Solving the obesity problem - my method

Alrighty, time to attack each issue in turn. 1. My opponent begins by stating that sun-burning people to death at the stake is far more cruel than simply burning them to death at the stake. This is blatantly untrue, luckily for the people being sunburned to death at the stake they will doubtlessly become sleep deprived and thereby will end up falling asleep at which point the combined factors of lack of food, water, and sunburns will kill them. Thus they will die in their sleep, as every good person wants to. My opponent goes on to state that I never addressed his environmentally friendly method, however this is also untrue. I quite clearly advocated sunburning them to death because it would take absolutely no wood, gasoline, or anything else for that matter. My plan uses natural forces to humanely kill many people. It has no adverse environmental effects. The same cannot be said of my opponents plan. And finally, the issue that this point all began with. My plan more effectively dissuades people from becoming overweight. This of course is the ultimate impact in round. 2. First off I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped this point in her second speech thereby agreeing, thus we should not even consider this. However my opponents attack on this in her final round didn't bother refuting anyways. All she says is, " "In fact it is less humane - it is more humane to be ridiculed then to be killed off." This being in response to my extensive elaboration on how being ridiculed is akin to high school and dehumanizes the obese people to a point of no return. In all reality being dehumanized is far worse than simply being killed. My opponent never refutes this, thus my opponent has conceded that my plan is more humane. 3. My opponent begins by pushing for the fact that my plan must cost more because it uses wood. This is not true as the same wood is used on each obese person, thus we never actually use up any wood. Then my opponent goes on to make an unsubstantiated claim that dogs require just as much nutrition as humans. If this were true then dogs would need to be eating a balanced diet of 5 fruits and vegetables per day, 3 helpings of poultry, and 7 servings of bread, as I do not see this happening it is readily apparent that a dog does not require as much nutrition as a human. Finally on this point, even if an obese person is nutrition lacking many of their organs will contain a great deal of fiber that will indeed be healthy, thus rich people will buy it for dog food. Point: My plan costs $0 and actually makes money. 4. My opponent plans to hand each person $1000 dollars. Considering that there are about 6.5 billion people on this earth my opponent is advocating giving out 6.5 trillion dollars, an amount of money which I'm rather certain she doesn't have. Nor does any government that I happen to know of that currently exists. To do such an action would doubtlessly plunge the United States below the poverty level. Thus such a vast amount of money cannot be given to each person. Furthermore my opponent simply states, "Yup, I'de atually hand each person 1000 dollars." Sadly I doubt each person would actually take that 1000 dollars and buy an electric power generating bike, not to mention I do not believe there are 6.5 billion of those bikes currently in existence. Thus my opponents plan is an impossibility. 5. Obviously my opponent is disillusioned. I quite clearly stated, "OUR dog population" in my last round. I do not have an imaginary friend nor am I a drooling beast. Please ignore my opponents ad hominem attacks on me. 6. Obviously my opponent has not taken the time to look at some dogs in third world countries. Like this one: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk... These dogs can, and should be helped. 7. Your right, my plan will encourage overpopulation in dogs. This will of course be used to train entire dog armies. Humans will never have to die again, millions of dogs will be sent at opposing nations. A great day it will be. 8. I'm not sure where my opponent is coming from with this one. I personally do not know of very many people who would laugh to see others dehumanized, perhaps this is what my opponent and her friends do on a regular bases. However even if my opponent could gaurantee this benefit there is still going to be the obese genes in bountiful quantities in my opponents world after passage of plan. In my world there will be very few obese genes, not to mention people will ride their bikes more. Also, my opponent drops my entire line of argument stating that people with less obese genes will require more exercise to stay fit to avoid the harm of being sunburned to death. 9-10. And of course my opponent completely ignores that this will lead to a world of amazing Jedi's, a planet that will truly be able to defend itself from alien invasion. 11. I have previously proven that my method is more humane. Therefor the obese people would go on rampages more after passage of my opponents plan. Which would lead to unsurmountable damages. Vote Con, the alternative solves better, costs less money (costs negative money), solves world hunger, solves dog hunger, creates a dog army, creates a Jedi army, and ultimately makes people happy.