People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people

My opponent's round two focuses around the following: " In acceptance of my opponents claim of logical fallacy, I will explain that if the theory that I previously stated were irrefutable, there will be unforeseen consequences in terms of psychological and social well being." Although a term being called irrefutable does not neccesarily mean they are not based upon something fallacious (check out the numerous Kalam Cosmelogical Argument debates on this site), I'll bite and say if my opponent can make the statement that acceptance of a group (especially the Obese) irrefutably leads to more of that group, then this will be proven true. " Many severely obese people show reluctance of attending to public outings[1] because they are self-conscious, mainly about their appearance. As such, self-esteem problems and anxiety sets in the long run." I'm not arguing that the obese have low self-esteem or have other negative attributes, but that in no way means they are being opressed, or that this opression leads to the opression of the Healthy, which is what we're arguing. I would also argue that these negative effects actually act as a deterrence of obesity, as many people don't want to be fat, so simply treating them equally isn't meaning that everybody's becoming obese all of a sudden. "Furthermore, assuming a realist perspective (realism: awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life[2]), the position that we should accept the unhealthy health-wise, equally shouldn't go ignored or accepted, but healthiness shall remain a necessity of life" I'm not arguing (it seems I'm using this term a lot, but it's important) that being unhealthy is better than being healthy by any means, simply not that the"People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people". However, if you state that healthiness is so important you begin to strip the unhealthy of their rights to eat or live the way they choose, that in turn is being opressive, and you lose the argument based on the fact that the unhealthy begin to be opressed more than the healthy. "And by claiming that I "proved" something when he refuted it, he really meant what I believe was "burden of poof." " Yeah, sorry about that, looking back I used the term "prove" way more often than I should have. I'll include a section at the end of this rebuttal to straighten everything out. "Psychologically speaking from an individual perspective, you can say that the naturally unfulfilled longing to being with one's own kind is oppression" Yeah, you [i]can[/i] say that, but it's not true. Opression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something [i]because[/i] of your will. You can't really opress yourself :P "My original argument had to do with the reason for oppression is at the least, such a longing and desire among certain individuals." Yes, however, you must first prove that A.) Treating the Obese equally will mean less healthy people and B.) wanting to be with your own kind is opression. A.) Is like the argument you used to hear "If you take away don't ask don't tell every man in the military is going to have sex with other men!" which is incredibly biased and not based in fact, and B.) is like saying that someone who immigrates from Zimbabwe, and can't find anyone else from Zimbabwe in America is being opressed. Corrections of the last round: "My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become" should be "attempts to prove"* "Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false" Should be when an argument that assumes to much claims to be true* Sorry about the confusion.