Obese customers should pay more for flights.

First, my opponent's exaggerated picture of an obese individual was abusive and entirely unnecessary. In fact, its only "point" was to raise the question of whether or not you would like to sit next to the individual in the photo. My opponent says, "You can choose to donate half your seat to this guy..." however, you have about a 1 in 6+ billion chance that you would ever have to sit next to that guy. So, if those odds are enough to get you to vote for my opponent, by all means... The reality is, however, that not all obese people are extraordinarily overweight by society's standards. In the past few years, the average waist line has expanded by 2 inches. Seeing thicker people is now more common, and you yourself may be obese or even have a family member who is considered obese without you even knowing it. For instance, if you are 5'5" and weigh 180 lbs, you are obese. If you are 5'8" and weigh 198 lbs, you are obese. Not all obese people are as massive as the one represented in the picture, and my opponent made no differentiation between that guy and the masses. Thus you must disregard the image and actually hold it against my opponent for stooping to that level (desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess). Next some $$ issues come into play. Pro says, "However, had the airline intervened and helped the gentlemen get a specialized seat (at a slight increase in expense), neither of you would have had to endure that experience!" What BS! Apparently he hasn't been paying attention throughout this debate where a huge focus has been the decline of airline resources, and how airlines are on INCREDIBLY tight budgets would eliminate any opportunity to implement new seating. If this were to actually happen, it would cost A LOT more than a "slight increase" of cost. I've noticed that Pro exaggerates quite a bit, hmm? Also, if this extra cost were applied to everyone, then it would not just be obese people paying extra for flights but EVERYONE. This contradicts the resolution. Then Pro suggests that obese people should have to pay between $20 - 50 extra per flight. I'm sure you can figure out that this small cost would not be enough to cover the cost of ripping out already existing airline seating and replacing it in terms of man power, cost of products, cost of supplies, etc on EVERY flight. Further, if the original goal was to have obese people buy an extra seat, we all know that a plane ticket costs well over $20. Thus, the airline would lose a lot of money here... and this doesn't even include the fact that by implementing more, larger seating, the airline would lose money in the sense that it reduces the amount of available seating per flight. This inconvenience could wind up costing airlines big time in the end, meaning it would cost money for ALL flyers as well. Considering that the odds are HIGHLY AGAINST you sitting next to an obese individual (10%!), well, you do the math. Next Pro tries to use the logic of, "When an obese person walks into a department store to buy plus-sized clothing, does he or she not pay more for the extra fabric?" Um, actually no - they don't. If Jen buys a pair of jeans in a size 4 and Jess buys the same pair in a size 16, they will both pay the same price for the jeans. And yes, at size 16, Jess is considered to be obese. Thus this logic does not stand here. Pro says, "Of course, the group of people required for this small fee would be small. We're talking about the truly obese here (BMI greater than 3.5), not the common overweight." Well okay, you actually need a BMI greater than 30 to be over-weight, but nevertheless, this would actually include a lot of people. See some examples of weight statistics above (i.e. if your dad is 5'10" and weighs 210 lbs, he would have to pay extra for a flight, AND - according to Pro - not be able to sit with you or his family due to the necessity of him having to sit in "specialized seating"). Speaking of which, this kind of "specialized seating" is degrading to those who are forced to endure such an experience against their will. Things like this are NOT TOLERATED. So indeed my opponent's claim that "this eliminates the need for embarrassing moments" because the "obese are people too" is BS. Then Pro tries to portray a happy-go-lucky scenario of someone buying a ticket and being asked whether or not they prefer plus sized seating. While I agree that a little extra room would be preferable, I also acknowledge that paying extra for it is NOT. Some people wouldn't want to or wouldn't be able to afford it, but Pro is suggesting that it's mandatory. If it's not mandatory, or if obese people wouldn't have to pay extra for this seating, than that completely negates the resolution in and of itself (because obese people are not paying more). Going back to old contentions, Pro asserts that taxation on things like cigarettes are so high because the government is essentially taxing for insurance. Uh, that's not true -- I cannot believe that Pro is actually naive enough to believe that high taxes are for INSURANCE purposes...?! Alright, I'm dumbfounded, so I'll let a quick cited source do the talking for a moment... "The legislative controls in this case, which are represented by higher tobacco taxes, were not intended to cause people to quit smoking but rather to increase revenue. The state's claim that these punishment-style taxes are to encourage people to quit smoking for health reasons has only a smidgen of truth, just enough to become the facade... Since unequal taxation is inequitable, it is a human rights violation, more specifically an equal rights violation. The higher tax rate on tobacco is inequitable because it doesn't affect all citizens equally, only smokers. Targeting a minority is inequitable." The source for this information is the Bureau of International Information Programs (U.S. Dept of State) which can be found here --> [1]. Thus my opponent's propositions are not only morally wrong, but unconstitutional as well... at least via the current interpretation by government. In terms of my other contentions, Pro has merely brushed the surface on a defense. He says that I must prove genetics to be the #1 cause of obesity, but that is untrue -- After researching the main causes for the disease, what I came up with was clear across the board: factors include genetics, lifestyle and psychological disorders. Stress was considered to be in the top 3-5 causes as well. However if we take a look at these causes, almost none of them are preventable. Genetics - obviously not. Lifestyle - nope. Because you are born into it. If a child is raised in a household where parents/people over-eat, they will imitate the same behavior. People also cannot choose their culture (another huge factor) or necessarily control the stress in their life, etc. Bottom line, Pro is wrong here. Because he even wants taller/larger people in general to pay extra, and obviously people cannot control their HEIGHT. Again, this is highly discriminatory and WOULD NEVER FLY (no pun intended) without serious legal repercussions. Also, since Pro is once again naive enough to believe that obesity law suits do not exist, he might be surprised at the results of Googling "obesity personal injury law." A tip? IT DEFINITELY EXISTS! [2] So no, unlike Pro, I have not made up any random facts throughout this debate. I don't need to stoop to that in order to be a good debater. Btw - Pro never included citation regarding the # of obese people who require medical attention on flights to prove HIS point, so disregard it. It also does not address other high-risk flyers. I've noticed that Pro did not respond to my arguments regarding cargo space/weight, costs and other points -- clearly he has not been the better debater in this debate. Sources: [1] http://usinfo.state.gov... [2] http://www.google.com...