Solving the obesity problem - my method

Sadly I am not in the most of jovial moods tonight so hopefully my points do not come across sounding to serious in such a light hearted debate. Sorry if they do. 1. My opponent once again argues that being killed is worse than being ridiculed to the point of dehumanization. However in this contention my opponent still takes no stock with my logic behind my claim, that being: Killing is better because it does not dehumanize. Thus, as this claim still stands my point does. It should be noted that my opponent does not attack the claim that the obese people die peacefully in their sleep. This is a benefit. ========= 2. This is actually where my opponent takes stock with the issue. She states, "No it isn't! Your still alive arn't you? Your not just carted off and killed like some animal! So MY method is more humane, it is far kinder to the fatties then the harshness of being killed off." I find myself in strong opposition. To be dehumanized means that you no longer possess the qualities of a human. You are not better than a common everyday animal. To live a life like this is far worse than simply being killed off. At least if you die you can die with dignity, to be dehumanized is to die in shame. There are some things worth than death, to lose what it means to be human but not truly be gone is one of them. ========= 3. The obese persons organs will contain many of the things that dogs require as I pointed out in my last round. Thus the dogs will be fed. The dogs will be happy. Considering my plan reuses the same stake multiple times it actually costs almost nothing per each obese person burned. And of course the obese persons are sold as dog food thus my plan pays for itself and makes a great deal of money. ========= 4. My opponent admits that her fourth point is a very slight possibility. She however goes on to state that this means she wins it. Such is not true. Considering there is a very slight chance of this actually happening she cannot claim the benefit because the benefit probably will not happen. This would be like me jumping from a cliff and relying on a sudden rain storm to create a pool of water at the bottom. While it has a small chance of happening to rely on such would be almost certain death. ========= 5. I'm still talking about our dog population whether I am a dog or not. ========= 6. Obviously my point about starving dogs still stands as my opponent is once again seeing things (paw marks? drool?). ========= 7. My opponent seems to be under the impression that dogs could never make a legitimate army. Let's see.... a. They can run faster than us. b. They have natural weapons far more potent than ours (claws, teeth) c. They can make noises far louder than ours (barking). d. They can be subjected into doing most anything. Given enough training dogs would be able to make a rather fearsome army that would be quite capable of ignoring people shouting, "here boy, come get some bacon!" This would have the benefit of humans never having to go to war again. Yay! ========= 8. My opponent fails to prove that people enjoy seeing others dehumanized, thus people would not watch my opponents show and people would be far more obese than they are under my plan. ========= 9-10. Once again my opponent drops these points and thereby concedes that in my world people will be more fit and will become Jedi. This is the ultimate advantage of my plan. This is a reason to vote Con. Voters: 1. My plan is more cost effective. 2. My plan better saves the environment as my opponent cannot claim the electricity bikes as a benefit. 3. My plan better deters people from becoming obese. 4. My plan solves for dog starvation. 5. My plan solves for human overpopulation. 6. My plan creates a dog army. 7. My plan stops human vs human wars in place of dog vs. dog wars. 8. My plan creates a race of Jedi, capable of defending ourselves from alien attacks. Thank you all.