exclude people from membership. His lawsuit argument falls very quickly. The fact that someone like me with no legal training can show this to be in their constitutional rights shows how quickly the lawsuits would be dismissed. The judge would laugh in the face of those suing.

He further argues that the "reputation of the company will tank" Why, and who cares? He hasn't told us how to weigh this argument, so we need to ignore it. Besides, no one wants their company to be associated with the obese, why do you think McDonalds never shows the obese on their commercials? Companies taking a stand and banning obesity would allow others to follow in their stead.

The purpose of models is not to prevent nuclear war, however; if we CAN use them to prevent them than our moral obligation demands us to do so.

Self esteem

He drops my responses, extend them.

My case

Obesity discouraged

Pro argues "When any group of people are ostracised ... their best and most likely action would be to take that discrimination to the courts and file a lawsuit. " However his lawsuit argument has already been refuted. Besides the resolution states what SHOULD be, not nessecarily what is likely.

Showing the obese that their condition is no longer considered acceptable will motivate them. It's not like being obese is like being black. Negros cant help their skin color, so obviously ostracism is bad in that case. But with the obese who, save for a few, all gained their condition by negligence and laziness it's ok. Obesity can be fixed, so we need to discourage it.

(i) world hunger

It's argued that I've conceded to the idea of long term damage to the food supply. No, all I did was admit that my advantage is short term (but still very much there). His point cant be considered in this round. Sure, the supply would eventually decrease with the demand, but that doesnt INCREASe world hunger. His disadvantage simply is not there. A sudden drop in demand WOULD decrease price and increase supply, that's an economic law. Cheaper food allows for charitys to buy more (a fact he's dropped).

"In any case, the purpose of a runway-model is not to solve world hunger. " My response: Who cares? There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives.

(ii) Heg

Essentially dropped. Con himself even argues "Only the fittest can be selected to serve in the military." Turn: There would be more fit people in my world, and thus more eligible soldiers! It's tue that the demand for troops is a bit low right now, but with declining US status, tensions with China & Russia, and an over-reliance on a finite resourced (oil) WWIII could be right around our corner. When we need every young man pressed into service and every young women creating war supplies in the factories we'll deeply regret that 1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war.

Nuclear war impact is dropped and can be extended.

(iii) Economics

He makes a pretty valid argument that for all of the things increased, other things might decrease and the economic effects will be equal. However he has dropped my warrant that not being obese encourages people to actually do productive things the economy will be stimulated, and so that's a concession. That's enough of a reason to vote Pro right there.

Sexual Deviance

He drops the warrant that sexual deviance is defined as not normal (found in my definition), so that can be extended.

He drops his initial objection that "Pro assumes that they will go to a therapist. How can he guarantee this? They might watch porn involving fatter people instead of runway models." Thus it's dropped, and would be a rule violation for him to bring it up in his final round.

He argues that the obese cant harm people by being on top of them. Here's a woman who killed her boyfriend by siting on him[2]!

Health

Con misses the point here. A minimum body weight leads to a SOCIETAL REJECTION of obesity which leads to the obese fighting their malady. He has never disputed this logic, so it stands in this round. Ignore his objections that don't actually address the argument.

Beauty

"This is an appeal to popularity fallacy" Of course its an appeal to populrity, the majority is what decides whats considered beautiful in our society!

It doesnt matter if those who thought the obese were attractive were successful, their society is lower than ours on the evolutionary scale so we have to default to our perception

Thus, you affirm.


1. http://bitURL.net...
2. http://bitURL.net...

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

Purpose of Runway models

Pro doesn't actually address this until round 4 so I have no choice but to rebut it now. It is not to be considered a "new" argument. I have mentioned as early as round 2 that the purpose of a model is to sell clothes and that the imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal.

A) Pro brings up his assertion that if thin models can prevent nuclear warfare, then we should go with thinner models as the benefits of preventing nuclear warfare outweigh the harms of not selling clothes. The point that Pro misses are likelihood. The likelihood of models affecting nuclear war is negligible. The likelihood of them selling clothes is significant. For this reason the miniscule possible effects of nuclear war are in fact outweighed by the need to sell clothes. Besides I negated the point that it doesn't affect military strength. By extension, nuclear power is negated as well.

