The food, the fat and the gluttony: it's time to help the obese help themselves

I am sad to see that this is the final round of the debate. It was truly a pleasure to debate with my opponent.REBUTTALR1) Donna Simpson (the fat lady) is Killing African ChildrenMy opponent has truly opened my eyes. I had not realized that we could directly compare the food intake of people in America to people in Africa. His assertion that the money we spend on food here could be used on African children has made me wonder about our own homeless people. Why the hell are they asking for so much money? If an African children can be fed off of 19 cents a day [1], why do the homeless need so much cash(an average income of $367 a month)[2]? Even subtracting food costs (at a generous 25 cents a day), that still leaves about $355 in spending money. Clearly, these homeless are actually very acomplished scam artists. I will stop giving money to charities and homeless on the streets immediately, to stop the gravy train for these lazy conmen. I thank my opponent for outlining this crime.R2: Fat Lady Will Cost Tax PayersI admit that I'm not sure if there is some clever argument hidden in this rebuttal by my opponent. However, I think he meant to concede so I will leave this contention as it was previously.DEFENSED1: Economic DownfallWhy in the world would normal people want pancake/sausage kebab's? Those things are disgusting! No one but a deprived obese person scarfing down everything he can find would eat those things. The point is that I like the freedom to choose a disgusting food option, because it makes me feel better about myself when I get the much healthier ho-ho's and twinkies. Normal people will never eat those pancake/sausage kebab abominations, and so that company and those in similar markets will suffer.Obese people are fat because they enjoy eating and they are inactive. I did a quick google search for lentil, and found these pictures [3]. I don't know about you, but all I see are various pictures that look like rabbit turds, dog food, or both. I don't think even the starving African children would eat that, and there is no way that food-loving obese will go for it. D2: It Wouldn't WorkThe problem with the belief that getting rid of fast food would cure obesity is two-fold.First, there would still be plenty of other unhealthy food options for the obese. In fact, junk food is only the #6 ranked food in calories (although this is snacks, not fast food)[4]. Obese would still be able to get fat off of peanut butter, animal fats, vegetable oils, nuts and seeds, cheese, and salads. That's rights, salads are huge on calories because of what we put on them, salad dressings. No one eats a salad without salad dressing and getting rid of these dressings would impact obese and non-obese alike. Also, there is no way I will let the government take away peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. Those sandwiches are a God given right, and is considered by scholars (note: not actually considered by scholars) to be the unwritten 11th commandment of God given to Moses: Thou shalt allow everyone the freedom to have PBJ.D3: FreedomDonna eating her food does not prevent food from going to starving African children. Unfortunately, those children would be starving anyways and that food would simply remain unconsumed. However, if you wanted to advocate taking our money back from this dirt bag hobos who are weaseling all our cash away...I think we can work that out.Also, the fact that taxpayers are willing to include obese on their health plans is their own choice, and they can't complain about it. That's like inviting Peyton Manning (NFL QB, for you non-football fans) to a pickup football game and then complaining when he dominates your team. If you didn't want to deal with Peyton (the obese taking up tax dollars), then you shouldn't have invited him in the first place (shouldn't have put them on health plan).D4: It Would Destroy AmericaLooking back, I agree that scenario 2 is more likely to happen. However, Mexico would not be able to handle an increase of their population by 100%, and would end up closing their borders. The obese, of course, with their insatiable drive for mcnuggets would continue to cross illegally which would lead to deteriorating diplomatic relations with the United States. Mexico would eventually be forced to take extreme measures (such as deadly force and long imprisonments of US citizens) which would lead to a war with the United States. Once this happens...well I've already explained the horror of an obese invasion in the previous round.ConclusionLooking at this debate, I know it will be tough to decide how to vote. However, I feel like I'm going to VOTE CON. It just seems like VOTING CON is the right thing to do. CON made magnificent arguments and he should be supported by your VOTES FOR CON. That said, it is still completely the decision of the reader whether or not he or she wants to VOTE CON. Now I remember, I can't VOTE CON on my own debates, so you all will have to VOTE CON for me.Now that the subliminal messaging is finished, I strongly urge you to VOTE CON.Thanks for a great debate brian, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.[1] http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org...[2] http://www.huduser.org...;[3] http://www.google.com...;[4] http://www.healthaliciousness.com...;