There should be a minimum weight for runway models.

Thanks f16.Runway modelsMy Opponent has argued that since I dont further the goal of "selling clothes" that my arguments need to be ignored. The problem is that A. My arguments have monumental benefits to society; just because a models purpose isn't to prevent nuclear war, if we can use them to prevent it then we're obligated to do so. We need to consider the impacts of each argument made by the debaters. Furthermore, dropped or un-refuted arguments need to be taken as matters of facts. It doesnt matter if you think the weight limit will lower the chance of nuclear war, if I can show the argument to remain valid for this round you have to weigh it as such. B. In my world, models are still modeling and selling clothes, we just have thinner and more attractive models. Now consider my opponents world, where the obscenely obese are permitted to model. What better way to discredit the modeling profession than to destroy its glory? So in actuality, you can see that it's my opponent who isn't furthering the goal of selling clothes. With that in mind, I urge you to read my attacks on his arguments, and the defense of mine. Destorys businessF16 argues that some clothes are made to make the obese look thin, so they buy these clothes. I have a few responses to it. 1. The obese will be more enticed to buy clothing advertised by a thin model than an obese one. My Oppoent never attacks my logic on this, he merely asserts it to be false, without any empirical evidence. Granted, I have not given any either, but lets consider the logic behind these points. 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? Think about it. You'll come to the same concusion I have. 2. He hasn't established how he outweighs. How much would business be harmed? How is his world, with a societal acceptance of obesity superior to mine with a societal rejection of obesity? These are things we hasn't done, and so we can't consider this argument valid. 3. A lot of what he says doesn't stand up under scrutiny. For example: " It would certainly not make more sense to advertise using skinny people as the objective is to show that fat people can look skinny" What? If the clothes make a fat person LOOK skinny, how could the obese possibly tell if the person was actually fat or not? They wouldnt.4. Lives/health > Money. My impacts outweigh. Finally, he attacks the idea of a de-facto weight limit, and argues that this destroys the impact of my case. Sadly, this misses the point. My impacts stand because A. The weight limit can lead to a societal rejection of obesity (something he hasn't disputed) which keeps the impacts, and B. The impacts stand because a potential model will work much harder to get thin if they KNOW that they can't make it under their current weight, as opposed to just believing it to be so. He argues that if he can show even one coutner-example than the argument falls, but the problem is that this doesnt challenge the general idea. Sure there are exceptions, so what? The fact that he wants to shows ONE counter-example is telling, because it minimalizes the advantages of his case. Recall that many of my advantages come from societal change (supported by the conformiity prinicple).DiscriminationCon confuses discrimination with an organizations constitutional right to exclude people from membership. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in BSA vs. Dale[1] that private organizations can exclude people from membership. His lawsuit argument falls very quickly. The fact that someone like me with no legal training can show this to be in their constitutional rights shows how quickly the lawsuits would be dismissed. The judge would laugh in the face of those suing. He further argues that the "reputation of the company will tank" Why, and who cares? He hasn't told us how to weigh this argument, so we need to ignore it. Besides, no one wants their company to be associated with the obese, why do you think McDonalds never shows the obese on their commercials? Companies taking a stand and banning obesity would allow others to follow in their stead. The purpose of models is not to prevent nuclear war, however; if we CAN use them to prevent them than our moral obligation demands us to do so. Self esteemHe drops my responses, extend them. My caseObesity discouragedPro argues "When any group of people are ostracised ... their best and most likely action would be to take that discrimination to the courts and file a lawsuit. " However his lawsuit argument has already been refuted. Besides the resolution states what SHOULD be, not nessecarily what is likely. Showing the obese that their condition is no longer considered acceptable will motivate them. It's not like being obese is like being black. Negros cant help their skin color, so obviously ostracism is bad in that case. But with the obese who, save for a few, all gained their condition by negligence and laziness it's ok. Obesity can be fixed, so we need to discourage it. (i) world hungerIt's argued that I've conceded to the idea of long term damage to the food supply. No, all I did was admit that my advantage is short term (but still very much there). His point cant be considered in this round. Sure, the supply would eventually decrease with the demand, but that doesnt INCREASe world hunger. His disadvantage simply is not there. A sudden drop in demand WOULD decrease price and increase supply, that's an economic law. Cheaper food allows for charitys to buy more (a fact he's dropped). "In any case, the purpose of a runway-model is not to solve world hunger. " My response: Who cares? There are more significant things than selling clothes. Like saving lives.(ii) HegEssentially dropped. Con himself even argues "Only the fittest can be selected to serve in the military." Turn: There would be more fit people in my world, and thus more eligible soldiers! It's tue that the demand for troops is a bit low right now, but with declining US status, tensions with China & Russia, and an over-reliance on a finite resourced (oil) WWIII could be right around our corner. When we need every young man pressed into service and every young women creating war supplies in the factories we'll deeply regret that 1/3rd of our population is unfit to aid in a total war. Nuclear war impact is dropped and can be extended. (iii) EconomicsHe makes a pretty valid argument that for all of the things increased, other things might decrease and the economic effects will be equal. However he has dropped my warrant that not being obese encourages people to actually do productive things the economy will be stimulated, and so that's a concession. That's enough of a reason to vote Pro right there. Sexual DevianceHe drops the warrant that sexual deviance is defined as not normal (found in my definition), so that can be extended. He drops his initial objection that "Pro assumes that they will go to a therapist. How can he guarantee this? They might watch porn involving fatter people instead of runway models." Thus it's dropped, and would be a rule violation for him to bring it up in his final round.He argues that the obese cant harm people by being on top of them. Here's a woman who killed her boyfriend by siting on him[2]!HealthCon misses the point here. A minimum body weight leads to a SOCIETAL REJECTION of obesity which leads to the obese fighting their malady. He has never disputed this logic, so it stands in this round. Ignore his objections that don't actually address the argument.Beauty"This is an appeal to popularity fallacy" Of course its an appeal to populrity, the majority is what decides whats considered beautiful in our society!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 perceptionThus, you affirm.1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...