There should be a minimum weight for runway models.

Purpose of Runway models Pro doesn't actually address this until round 4 so I have no choice but to rebut it now. It is not to be considered a "new" argument. I have mentioned as early as round 2 that the purpose of a model is to sell clothes and that the imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal. A) Pro brings up his assertion that if thin models can prevent nuclear warfare, then we should go with thinner models as the benefits of preventing nuclear warfare outweigh the harms of not selling clothes. The point that Pro misses are likelihood. The likelihood of models affecting nuclear war is negligible. The likelihood of them selling clothes is significant. For this reason the miniscule possible effects of nuclear war are in fact outweighed by the need to sell clothes. Besides I negated the point that it doesn't affect military strength. By extension, nuclear power is negated as well. B) Pro says that the "glory" of the modelling profession is destroyed. However, the practical benfits of allowing fatter people to model outweigh any "glory" that might be destroyed. What is so "glorious" about allowing only thin people to model? Seems more like a mean girl clique rather than a glorious endeavor.ARGUMENTS C1) Destroys business1. "If an obese person wishes to look thinner, would they be more likely to buy clothing advertised by a THIN person, or an OBESE person?" This is just flat out wrong! Obese people will want to know that they can look thinner, not that thin people can look thin. The clothing manufacturer can easily put the obese in a generic or in a competitor's clothing for a 'before' picture and in their own clothing for an 'after' picture, to show how much thinner they can look by wearing their clothing. That is the goal when selling to obese people; to show them that they can look thinner. Pro hasn't been able to negate this argument so it stands that lack of obese models will cause business to sink because it loses the obese 1/3 of the US population.2. "How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity?" I have already explained how ostracism causes more harm than good by causing psychological problems. 3. "What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not?" Show the same person wearing a competitors clothing in a slideshow and show how this person now looks a lot thinner wearing that company's clothing.4. "Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh." No, it doesn't. The most important thing for the business is to sell clothes and make a profit, not to encourage people to pursue healthy lives. Should McDonalds remove its BigMacs and only sell Caesar salads in order to encourage people to live healthy? Everything that that business does must further the goal of making a profit. That is how businesses stay solvent and successful. C2) DiscriminationPro points out a case where the Supreme court allowed a private organization to deny membership to an individual. What Pro conveniently forgot to mention is that it was first taken to the New Jersey supreme court which actually ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against the organization. It was later taken to the US Supreme court. The legal fees required for a corporation to handle multiple lawsuits is very high. The obese will be lining up to take this company to court. Pro's assertion that the judge will laugh them out of court doesn't match his source which says that a lower court actually ruled against the corporation. It is a complicated issue and not one where a judge will laugh the plaintiffs out of court.C3) Self-Esteem & R3) HealthPointing out that it was adressed under a different heading is not a concession. It just means that Pro is supposed to read what is under that heading. I am going to combine my C3 with Pro's since they are essentially the same.Pro says that a rejection of obesity encourages health. I argued that it will create more problems than it solves assuming there is no de-facto weight limit. It creates psychological problems of depression and suicide due to ostracism and health problems like bulimia and anorexia.Pro says that my contention about Anorexia and other eating disorders is negated by the fact that there is already a de-facto limit. If Pro is correct in saying that there is in fact, a de-facto limit, then the benfits he gives about decreasing obesity are nullified as well because of this de-facto limit. At this point, the only contentions that stand are mine; the ones about destruction of business, lowered profits, declining consumer base, and legal problems that will arise as a result of descrimination. In fact Pro never adresses my point that a bad reputation will lead to even worse sales. I conclude this point by saying: If there is no de-facto limit, the health problems of imposing a maximum weight will be just much as the health problems due to obesity. If there is a de-facto limit, then the benefits of imposing a limit are nullified.REBUTTALSR1) Obesity discouragedExtend the lawsuit argument. People are not going to change just because some organization put a cap on the weight of models. If anything, they would take it up in court. (i) World HungerPro admits that his advantage is a fleeting short-term, one-time advantage. This is the same as admitting that there is no long term advantage because I brought that point up and Pro didn't adress it."There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives."Actually that is not true. The purpose of any business is to stay solvent and make a profit. The interests of the business come before charity. You can't give what you don't have. (ii) Hegemony"1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war"1% of the population serves in the military counting both active and reserve personnel and is the most powerful military in the world. The health of the fattest 1/3 of the population is irrelevant to military.Nuclear war impact is negligible. Pro doesn't really argue this point. he just throws it out there saying that a more powerful US military will decrease nuclear proliferation. When I proved that the power of the US military is unaffected, the point about nuclear proliferation has been negated as well.(iii) Economics Pro basically conceded that the economy is too complex. He drops all my arguments and simply repeats what I already refuted in round 3. R2) Sexual Deviance Pro still didn't answer why the fashion industry should give their profits to the porn industry. Runway-models are supposed to sell clothes, not root out "sexual deviance." This point is irrelevant and Pro never even explains why being in the minority is a bad thing. He calls it "deviance" and says that "deviance" is bad. But if he defines "deviance" simply as being in the minority, then why must it be rooted out? R4) Beauty "It doesnt matter if those who thought the obese were attractive were successful, their society is lower than ours on the evolutionary scale so we have to default to our perception."Just an opinion. No facts to back it up. No logical analysis as to why such an opinion is correct. He never answers the questions: If the ancient people were successful in defending their perception of beauty, wouldn't fat people be considered beautiful today? Why must our perception of beauty be defended? Conclusion Every single one of Con's points rely on highly unlikely scenarios that runway models have a miniscule chance of affecting such as military recruitment, nuclear warfare, and US Hegemony. My points directly address the goal of runway models: to sell clothes. His points about positive health effects are balanced by my negative health effects if no de-facto limit exists, and are nullified if a de-facto limit does exist. At this point, you can vote off of my contention that imposing a maximum weight reduces sales and therefore it should not be done.