B) Pro says that the "glory" of the modelling profession is destroyed. However, the practical benfits of allowing fatter people to model outweigh any "glory" that might be destroyed. What is so "glorious" about allowing only thin people to model? Seems more like a mean girl clique rather than a glorious endeavor.



ARGUMENTS

C1) Destroys business

1. "If an obese person wishes to look thinner, would they be more likely to buy clothing advertised by a THIN person, or an OBESE person?"

This is just flat out wrong! Obese people will want to know that they can look thinner, not that thin people can look thin. The clothing manufacturer can easily put the obese in a generic or in a competitor's clothing for a 'before' picture and in their own clothing for an 'after' picture, to show how much thinner they can look by wearing their clothing. That is the goal when selling to obese people; to show them that they can look thinner.

Pro hasn't been able to negate this argument so it stands that lack of obese models will cause business to sink because it loses the obese 1/3 of the US population.


2. "How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity?"

I have already explained how ostracism causes more harm than good by causing psychological problems.


3. "What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not?"

Show the same person wearing a competitors clothing in a slideshow and show how this person now looks a lot thinner wearing that company's clothing.


4. "Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh."

No, it doesn't. The most important thing for the business is to sell clothes and make a profit, not to encourage people to pursue healthy lives. Should McDonalds remove its BigMacs and only sell Caesar salads in order to encourage people to live healthy? Everything that that business does must further the goal of making a profit. That is how businesses stay solvent and successful.


C2) Discrimination

Pro points out a case where the Supreme court allowed a private organization to deny membership to an individual. What Pro conveniently forgot to mention is that it was first taken to the New Jersey supreme court which actually ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against the organization. It was later taken to the US Supreme court. The legal fees required for a corporation to handle multiple lawsuits is very high. The obese will be lining up to take this company to court. Pro's assertion that the judge will laugh them out of court doesn't match his source which says that a lower court actually ruled against the corporation. It is a complicated issue and not one where a judge will laugh the plaintiffs out of court.


C3) Self-Esteem & R3) Health
Pointing out that it was adressed under a different heading is not a concession. It just means that Pro is supposed to read what is under that heading. I am going to combine my C3 with Pro's since they are essentially the same.

Pro says that a rejection of obesity encourages health. I argued that it will create more problems than it solves assuming there is no de-facto weight limit. It creates psychological problems of depression and suicide due to ostracism and health problems like bulimia and anorexia.

Pro says that my contention about Anorexia and other eating disorders is negated by the fact that there is already a de-facto limit. If Pro is correct in saying that there is in fact, a de-facto limit, then the benfits he gives about decreasing obesity are nullified as well because of this de-facto limit. At this point, the only contentions that stand are mine; the ones about destruction of business, lowered profits, declining consumer base, and legal problems that will arise as a result of descrimination. In fact Pro never adresses my point that a bad reputation will lead to even worse sales.

I conclude this point by saying: If there is no de-facto limit, the health problems of imposing a maximum weight will be just much as the health problems due to obesity. If there is a de-facto limit, then the benefits of imposing a limit are nullified.



REBUTTALS

R1) Obesity discouraged

Extend the lawsuit argument. People are not going to change just because some organization put a cap on the weight of models. If anything, they would take it up in court.

(i) World Hunger

Pro admits that his advantage is a fleeting short-term, one-time advantage. This is the same as admitting that there is no long term advantage because I brought that point up and Pro didn't adress it.

"There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives."

Actually that is not true. The purpose of any business is to stay solvent and make a profit. The interests of the business come before charity. You can't give what you don't have.

(ii) Hegemony

"1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war"

1% of the population serves in the military counting both active and reserve personnel and is the most powerful military in the world. The health of the fattest 1/3 of the population is irrelevant to military.

Nuclear war impact is negligible. Pro doesn't really argue this point. he just throws it out there saying that a more powerful US military will decrease nuclear proliferation. When I proved that the power of the US military is unaffected, the point about nuclear proliferation has been negated as well.

(iii) Economics

Pro basically conceded that the economy is too complex. He drops all my arguments and simply repeats what I already refuted in round 3.

