The obese are immoral

--My opponent first argues that there isn't enough farmland on earth to feed the obese and the starving. This isn't quite true. If the obese can sacrifice food for the starving then Pro has contradicted himself by proving enough land to feed both. Not only is this a contradiction, it simply isn't true. As of now we have plenty of food and farmland to raise food for more than everyone. However, if we continue to grow in population, by 2050 we will have a possible 12 billion people. Not only is food important for everyone, but so is a job. This just shows Darwins theory of "survival of the fittest" more plausible. Even if the obese remain obese, and we continue to reproduce at this rate, there will be starving children and there is nothing we can do about it. I think it's horrible that children die every day as a result of starvation, but that is nature. We are no different from the animal kingdom, the strongest and most prosperous will prevail. And it will always be the case. Animals will always die because there isn't enough food in the area, likewise with humanity. Animals will fight to the death for food, and if humanity gets put in a situation where food is an issue, so will we. We can't expand the earth, there is only so much room, and people will die because of that. It's not going to get any better, technology will improve, we might even become "green" and keep enough vegetation for everyone, but we will still be overpopulated if we keep growing this much, and people will die as a result of things other than starvation. It's life, not immorality. Sometimes that's just the way it goes. --My opponent also stated that money was not the heart of this issue. You're right, greedy, obese people are the heart of these worlds starving children. Not exactly, Your saying that obese people are eating starving children's lunches. They are eating it, because they have the money to buy it. Greed is essentially your argument. So while the obese are eating those children's lunches, you're spending money on, maybe not food, but a television set, a car, air conditioning, cable, a cellular phone, not to mention anything you do for fun. NOT IMMORAL, and neither is the obese. Not healthy maybe, but certainly not immoral. --My opponent then goes to explain the needs an adult vs. the needs of babies as far as nutrition goes. Life is most important here, obviously. That being said, why not give the calorie intake for survival? You gave the calorie intake to be healthy. We can survive off of much less. So, if simply eating more food than it takes to survive is killing lives, then even the smallest who consumes very little, but who are nonetheless surviving, is immoral. Obesity can also be a psychological disorder. Obese people eat because they are lonely, because they are depressed, or simply out of habit, which we all know to be a psychological disorder. Metabolism also plays a large part. We can increase or slow down our metabolism to a certain extent, but we all have a set, natural metabolism. I can almost guarantee you, I, a 6'1' 150lb guy, can eat more than the average obese person. So, once again, obesity is not the issue. Food consumption, sometimes, has nothing to do with obesity. Immorality has nothing to do with obesity, as I have clearly proven. Figured out that issue, give me a harder one…