North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

ROADMAP: Attack then defend I will now address my opponent's case: My opponents first contention mentions how it is allowed via free speech. However, this isn't free speech; this is the placement of an offensive name for someone. Free speech is saying and expressing things. You are still free to express if Kim Jong Un is fat (if you believe so). So this contention falls since there isn't a relevant warrant to your claim His second contention mentions that he is actually fat. However, that doesn't mean we have to call him out on it. Especially on such a crude level. Honesty is the best policy, but do we label people by their looks. On my passport, it won't say "Fat Man Dan", or other things noting people's descriptions in a derogatory way. This dehumanizes and takes away one's dignity. Even if we don't agree with Kim Jong Un's policies, we can't take it in our own hands to give him a name and dehumanize him to that level. Even then, "Fat" is subjective. We must look with subjectivitism as their is no valid definition on when a person is fat. There are ratios for when a person is classified obese, but ther isn't any criteria on when one is deemed "fat". What is the brightline between "pudgy" and "chubby'? Exactly, it is way too vague. He also says that if we alarm him on his "fatness" it can change his health. However that isn't for the US and others to humiliate on. If it was an issue, Kim Jong Un's doctors or advisors would've told him. So cross apply my 3rd and 4th contentions and so this contention falls. His third contention mentions how labeling Kim Jong Un with this name is jst as it is a part of war. However, even if we are in war, we have some decency. In WWII, did we call Hitler, "Mustache Meathead"? Of course not, that is disrespectful. even then, the US isn't even in a official war with N. Korea, just some tension. So it would provoke a war, which is bad. There is also no proof on the cyber attack as a result from the N. Korean government so that point falls. So cross apply my 1st contention so this contention falls. His fourth contentions mentions how there might be many Kim Jong Un's and changing his name on legal docs. would clarify. However, there is no warrant showing the amount of Kim Jong Un's t cause such confusion. Even then, there isn't an issue with name sharing. There are many Joe Smith's, so there are other ways to ID people if they are needed for legal purposes (address, phone, etc). Furthermore, Kim Jong Un is a public figure so it isn't hard to seperate him from others that might (no warrant showing) share a name. So this contention falls. Now to rebuild my case: My opponent tries to cross apply his third contention to my first, however the opposite is true. There is no actually war called for by Congress, just tension. And as I said affirming will increase tensions, leading to a war (bad!). And humiliating a leader is NOT a war tactic. So my first contention stands. My opponent attacks my second contention by saying affirming would show that leaders are not afraid and thus promote confidence. However, it would make people think lower, even coward like for leaders to fight by calling each other names, like six year old girls. And he doesn't directly attack how affirming makes the US look VERY immature so my second contention stands. To my third contention my opponent responds by saying that his physical criteria is sufficient for overweight, especially in N. Korea. However, it is unwarranted on how N. Korea views him as "fat". And even if they do, that doesn't allow us to intervene and define him as so. And as I have said, there is no objective criteria for "overweight" or "fat". For example, a deemed "skinny" girl may view herself as "fat". Thus, my third contention stands. My opponent responds to my fourth contention by saying that because Kim Jong Un isn't the greatest ruler, we have the right to disrespect him. That clearly is false and dehumanizing. Although he may not be a great ruler, we have NO right to label him a "Fat Boy". Since there is no direct attack on the disrespecting aspect of affirming, this contention stands. Thus, I strongly negate and side on the con.