There should be a minimum weight for runway models.

To those who are still unaware, the resolution says minimum weight but Pro argued why there should be a maximum weight. Pro and I agreed to change the resolution in the comments section. The new resolution is: Resolution: There should be a MAXIMUM weight for runway models. Some clarifications: Weight by itself does not constitute obesity. Not wanting to take advantage of semantics, I will assume that Pro is talking about Body Mass Index (BMI) which is a far more accurate indicator of obesity (this was confirmed in a PM). Since he provided no suggestion as to what the maximum weight will be, I will assume that the intended cap will be at a BMI of 25 (also confirmed via PM). People with a BMI above 25 are considered overweight and over 30 is considered obese [2]. Unless Pro contests this, I will assume that most models are of normal weight or underweight with a few models being overweight or obese. It is common sense and a reasonable assumption but Pro is of course free to contest this. I am arguing for the position that people with the BMI of over 25 should not be automatically disqualified from launching a career as a runway model.I have 3 arguments to make after which I will adress Pro's 4 contentions.ARGUMENTS Before we consider whether a maximum weight needs to be imposed on models, we must first ask what the purpose of runway models is, and whether putting a cap on the maximum BMI will further that goal. Purpose: Runway models showcase clothes from fashion designers, fashion media, and consumers [1].C1) Imposing a maximum weight destroys businessPro says 1/3 of Americans are obese. If you add in the overweight, the number goes up to 3/4 of Americans[3]. Putting a weight limit on models would also limit the size of clothes that the business can sell. Overweight and obese people have their own styles of how they wear their clothes such as wearing solid colors and horizontal stripes. The primary purpose is to make them look thinner. Obese and overweight people do not necessarily wear the same types of clothes as a person of normal weight or underweight. Models who are heavier may be required in order to advertise this type of clothing. A total lack of overweight models will lose this segment of the market.C2) Discrimination is not good for HR and PRIf the fashion industry does not automatically exclude overweight models, they have a choice of choosing who would best represent their clothing, ending up with many underweight and normal weight models and a few overweight. Automatically excluding overweight models will create a media backlash, boycotts, as well as legal problems which would further decrease the profits.C3) Will create self-esteem issues and depressionAs for public health, it will create more problems than it solves. I am assuming we are talking about female models from Pro's pictures. Let's look at the demographics that will want to be like them: High school girls and college aged women. Both demographics are prone to anorexia, and other weight disorders. They are already under tremendous pressure to fit in at school and college. When they see size zero models displaying clothes that they want to buy, they will want to be like them. Putting in a weight cap increases the insecurity. The extremely overweight won't even bother trying. REBUTTALSR1. A maximum body weight discourages obesity Pro suggests ostracizing the obese, which he suggests will lead to people losing weight. Fat chance (pun intended). This would more likely lead to the fatties grabbing their pitchforks and filing a lawsuit in court. (i) Decline in world hungerPro says there will be excess food because the obese will eat less. But, when demand decreases, supply will decrease as well. This stifles the economy which also negates Pro's contention about the economy. Why does Pro assume that food will continue to be manufactured to be sent to the developing countries? Does he consider corporate America to be one giant charitable organization? Excess food will also be thrown away so as to not reduce it's price. (ii) U.S. hegemony will increase More likely than not, it is not the obese 1/3 but the remaining 2/3 who serve in the military. The US is currently the most powerful military in the world. There are plenty of fit people who serve. Decreasing obesity in the US won't increase the strength of the military unless Pro is assuming that the entire country should sign up for military service. With the current technology, this is unnecessary.(iii) The economy will be stimulatedPro assumes that the economy will be stimulated because more people will buy exercise equipment because they want to lose weight. Under this assumption, however, they would also have to reduce their indulgence in fast food as well as eating out in restaurants. The biggest fast food chains such as McDonalds are notorious for serving unhealthy food. If people stop eating fast food, the fast food industry will fail. The fast food industry is much bigger at nearly $150 billion [4] than the gym and exercise equipment industry, therefore this will actually result in a net economic loss. Another thing to consider is that there is no guarantee people will spend on exercise equipment and may choose to exercise at home or go for a jog. This shows that the economy is far too complex to be stimulated by a single industry. A stimulation in one industry may lead to the loss of another.R2. Sexual Deviance is discouraged by a weight limit Pro says that those who find "excess body weight" attractive are sexual "deviants." The reasoning he gives is that the vast majority of people don't. Why is being in the minority considered deviance? Many people have their own preferences for a partner. Those in the minority cannot be considered deviants just because they are in the minority.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. This again will lead to a loss of business of the clothing manfacturer. Even if they do go to a therapist, it will still lead to a loss of business as these people are no longer watching fashion shows so attendance and television viewership will decline. The purpose of runway models is to gain customers and make a profit, not to lose them. Why should the fashion industry give a part of their business to the porn industry? (or to therapists)R3. Public health increase People who have the best chance of making it as a model are those who are already thin. They would likely develop an eating disorder and try to be even thinner. So, an imposition of maximum weight might actually do more harm than good. The obese people have already given up on trying to be thin. What do they care if a maximum weight was imposed on runway models? It is highly unlikely that they have a secret dream to be a model since overweight models are rare. What does happen is after the overweight models get fired, the overweight people will have more trouble finding clothes and the business that imposed the max weight will lose its customers.C4. Defends our perspective of beauty Why must our "perspective" of beauty be defended? "Perspectives" change with the times. If the ancient people insisted on defending their perspective of beauty and succeded, we would still have people like Catherine the great considered beautiful. Would Con consider that a desirable scenario? That is what would have happened if people were able to successfully defend their "perspective" of beauty.ConclusionThe purpose of a model is to sell clothes. The imposition of a maximum weight does nothing to further that goal. None of the benefits that Pro mentioned help sell clothes or increase profits. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(person)#Runway_modelling[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://daniel-workman.suite101.com...