There should be a minimum weight for runway models.

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 businessPro'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 depressionSee my rebuttal R3 below.REBUTTALSR1) Discourages obesityPro 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 hungerPro 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 stimulationI 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 deviancePro 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) BeautyPro 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. ConclusionWhile 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...