The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

We should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 33986
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

There you are, sitting in your brand new deck chair with your robotic pet when all of a sudden this whale of a humanoid starts waddling along in a bikini that's three billion sizes too small. That's put you off food for a few years.

You wish you could get that chocolate-chasing boulder of blubber would get out of the way, because now you've forgotten what the sun even looks like. Is it square? Is it purple? Is it visibly in motion? You don't know. This crisp-crunching menace is blocking your view and has been doing said thing for about three years, because chocolate-chasers move about as fast as a dead tortoise.

In all that time you have to think, you get a great scientific and sophisticated idea! "Why not modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink?" You think to yourself. That would make everyone's life more pleasent.

So that's what I'd like to debate today, whether we should modify beaches to make the sand lower in density so that the obese sink. I wish for a good debate.

I thank you.
Raisor

Con

I apologize in advance for this debate; I have nothing against fat people, some of my best friends are fat.

Contention 1

Making sand less dense will not cause people to sink.

The density of sand is irrelevant to its ability to support obese humanoids. A typical engineering value for dry sand would be a density of about 100-135 pounds per cubic foot [1]. We can then calculate that if the capacity of sand to support humanoids was based on buoyancy, a 300 pound fatty mcgoo would displace 300 lbs/(135 pcf)=2.22 cubic feet.

Human body fat has a density of about 0.9 kg per liter [2], or roughly the density of water (62.4 pcf). Thus a 300 pound calorie converter has a volume of approximately 300 lbs/(62.4 pcf)=4.8 cubic feet. We know that fatties walking on sand do not become half submerged, thus it is clear that sand does not support goo monsters through buoyancy.

Sand is a solid state material which does not flow, so density is not the crucial parameter in its ability to carry load.
The actual physics behind the behavior of sand and soils is quite complex, but the short story is that the shear strength, and thus the bearing capacity of the sand, is impacted by a number of factors and simply making sand less dense will not solve the problem of fat people.

Contention 2


Pro offers an incredibly obtuse solution to a very simple problem. Pro would have us invest massive amounts of resources into creating a device which would make sand less dense and then undergo the huge effort of using such a device on all the world’s beaches. Such a plan is clearly inane and unrealistic.

The more obvious solution would be to create a device which would make fat people less dense so they float away off the beaches like so many cheeto-dust covered balloons.

This preserves the natural order of the world- the bronzed and beautiful get ham-beast free beaches while the fatties stay in their basements or risk floating into orbit like the fleshy planets they are.

Contention 3

Letting fat people sink to the bottom of beaches would ruin our beaches. The fat people would die, decompose, and then explode like a beached whale- spewing half-digested slim jims and squid parts all over everyone on the beach.[3]

[1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Crazy Con says: Making sand less dense will not cause people to sink. The density of sand is irrelevant to its ability to support obese humanoids. A typical engineering value for dry sand would be a density of about 100-135 pounds per cubic foot [1]. We can then calculate that if the capacity of sand to support humanoids was based on buoyancy, a 300 pound fatty mcgoo would displace 300 lbs/(135 pcf)=2.22 cubic feet. Human body fat has a density of about 0.9 kg per liter [2], or roughly the density of water (62.4 pcf). Thus a 300 pound calorie converter has a volume of approximately 300 lbs/(62.4 pcf)=4.8 cubic feet. We know that fatties walking on sand do not become half submerged, thus it is clear that sand does not support goo monsters through buoyancy. Sand is a solid state material which does not flow, so density is not the crucial parameter in its ability to carry load. The actual physics behind the behavior of sand and soils is quite complex, but the short story is that the shear strength, and thus the bearing capacity of the sand, is impacted by a number of factors and simply making sand less dense will not solve the problem of fat people.

That's where my backup plan comes in. As well as putting my plan into action, put fast food underneath the sand so that the obese's fattening-food senses tingle and they uncontrollably sink to the bottom of the sand at an unimaginably quick pace, as explained in this diagram. This would work for sure.

Diagram of what occurs when fattening-food senses tingle.
Crazy con says: Pro offers an incredibly obtuse solution to a very simple problem. Pro would have us invest massive amounts of resources into creating a device which would make sand less dense and then undergo the huge effort of using such a device on all the world’s beaches. Such a plan is clearly inane and unrealistic. The more obvious solution would be to create a device which would make fat people less dense so they float away off the beaches like so many cheeto-dust covered balloons. This preserves the natural order of the world- the bronzed and beautiful get ham-beast free beaches while the fatties stay in their basements or risk floating into orbit like the fleshy planets they are.

But we need a solution that works as quick as possible and is possible, no matter what we have to resort to in order to do it. Now, beaches are normally quite long, and it takes years for a burger-bellied waddler to shove his bottom to a point that's one millimeter away.We need speed, and that's what my plan provides.

Crazy con says: Letting fat people sink to the bottom of beaches would ruin our beaches. The fat people would die, decompose, and then explode like a beached whale- spewing half-digested slim jims and squid parts all over everyone on the beach.[3]

This is all part of my brilliant plan. When fatty explodes, fast food for all! Hurrah! Goodbye, world hunger!

Moreover, the obese are a health hazard anyway, picture the scenario I asked you to picture at the start of my first round. With that gargantuan-boned elephant there, I could die or get harmed in the following ways (in descending order of likeliness):
- Fatty falls over, crushing poor old me.
- Fatty's legs give up and so fatty crushes poor old me.
- Fatty gets in my way so I can't get anything to eat and die of hunger.
- Fatty gets in the way of daylight, so I turn into a rotten potato.
- Fatty spontaeneously combusts and so causes me to combust and I die.
- Fatty's legs go walkies and kick me to death.

I thank you.
Raisor

Con

Pro concedes my Contention 1, that making sand less dense will not cause fat people to sink.

Pro does not dispute that it would be incredibly time consuming to convert all the world’s beaches into low density sand. It would also be very time consuming to bury fast food under all the world’s beaches. A much better solution is to shoot fatties with some sort of density altering ray gun so that they float away into outer space. This solution solves all of Pro’s problems and keeps are beaches free of exploded human meat.

Pro claims exploding fat people will cause it to rain fast food. This will just tempt the bronze Adonii of the beaches into eating French fries and becoming fat themselves. Not only will Pro’s plan ruin beaches by covering them in half digested McDonalds, it will ruin the beautiful people who belong on beaches by making them exceedingly rotund.
We ought not pursue Pro’s silly plan, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
KingDebaterRaisorTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: "Not only will Pro?s plan ruin beaches by covering them in half digested McDonalds, it will ruin the beautiful people who belong on beaches by making them exceedingly rotund."- that sold the debate really
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
KingDebaterRaisorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Daktoria Pro dropped nearly all of Con's argument and didnt even argue the important part.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
KingDebaterRaisorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly understands the aesthetic ugliness of fat people walking on beaches. Con does not. Instead, con reduces this to a scientific debate without any appreciation of the arts. The debate is not about whether the proposal is plausible. The debate is about whether the proposal is proper. Also, Pro has superior drawing skills. Con's scientific sources are meaningless. Lastly, Pro understands the value of how bad taste attracts bad taste. The fast food solution appreciates living an aesthetically refined lifestyle that fat people don't appreciate and deserve to be punished for.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
KingDebaterRaisorTied
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: Arguments go to Con because he successfully refuted the main point of the debate (density). Pro admitted to this, and instead of trying to defend it, he started talking about his backup plan, which is not relevant to the debate. Sources go to Con for having sources. Obviously.