The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

We should not have to live alongside sex offenders, drug addicts and the fat

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 9094
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




These days, many parents do not allow their kids to walk or cycle to school as they may have done themselves when they were teenagers. This is largely due to the risk, perceived or real, of their children coming into contact with any of the numerous paedophiles and drug pushers that now infest our neighbourhoods.

However, there is another category of undesirable people that kids would be very unlikely to encounter either walking or cycling to school: the fat. However, when they get to school, normal children are forced to mix with overweight children and, worse still, they are made to treat them with dignity and respect.

This is despite the fact that the unhealthy eating habits that lead to obesity are "contagious" and there is "a strong link between teenagers own weight and that of their closest peers."

As a society, we don't allow teenage drug addicts to be educated alongside regular students and we don't allow convicted paedophiles to become teachers, so why do we continue to put our kids in harms way by allowing fat children to attend the same schools as them?

Obviously, some people are overweight due to medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and Prada Willi syndrome, and these unfortunate people should not be considered part of the problem. However, the fact is that over 99% of the fat are overweight because they consume more calories than they expend, in other words they are gluttonous and lazy. This is their choice, just as drug addicts choose to snort cocaine or inject themselves with heroin.

Isn't it about time we woke up and realised that sex offenders, illegal drug users and the fat should be housed in separate communities in order to prevent them from harming decent, hard-working people and their children?

Thank you.


I agree with you that we shouldn't let Sex Offenders or Drug SELLERS live near our children. I see nothing wrong with someone who smokes pot living next to people seeing as it wouldn't make him go crazy and it's being used personally. Although some fat kids may not be active, some others may well be. I am a fat teenager. I weight lift twice a week until normal lifting starts then I lift an hour a day Monday through Thursday. The things you have in quotations I must honestly say made me laugh. The reason that there is a strong link between teenagers own weight and that of their closest peers isn't because they magically start eating more when they see someone else do so. This is because they could have their peers mock them and make fun of them, which would make them go to eating as a way to forget their problems. If you were in a school system you'd see a lot of drug users who have no problem with grades or even social interactions. Saying that the kids will all of a sudden feel a consistent force to eat more by being around fat people is a tad bit ridiculous. Also if you became technical, a drug could be considered alcohol and cigarettes. Now if we moved anyone that wanted to have a drink of beer or smoke cigarettes into another community, there would be tons of communities stuffed full of people. Not only would that be ridiculous, but it would be unsafe to have all those people so close together. It's almost like imprisoning people when they can't force other people to eat also. That is my thoughts on the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Many thanks to Crushilista for his considered thoughts on this matter. I tend to agree that we must treat this issue with delicacy and restraint - nobody wants to see smokers, drinkers, or slightly chubby people exiled from society.

However, the obese, as the report I referred to in my opening argument proved, do have a significant negative impact on children of normal weight, just as convicted kiddie-fiddlers and the scum who peddle hard drugs do.

Now, while paedophilia and drug-dealing is still socially unacceptable, being grossly overweight is becoming less so.

Those of us who live in the West need only visit our shopping centre to see gratuitous gluttons unashamedly mooching about in pursuit of their endless quest for gastronomic gratification, totally unashamed of their appearance or behaviour.

In days gone by, these people would have been shunned by society: condemned for their profligate consumption of excessive amounts of food and their general laziness, but these days, society is coming to accept that being greedy and indolent is the norm rather than the exception, which is a very dangerous and must be discouraged by all means possible.

Thank you.

P.S. I'm glad my R1 argument made my opponent laugh - it was, of course, supposed to!


crushilista forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by purplehaze 8 years ago
iv just spent a minute and thirty seconds dancing along with him. That part with his fat eyebrow is absolutely brilliant
Posted by purplehaze 8 years ago
But without fat people there would be nothing to laugh at anymore....

that numa numa fella never fails to make me laugh.
Posted by bearsfan 8 years ago
I love how you spell pedophile!
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
hahaha "and the fat"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
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:40 
Vote Placed by JSquires 8 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14