R2) Sexual Deviance

Pro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give their profits to the porn industry. Runway-models are supposed to sell clothes, not root out "sexual deviance." This point is irrelevant and Pro never even explains why being in the minority is a bad thing. He calls it "deviance" and says that "deviance" is bad. But if he defines "deviance" simply as being in the minority, then why must it be rooted out?


R4) Beauty

"It doesnt matter if those who thought the obese were attractive were successful, their society is lower than ours on the evolutionary scale so we have to default to our perception."

Just an opinion. No facts to back it up. No logical analysis as to why such an opinion is correct. He never answers the questions: If the ancient people were successful in defending their perception of beauty, wouldn't fat people be considered beautiful today? Why must our perception of beauty be defended?


Conclusion

Every single one of Con's points rely on highly unlikely scenarios that runway models have a miniscule chance of affecting such as military recruitment, nuclear warfare, and US Hegemony. My points directly address the goal of runway models: to sell clothes. His points about positive health effects are balanced by my negative health effects if no de-facto limit exists, and are nullified if a de-facto limit does exist. At this point, you can vote off of my contention that imposing a maximum weight reduces sales and therefore it should not be done.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
WillYouMarryMe
LMAO nac
Posted by Glax 3 years ago
Glax
I think that their should be a minimum weight because not all women focus on their size their whole lives and try to look like models. When a young girl sees a model, she instantly wants to be like them when she grows up. But it you're showing these little girls tiny models, then they'll want to be like that and might develop eating and weight problems in life. No one wants to see a stick thin, and unhealthy women walking down the runway.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
I can see why there should be a minimum weight for runways, but I don't see how it would be enforced or even measured. After all, many runways are dirt; how much of the ground would you weigh?

Runway MODELS, though; most of those are foamboard or light plastic, and I can't see a minimum weight helping there. Of course, the only ones affected by that rule would be airport designers, and they are a very small special interest group indeed; even if it turns out to be a bad rule, it is unlikely that the rest of us would hear about it.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Thanks Mes and Void. That makes sense. Sometimes the best way to counter an outrageous argument is to make another one in response. I tried to see if I could be funny but couldn't match Thett3, so I settled for refuting his arguments seriously.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
What he said...
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
In other words, by using runway models to fix obesity, you are treating the obese as problems that need to be fixed rather than individuals in and of themselves.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
This is going to be short because of time but basically dehumanization is an argument that by excluding these groups from societal activities we feel that they are worth less to society than those who can participate and thus we are rejecting out commonality through human nature by degrading their status in terms of our social perspectives. That was a terrible explanation and it will be explained thoroughly later.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Blackvoid's right. I'd like to hear about this.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Mestari F-16 didn't do debate in HS so you're going to have to explain what a dehumanization turn is.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
If I were F-16, I would have ran a dehumanization turn on Thett3 the moment he started talking about ostracizing the fat people... Reading now and voting soon.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con, as per instructions. Arguments by pro were weak and easily countered; con wins this point. Pro took several lines of reasoning to unjustified conclusions, and failed to back up several key assertions, especially the ones regarding the military. All other points tied.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made unlikely claims that required very good evidence to sustain --extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof-- yet he did not offer a single piece of supporting evidence. Incidentally, runway models are so emaciated they are not attractive. The idea is to sell clothing, so they serve as coat hangers.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: close but i gotta agree. anorexic models are a crime!
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - pro told me to vote con b/c of rez mistake. Arguments - Con's point about a de facto limit takes out all of pro's arguments. A de facto limit should constitute a societal rejection of obesity. So Con captures all of pro's offense, without the downsides of lawsuits and lost clothing sales.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I lol'd at this debate and the debaters, but I ultimately give the arguments point to CON, PRO's arguments that limiting the weights is beneficial to society, though humorous, is not that persuasive in my view, CON was clear and accurate in his refutations and argument that modeling is business. But personally, I rather see Rose Huntington-Whitley be obese than seeing Catherine the Great in a miniskirt.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
thett3F-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins on heg. Con would have won this debate if he refuted Pro's analysis that with increasing tensions we may need an increased military force. Con only refuted that in the squo the military = 1 of our population. It was a really fun debate to read.