The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Parents who wilfully permit their child to become seriously overweight are guilty of child neglect

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,612 times Debate No: 51380
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




* Crack-whores;
* Alcoholics;
* Former terrorists;
* Race-hate preachers / Zionists rabbis;
* Arms dealers;
* Bitch-slapping pimps;
* Head-hunting savages from Papua New Guinea;
* Urine-soaked tramps;
* Mormons / Jehovah's Witnesses;
* Michael Jackson fanatics;
* Human-sacrificing witchdoctors from Ghana;
* Neo-Nazis / UKIP members / Tea Party supporters;
* Paedophiles / Catholic priests / Coronation Street actors;
* Female genital-mutilating doctors from Somalia;
* Suspected people-traffickers;
* Inbred, clod-hopping pig farmers from Norfolk, England / retards.

You wouldn't ask any of the above to babysit your kids, would you? But there's no law against them having kids of their own, is there? No, there isn't. However, paediatric social workers are likely to keep a very close eye on these type of people above if they become parents. And quite right too: the well-being of children is of paramount importance.

But what about those obese layabouts who damage their children's health by feeding them junk food and not encouraging them to do enough exercise?

"I am increasingly concerned that society may be normalising being overweight" said England's chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies recently, adding that parents of overweight children were failing to spot the danger signs.

A third of children are overweight or obese - double the amount in the early 1990's - but research shows that over three quarters of parents do not recognise weight problems.

Professor Kevin Fenton, of Public Health England, said "We share her concerns. Overweight and obesity costs the NHS over "five billion pounds (Sterling) each year and is entirely preventable." [1]

In England and Wales, "Where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the local authority is required under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries, to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. A Section 47 enquiry must always be commenced immediately when...there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, for example a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm in the form of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect." [2]

In my opinion, parents who wilfully permit their child to become overweight are guilty of child neglect and the appropriate authorities should take legal action against them accordingly.

Thank you.



RE: 1st Paragraph Introduction:
You forgot to mention in your list, hateful people, judgemental people, some characteristics you share; however society still will allow people like you to have children. That list, and what I have said is and was not the issue we are debating about so its all irrelevant. Here is the topic we are debating about obesity and how parents should be basically charged with neglect for allowing children to be obese. Here is a thought; parents who allow there children to starve, also be under weight also guilty of child neglect? in your mind no they shouldn't be charged, you'd be the first to agree knowing how hateful you are.

My Argument on why children obesity is only a very small percentage of parents fault and not neglect:
Todays society people (healthy) always needs someone to blame for obesity, starting there blame at the parents (example: my opponent.) Kids will always be different sizes, so that would mean according to my opponent if the child is to big, scream "neglect". I've read the sections you posted concluding Neglect, but yet it does not talk about obesity, it may mention nutrition (small or big) but not a big section of it. Just because a parent leaves the room for a minute to make a bottle for a baby while a baby is in a play pen means neglect.

Just because a kid eats, under eats, over eats does not mean we call neglect, at least the child has food/ or being feed. Were does it state in the law we cannot feed children. Unless my opponent doesn't care to much for children to eat, that's call neglect to feed.

Say we did call parents neglecting by over feeding children. What do you call parents who take away (what the body needs) by dieting "neglect" so your topic could go either way; healthy or not healthy according to you eating is neglecting, but your not saying that only towards the obesity. You just like most health nuts do blame the parents right away.

Have you ever actually wonder why tons of kids are obese? parents are a far stretch to that reason you call neglect towards obese children by the parents. Here are examples that lead to obesity, not neglect as you say by parents:
-Emotional disturbance
-Feeling there unwanted, or a disappointment
-Feeling like they aren't wanted, or loved.
-lost of a loved one.
-Like my opponent does from all I've read (Bullying)
-junk food cheaper then healthy food, more affordable to buy the junk food.

Depression is to blame, society is to blame, its true there are many people who resort to eating when they are depressed, called a mental distraction from feeling the pain. The parents are not to blame for this at all, so the parents in no way could neglect.

My opponent blames the parents for what he calls neglecting allowing children that are obese to be obese, what about those children who have no parents, who will you blame then. What about those parents who have healthy skinny parents who do push there child, but the child still is obese are they neglecting even though they push, and the child does do excersize and eats right, but still is obese, is that neglect on there parts or a medical issue. Your argument has no grounds and nothing to stand on. All you can argue is the same words that come out of your mouth already, what are you going to say next: well studies show this to be the parents fault, and get your information from a health nut themselves who blames the parents without looking at the other causes. You going to give me graphs, and statistics, on there studies, then in my next round I will show you statistics on how its more about the cost, depression, medical, society itself that causes obesity. while the parents will have a small percentage of that reason.

What would be your next argument, you haven't even defined Neglect, you sit there call others dumb, bad people cause a child is obese, and there loving there children. I know this will effect conduct but your low, if your so worry about obesity like all these other health nuts how about you make it more afforadable, how about do something about it.

I cant wait to see what my opponent says next maybe he will pull up some statics, or graphs, or videos, or someone else studies who cares more about making money by taxing higher on foods, then actually caring for people.

