If rich countries eat less, poor countries could eat more

I would like to explain some things here. For one, by "rich countries eat less," this means that as long as the total amount of food that America eats is lowered, the resolution can be affirmed. Obviously, there are many people in America who are obese and should eat less. http://www.annecollins.com... "You might be more productive, particularly if your work involves physical labor (which is rare for Americans anyway). But do you really believe that all the teenage girls that starve themselves are happier for their lower weight? More productive?" They obviously should not eat less. However, there are many more Americans who should. "It has been proven time and time again the foreign aid cannot alleviate poverty and hunger, though it might hold of a famine for a bit." However, this does mean that poor countries would be able to eat more. Whether or not this helps them later is their problem. I'm just trying to affirm the resolution. Personally, I am against foreign aid, but it would allow poor countries to eat more. "In fact, foreign aid often hurts the recipient more than it helps, since the precious resources of a developing country are diverted from what the locals think is important, to what foreign beaurocrats[sic] think is important." That wouldn't be foreign aid. That would be investing. "In addition, you make the claim that eating 'less' will reduce spending on food, but your argument only works (more happy/productive) if people are more healthy as well." Eating less double cheeseburgers makes one more healthy. "In reality, being healthy has to do with a lot more than eating 'less.'" Eating is one of the most important health factors. http://www.connecticutcenterforhealth.com... It's listed first. "One might take protein supplements, food substitutes etc (expensive products) vs buying cheap (and efficient) hamburgers from McD's." The issue isn't that they eat hamburgers instead of healthy food. The issue is that they eat too many hamburgers. http://www.thaindian.com... If all of the obese people in America ate less, they wouldn't be obese. They wouldn't replace the excess hamburgers with supplements. They'd throw out the hamburgers altogether. "If he wishes to show a correlation between healthier eating and lower expenditure on food, my opponent has all his work ahead of him." I'm not arguing for healthier eating. I'm arguing for less eating. Eating one hamburger per day is healthier than eating two hamburgers per day. This extra hamburger is usually unnecessary to one's diet, and only piles on fat. The person could easily only eat one hamburger, paying less for hamburgers. "As I talked about here, the social ideal for a healthy male is not a 'thin' physique, but a muscular physique, which to acquire generally requires a high calorie diet." http://abcnews.go.com... Does this look muscular to you? "There are some Americans who could stand to eat less, there are others who might benefit from eating more." If the ones who should eat less eat less, then poor countries would eat more, affirming the resolution. "What they don't need is extra pressure either way that results from this ridiculous notion of American consumption being responsible for all the world's evils." Nobody needs pressure. However, it would help them overall. America's consumption is not responsible for world evil. However, eating less could help relieve some of these evils. In conclusion, there are some people who should spend less on fast food. This would decrease the cost of health care. http://abcnews.go.com... This decrease would allow for more spending in foreign aid. This foreign aid could be used to by food from poor African farmers, which could then be used to feed other Africans. Everybody wins, if America just stopped being fat.