Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS and those who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL

While my opponent's arguments were certainly quite "entertaining" and "amusing", I think they fail to reach the lofty philosophical heights that such a pertinent moral question as this one should aspire to.It is therefore with "deep regret" that I counter my opponent's "arguments".Pro writes "So when Vlad died, because he had confessed his sins, St Peter presumably greeted him warmly at the Pearly Gates, ushered him inside and invited him to help himself to the welcome drinks and canapés. Is that right?"Patently false and utterly ridiculous! What is this rubbish? I am actually insulted that my opponent sees fit to make such a foolish and blasphemous claim such as this!There are obviously no canapés in Heaven, because there are no French people in Heaven. My opponent has made a grave mistake that will surely cost him this entire argument, if not the debate.Pro also talks about a farmer, an individual certainly deserving of eternal damnation as I will show.Pro writes "Farmer: “Well, I was hoping to take my rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven.”"For starters, we can see that this farmer is an arrogant man. "Rightful place" indeed! That's one obvious strike against his moral character.Pro writes "Farmer: “But I was just a simple farmer living a blameless life, what was my sin?”"Secondly, the farmer is patently a liar, as well as a horrible sinner.Romans 3:23"all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God."Obviously, God could have found the farmer's life blameful, so not only was the farmer an unrepentant liar but he actually had the audacity to stand at the entrance to Heaven, lying to St. Peter, and claiming that he should be let in.I ask the audience; does this sound like a man worthy of Heaven? Bear in mind that he's doing all these bad things right in God's doorway.Pro writes "St Peter: “You gazed admiringly at one of your neighbour’s oxen and wished that you owned the beast instead of him – you vile fiend – and you didn’t repent of your sin before you died.”"More damning yet is this additionally evidence against the abomination of a farmer! Not only is he an arrogant liar, but he was covetous of his neighbor's property. This is further testimony against his truthfulness as well, as he just claimed he was "living a blameless life", which he obviously wasn't if he took any opportunity he had to be jealous of his neighbor's property.Pro writes "Farmer: “I admit that I was jealous of my neighbour’s ox, and I know that was wrong, and I was on my way to church to repent when this Transylvanian nobleman came up and rammed a big pointy pole right up my…anyway, suffice to say I didn’t make it to the church.”"If he had never sinned in the first place, he wouldn't be in this predicament. It's his own bloody fault, and his pathetic attempts to shift the blame elsewhere should be anathema to any sane-minded individual.Clearly, my opponent's hypotheticalizing has done nothing but confirm the soundness of Catholic teachings regarding Heaven.Pro writes "Why should you be allowed to enter Heaven, if you have not repented from the evil that you did on earth?”"For some reason, my opponent assumes the only way to repent is to fast. If a fat Catholic realized the error of his/her ways, stopped eating to excess, started to exercise, and moved to Africa to help the poor, but failed to fast, then are they repentant or not?I think it's pretty clear that they are.Additionally, we also have the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which absolves you without you even needing to be repentant (CCC §1520), and I'm sure an obese could sneak in to an anointing session run by an old priest with bad eyesight and get himself/herself/itself anointed.Pro writes "Therefore, I cannot accept that “Absolving (fat) people of sins and letting them go to heaven even if they refuse to fast” is a part of the Catholic faith."Your acceptance of it is irrelevant.Pro writes "Indeed, some Tea Party supporters might argue that the fires of HELL are the real cause of global warming, which is also why I refute “that even if they do die and go to HELL, they will not burn because HELL went out.”"§1033 of the CCC says HELL is not even a place, but a state. Regardless of whatever interpretations you drew from the Bible, the Catholic Church overrides you, since we're discussing Catholic beliefs. Therefore, even if everyone in the world ends up in Catholic HELL, none of them will burn and the resolution is negated.My opponent also more or less ignored my second special case, as I wrote in Round 1:"There may be a fat Catholic who neither overeats to the degree that they are committing the sin of GREED, nor is lazy to the degree that they are committing the sin of SLOTH, but who just has a genetic disorder that makes them obese."My opponent seems to assume that being fat is a deadly sin, which can be easily refuted by viewing his own source. If someone is genetically predisposed to being fat, and so becomes fat without either being GREEDy or SLOTHful, they will not be in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, they would neither be a miserable SINNER nor someone doomed to burn in HELL.In conclusion, I have given good reason to doubt both parts of the resolution ("Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS" and "(Fat Catholics) who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL").I thank my opponent for this debate.Sources:1. Catechism of the Catholic Church