I will tell all my readers what though, there are more reasons to a child being obese, saying a parent allowing there child be obese, by neglect is a copout lame excuse. Win or lose my opponent by the end of this debate will see the kind of person he is, after reading all his debates about calling people dumb, prosecuting gays, and now prosecuting parents for a child obesity, how he has nothing else better to do then bully people just to make himself look good.

now try and continue after I basically blocked your argument by actual facts
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Ace Viper 2011 for accepting this debate challenge.

Firstly, just to be clear, I am not a hateful person and I don't have anything against any of the type of people I listed in my opening paragraph. For example, I am very fond of my fine neighbor, Mr. Leroy MacAroon, who is a retarded, alcoholic, Ogoun-worshipping, bitch-slapping pimp from Ghana who lives next door with his charming wife, Mary, who is a racist, urine-soaked, Mormon crack-whore with an extensive collection of Michael Jackson records ;)

Moving on, I certainly agree that parents that neglect their children by allowing them to become dangerously malnourished should be prosecuted, as indeed they are, but I also contend that parents that allow their children to become dangerously overweight should also be prosecuted.

I also agree that kids come in all shapes and sizes but if a child turns up at school looking like its recently escaped from a Nazi concentration camp and starts rifling through bins for food, it's time to investigate.

Similarly, if a child turns up at school looking like a sumo-wrestling midget and is carrying a family-sized bucket of fried chicken and a Black Forest gateaux to keep him going between breakfast and his mid-morning snack, together with a note from his mother excusing him from PE, then alarm bells should also start ringing.

My opponent posted the following list of excuses for a child being overweight:

"-Emotional disturbance
-Feeling there unwanted, or a disappointment
-Feeling like they aren't wanted, or loved.
-lost of a loved one.
-Like my opponent does from all I've read (Bullying)
-junk food cheaper then healthy food, more affordable to buy the junk food."

These issues are not new or unique: they effect children of all family backgrounds and always have - but it is only recently that childhood obesity has become such a huge problem - a hundred years ago parents didn't have access to junk food and cars so kids ate fresh, wholesome food and kept fit because they walked everywhere.

Think about it: when you last saw a picture of starving children in an African refugee camp, did you see any fat kids amongst them?

By the way, it is a myth that healthy food is expensive: fresh fruit and vegetables are cheaper than pizzas, fried chicken or burgers - and water and milk are both cheaper than soda pops! Of course, preparing real food is more effort than ordering a pizza or taking the car to a drive-thru restaurant and this, I suspect, is the real reason overweight people eat so much junk food.

The reality is that children become overweight because they eat too much and do too little exercise [1] and whose fault is that? The people that give them junk food to eat, who drive them around in cars rather than making them walk or cycle; the people who let them stay indoors and play video games instead of playing outside: those people are their parents.

No responsible parent would buy their children alcohol and cigarettes: everybody know how damaging to their health they would be in the long term, so surely the same principle should apply to the food they are bought and they lifestyle they lead? After all, obesity causes:

* Diabetes
* Heart disease
* High blood pressure
* Arthritis
* Indigestion
* Gallstones
* Some cancers (eg, breast and prostate cancers)
* Snoring and sleep apnoea
* Stress, anxiety, and depression
* Infertility

Children don't know any better, they rely on their parents for guidance and any parent who causes their children any of the above conditions is clearly guilty of neglect and should be duly punished.

Thank you.



My opponent still loves to blame the parents on this topic, which I asked in my previous argument. Why do health nuts always find ways to blame a parent? and not ask themselves who fault is it really when a person becomes overweight? it there own fault, just like adults, or the elderly, the reasons why they are overweight, there own doing. Health nuts just want someone to blame besides looking at the individual itself.

After ignoring the what if a child has no parents and they are obese? then who will the health nuts blame when the parents cannot be blame.

I liked how my opponent used the sumo and Nazi camp analogy, but clearly he forgot to think before he wrote, especially when Nazi camp was in World War 2, when the reason why they were skinny was because of the Nazi, Not the parents.
Or the sumo-wrestling midget carrying a family-sized chicken lol seriously, weres the proof of such thing, or how do you know if the parents even bought that for him.

Both senerios are irrelevant, and unprovable by my opponent, but nice try.

My opponent called my reasons "excuses". There actually proven facts, not excuses, an excuse is blaming parents for the individual actions child, adult, elderly being obese.

Maybe it wasn't such a huge problem back 100 years ago, but as technology grew, the government has changed it became a problem. Is that a parents fault for the change or society itself once again my opponent failed to show how a parent is responsible for a child to be obese only argument put up was a 100 year difference, when society had low technology then what we have now.

So your little excuse of blaming the parents on that accusation has been false, for then it leads down to society to put the blame on, but like a health nut yourself you do not see that. Its only obvious (open your mind and think).

My favorite thing my opponent said in his whole argument that made no sense, but made me laugh
-"think about it: when you last saw a picture of starving children in an African refugee camp, did you see any fat kids amongst them?"

