Public gyms ought to be forced to admit overweight children for free

Contention one: Diet is more important than exercise. It is highly unlikely that any gym would acquiesce to demands that obese children be allowed to use their facilities free of charge. Whichever legislative body were to enact such a mandate would have to incorporate some kind of financial compensation. This money would serve the increasingly obese community better by subsidizing healthier food choices. When it comes to losing weight and keeping it off, diet has a greater impact than exercise. By making healthier food options as affordable as fast food, better eating can be encouraged, which will in turn result in more widespread weight loss than the alternative offered by the proposition. Contention two: Forced athleticism The pro is demanding that children live a more active lifestyle. By advocating that obese children be forced to take advantage of their free use of gym facilities, the pro is essentially demanding that the entire population become athletes. One can't really force someone to live such a lifestyle. It has actually been shown to lead to severe psychological effects in regards to the importance of winning and overall being physically superior to their peers. Such a mindset may lead to less obesity, but could lead to significant spikes in steroid abuse and teen suicide rates. It would be the physical equivalent of Japanese academics. Contention three: The definition of obesity. One doesn't need to be especially corpulent to be medically considered overweight or obese. The pro says "visibly obese", yet such a label is highly subjective. Who is making this judgement? An anorexic woman? Another obese man? Some apathetic teenager standing behind the counter? The pro says that these children can simply walk in without even any kind of admissions process. They wouldn't even need to sign their names. Someone with a slight gut could be considered visibly overweight. The ambiguity of obesity is a major issue with the position take by the pro. Refutation to pro contention one: Many obese children cannot afford a gym membership The pro is correct in saying that the financially needy do indeed have higher rates of obesity. However, obesity is something which is hitting all levels of American society. He stipulates, against his original statement of what the resolution is meant to allow, that only financially needy kids can take advantage of these free gyms. This is a rare instance of discrimination towards the middle class. Middle class citizens CAN afford a gym membership, but such membership would have to come at the cost of some other activity that child wishes to engage in. Under the logic of the pro, middle class citizens would be excluded, which is contrary to the resolution that the pro seeks to affirm. Refutation to pro contention two: Obese children need motivation to exercise. This is where the pro advocates forcing children to go to the gym. Forcing. Not even implying the importance. Forcing. Possibly against their will. Furthermore, the pro refers to obese children as "cake scoffers" who would rather spend their money on butter and cake. This derogatory attitude towards obese children is hardly encouraging. Furthermore, my solution of better eating goes a long way towards ensuring that they do not feel bitter resentment for their years of forced athleticism and revert back to their old eating habits. Also, the notion that the parents would force the children at all is a little questionable. The advocation of such behavior is worrisome, but the implementation is unlikely to ever occur. The pro states the parents as the driving force behind pushing their protesting children into the gym, however the bad eating habits of these children are often learned from their parents. Parents have been arrested for child abuse recently for promoting such unhealthy diets, and these people have never had any intention of making their children exercise, even if costly gym memberships were not an obstacle.