Obese customers should pay more for flights.

I hope to be as enjoyable an opponent to have. 1. Cost of Insurance While there's without a reasonable doubt that obesity is linked to similiarly potential medical issues in comparison to old age, allergies, asathma, mental illnesses, pregnancies, etc, obesity is by far the most preventable one. As such, my opponent's suggestion that airlines be required to perform invasive background checks for all medical issues is unnecessary and without ground. Let us take smoking for instance. It has a negative influence on one's health, and as such heavy taxes are required on any purchases of tobacco. The same goes for alcohol. Most of these taxes placed on the products go to pay for medical insurance and costs, since smokers have a higher chance of falling ill from their habits. The taxes increase each year based on specific calculations for how much it costs to house patients with tobacco (or alcohol) related diseases, and it's balanced out. Those who choose to use tobacco pays this tax as insurance. Those who don't smoke, don't pay this tax. It's quite a simple situation. However, since my opponents insists on an argument of statistics and precise percentages, I'll consider the argument here as moot, and as such I'll move on. 2. Comfort My opponent has suggested that perhaps all modes of transportation should raise fees for the obese, and I don't disagree. In fact the system currently already has this in mind: buses do not charge for individual seats, cars are personal purchases allowing consumers to purchase larger cars, and trains typically are pre-designed with much larger space already; however, if obese passengers are indeed causing problems for the remaining passengers, perhaps extra fare is necessary. That said, the debate topic is that the obese should be charged extra for FLIGHTS, so I'll return to our original topic. The argument that since obese individuals are statistically likelier to to be from a less wealthy background, and therefore should not be required to purchase airfare would have been an interesting one if our political system was socialist. However, airlines are not governmental institution, and flight isn't a human right. If a customer from a low-income bracket cannot afford the price of the flight, it would be advisable that they seek alternate forms of transportation. It would, however, be unfair that others who have the income or capacity to live healthier pay for their flights. My opponent suggests that when you sit next to an obese individual who is taking up much of your seat, perhaps you should be required to purchase yourself another ticket. This is the exact unfairness I referred to. Why would those who chose a healthy and balanced lifestyle, who already pay FAR too much in taxes to pay for the medical fees of those who choose this lifestyle? Keep in mind, transportation through flight is NOT an inherent right. No one should have to pay extra so the obese can travel faster or more comfortably. In regards to my opponent's statement: "Sometimes, life is unfair. .. ", I disagree. Is this the same as sitting next to a crying child or foul-smelling passenger? Absolutely not. A crying child one may mute by putting on airline-provided headphones. Foul smelling passengers one may endure by simply turning on the airline-provided air conditioning. They do not lessen the product you purchased (the flight itself), even if they do make it slightly less desirable. The product one purchases is a full seat, and a small one at that. When another passenger demands a part of the seat YOU paid for and refuses to reimburse you in any way, this is robbery. One preventable by having the passenger pay their fair share. 3. Weight & Money "Many people blame George W. Bush for the rise in prices -- does that mean we get to charge all Republicans an added fee for contributing to our economic situation by voting for GWB? Certainly not. " You cannot be seriously attempting to compare the two. I'm going to chalk this up as humor and move on to your actual point. "you cannot realistically blame overweight people for society's troubles, such as high gasoline prices. " And I didn't. Please read my previous argument, it's difficult to debate when one's arguments are misinterpreted. I realistically blame overweight people for raising the costs of FLIGHTS since their weight requires planes to burn more fuel. There's no question that the greatest increase in flight costs involves the increase in gas prices. As such, most airlines are starting to "redesign" their pricing for carry-on luggage as well as check-in luggage. Whereas previously most airlines allow 2 pieces of luggage at check-in, now the industry standard is one, with extra fees attached to the second. Current passengers are charged extra for overweight luggage for this reason, why are they not charged extra for overweight physique? :: CONCLUSION :: There's no question that a flight with mostly overweight passengers will cost the airline more than a flight with mostly underweight passengers. This is simple common sense. The question here lies in whether it'll be more beneficial to charge consumers who are obese more than those who are not. If traveling by flights is a human right, and airlines are government controlled, perhaps it would make sense to maintain the status quo. However, since air travel is still considered a convenience rather than a right, it seems unfair to lump the excess fees from the excess weight to the innocent consumers who strive to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Perhaps, when our technology advances to a point when simple physics no longer factor in the costs of our travel, it would not matter if our fares are justly proportioned. However, with our current situation, it remains unfair for all of us to carry the weight of a few.