Seriously hahaha, take your own advice re-read what you wrote, first of all its Africa, one of the most starving countries in the world, which all lack nutrient, that goes back to what I said do we blame parents for the reasons why they are starving no we don't blame society, blame the rich who can spend money on worthless junk but cant spend there millions feeding STARVING CHILDREN big hint. Maybe that's why there are no fat kids as you call them, because there STARVING. Are you that blind or as you call everyone Retarded. Do all of your viewers a favor please (think before you write).

As for the next part of his argument about food, hotdog cost 98 cents as a apple cost 1.30 cents. Milk cost almost 5 dollars the cheapest cost 4 dollars, as of soda cost 1 dollar to 2 dollars a gallon.
(nice try though go to your local grocery store and try again). To all my viewers as you can see that is also a fact on price.

As my opponents final argument he posted up health style increase risk.
May be true, but just like a skinny person, and obese person a person can also contract those illness just for being normal, also those who eat healthy. My opponent fails to realize once again, that death doesn't care what shape, healthy, non healthy you are, death will come no matter what the reason is.

There been plenty of people who were obese that out lived those who were not, there been people who were healthy that outlived the ones who weren't heathly. It goes either way.

Final Conclusion:
Do we blame the parents like my opponent suggest we do, or what all health nuts do, or do we take a real look at the problem of obesity, as the individual, as time past from 100 years ago to now shaping society itself. Yea people were skinny back then but there were also big people too, is that a parents fault, is it neglect, cause what happens when that child who does have a problem does not even have family then who will you call neglect on. This goes the same way with adults, and elderly people who grown up and lost parents on the way, is there reason there parents did there parents neglect them for there life style.

Or is the life style of all humanity there own faults, them neglecting themselves, my opponent talks about retarded people, big people, like they are a problem, but everyone take a look at him, how he downs many people of different ways, are people like him to blame or is it the copout excuse he lays on parents neglecting, so people like him don't have to take responsibility of there actions laughing, condemning, being rude to others to make them feel better about themselves.

I would like to thank all the viewers for there time reading this debate and thinking about what both sides opinions are about this topic. Have a good day everyone :)
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
@Aceviper: The terms "vote bomb" and "source" do not mean what you appear to think they mean. Other than that, yeah, you totally called it. I mean, there's no other rational explanation for why I voted against you; I must be Brian's girlfriend (?!?), since apparently reading a debate and voting based on the arguments presented isn't a thing that people do anymore.

Good one, dude. Totally rolling on the floor laughing my sides out right now.
Posted by Aceviper2011 7 years ago
your vote was a votebomb, I had relevant sources also. so I know he messaged his gf chrysippus to as for help. lol hahaha, its all good though.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
RFD continued.
Sources to Pro, who actually had relevant extant sources. Con provides us with "real facts," but neglects to tell us where he got them.

Conduct tied, mainly because I'm reluctant to vote a solid seven except in extreme cases of forfeiture or abuse. Con did show up for both rounds, and he didn't derail into frothing epithetic fits; he's ahead of the curve on both of those, so I'll not dock him this point. My standards are so low these days :)
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
By consistently (and possibly deliberately) misinterpreting, ignoring, or misconstruing Pro's arguments, Con has managed to turn this debate into an exercise in missing the point. Con fixated on Pro's personality and character throughout the debate, constantly arguing ad homniem; his total argument for his case can be summarized as:
1. Pro hates obese children and their parents
2. Malnourishment (or dieting!) is also abuse
3. There are other causes of obesity than parental neglect
4. Obese children could still be healthy
5. Pro is a bully and a health nut who should think before he writes.

Only points 3 & 4 come close to supporting his case; 3 is clearly outside of the resolution (Parents who willfully permit their child, et al.), and 4 is both barely relevant and poorly argued.

Arguments to Pro, who stated his case well and turned in an excellent R2 argument. Children are not expected to know how to take care of themselves, or to be mature enough to make inconvenient choices for themselves; the parents bear sole responsibility for allowing their children to grow up as layabouts and gluttons. The humor falls a bit flat in this one, Brian, but having a good opponent to bounce off of would have made a huge difference.

Spelling and grammar to Pro. Con's idea of English include such gems as: "Parents are a far stretch to that reason you call neglect towards obese children by the parents" and "I know this will effect conduct but your low, if your so worry about obesity like all these other health nuts how about you make it more afforadable, how about do something about it."
Posted by Aceviper2011 7 years ago
you will get your respond Tomarrow ASAP.
Posted by Aceviper2011 7 years ago
Ill post my first round argument later on tonight.
Posted by Aceviper2011 7 years ago
this is to easy
Posted by demonlord343 7 years ago
May I ask why? Because if you are willing to lower the requirements, I will accept with a three-round minimum.... this is a good topic choice and I feel like they're would need to be more for just a simple two argument which can get very messy is way to small...
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to mention I placed an over-21 years of age / minimum 5 debates restriction on this one.
Posted by Dennybug 7 years ago
I accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 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: RFD in comments. 1000 characters is so little, these days.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.