The obese are immoral

"I'm afraid there isn't plenty of food to go round, that's why food prices are at a record high and at least 100 million people are being pushed further into poverty and hunger as a result." Not to sound rude, but did you read your source? Soaring prices have little to do with how much food is produced. Gas prices alone have a large impact on prices of our food.  http://www.worldhunger.org... The source above has accurate facts about world hunger and clearly states, IN BOLD, that we have enough food for the world's population. My opponent then demonstrates how we are different from the animal kingdom by providing an example that explains humanities intellect as the difference. Because of this difference, I'm assuming he is implying that humanity is not greedy because we have come together. I'm afraid you are missing the point. Humanity is not at the top of the food chain because of strength. We are at the top of the food chain because of intellect and the tools we have developed as a result. As of now, we are the smartest species known to man, and that is our strength, that is why we are still walking the earth. So "survival of the fittest" still fits in our scenario. We may be able to outsmart the animal kingdom, but we can't control our universe. For example, in a thousand years our earth could be 200 degree hotter. Some reptiles and insects may be able to survive the heat and eat each other. Humanity will have lost most of our vegetation as well as most of the animal kingdom which will eliminate most of our food, and that is assuming we can survive that heat, which isn't probable. We would ultimately die off. Species under water might be the only form of life left. That is just an example, may be extreme, but it illustrates the natural order and the fact that we are a part of it despite our stereotypical theory of being more important than the world itself. That being said, we will do anything to survive, just as other animals will. If you're stranded in the desert with a friend, 130 degrees and the only water you have will either keep you alive for 7 days, or keep the 2 of you alive for 2. Despite what the "moral" thing to do might be, we will fight for survival and try to live as long as possible with the hope of being rescued. The point is, we are animals; slightly more civilized than the rest of them, but that is only because that is what it has taken to survive. We are just as greedy. But, we have developed a system of government and money and protection and can therefore do more than simply survive, we can be comfortable. And we will do what it takes to be comfortable even if it means somebody somewhere else is dying. We could give all of our money away and save a life or two. But that would mean living in a tent and being uncomfortable. Is it immoral? No, simply our standard of living. Now, I think both of us have strayed away from topic, but I'll try and tie this all together. The following are my points and why the obese should not be considered immoral. 1)Immoral changes with time and place. Those in refugees, I'm sure, do not find it immoral to have an entire meal while there family and peers whither away. What we consider being obese now, was not obese 500 years ago and will not be 500 years from now. While the definition of morality is relevant, it doesn't prove that, by today's standards, obesity is immoral. 2)My opponent claims to be specific in food and not money, but then states the cost of food being a record high. Sounds like, to me, food and money goes hand in hand even from my opponents perspective, whether he means for it to be or not. We all live to the comfort level of our society because that is what is expected, and that is what we consider the standard of our comfort. My opponent's core concern is obviously saving lives by eating less, and blames the obese for doing that. Money provides food on our table just as much as it provides food on anyone else's table. So if being obese is immoral, then simply being comfortable in the way that most of us are living is immoral as well. The money we spend on a car, a/c, heat, television, cell phones, furniture, electricity, water, etc. All of this can be eliminated or at least cut down significantly so we can feed the needy. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't consider myself immoral because I have all of this, just fortunate. 3) To better tie together mine and my opponent's examples of why we are, or are not different than the rest of the animal kingdom: a. I am simply stating that we are no different. Sure, we are smarter, organized, and have developed tools as a result. But, we have done this only to survive, and it evolved from there. When we were cavemen, we had to make spears for weapons, discovered fire for warmth, and as time went by it progressed in to what we are now. We did this to survive, and it has evolved from there in to a civilization superior to other animals. 4)I am considered extremely skinny, and I can guarantee you, that I can eat more than your typical obese person. We all have natural metabolisms, mine is faster than most of your overweight people. That doesn't mean that they are immoral because they are fat but simply overweight because that is the way they were made. Sure, they can work out and trim the fat, but some people are going to be naturally bigger than others. My opponent has tried to demonstrate that being obese is immoral by giving an example of a family eating in front of a refugee camp. Obese or not, that would be immoral. Being obese has nothing to do with his example. He then gave a source, trying to prove that we did not have enough food on earth because the cost of food is soaring. His source had nothing to do with the amount of food and actually went to prove my theory that money and food go hand in hand. We then debated on the "survival of the fittest," and he claimed that we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom because we are smarter, which is true. However, it further demonstrated my point because it simply proves that we are here because of the tools we have made, not because we are physically stronger. This ties in to obesity because we are all greedy by nature and will have lived the life that we were born in to. Greedy, maybe, and quite naturally. Immoral, not by a long shot. So I will say it one more time, obesity simply has nothing to do with the morality of our society. Skinny people can eat a lot, and obese people can eat very little. If the obese were the only people to blame for consuming more than what is recommended, they would still not be to blame for starving children. Check the sources; we have plenty of food to go around. Starving families are in geographic locations that don't support much vegetation and are dying off because they don't have the money to import goods. Obesity is not the issue; it's more of an economic issue. I could go on and on to try and prove my point but I feel I have already done that. I hope everyone else can see that as well.