We must stand and fight the freedom-hating fat lobby

I would like to thank TheMrkanyewest01 for accepting this challenge and for posting such an eloquent response, to which I would like to address as follows: In my opening argument I accepted that certain people need special legal protection: I cited people from ethnic backgrounds and people with disabilities; these groups have people have long suffered prejudice, discrimination and abuse through no fault of their own and it is correct that we, as a society, must recognise their right to prosper without undue molestation fromracists and bigots. The obese and the seriously fat, however, are not destined by nature to become overweight. As the National Health Service states: "Obesity does not just happen overnight, it develops gradually from poor diet and lifestyle choices..." (1) Let's see how that happens in reality, shall we? Georgia Davis is 19 years old. She should be at college or out at work but she isn't, she's in hospital. "Aw, what a shame" I hear you say, but wait - it took 40 medics, policemen, firemen and builders and numerous specialised vehicles to remove her from her bedroom and get her to the hospital. Why? Because instead of eating sensibly and getting plenty of exercise she spent her days in bed gorging on fish and chips and other junk food. She was consuming 12,000 calories a day and burning off practically none. The net result of this was that she now weighs 63st (882lb / 400kg). (2) That, I think you will agree, demonstrates how gluttony and sloth has led to a young person being totally unfit for the world of work. So, rather than gaining employment and making a financial contribution to society the bill to the British taxpayer for Ms Davis' health care and unemployment benefits will run into many hundreds of thousands over the course of her life. Indeed, in total, fat people like Georgia cost the British taxpayer ï¿½4.2 billion / $6 billion a year in health care costs alone. But employers may soon be expected to hire indolent slobberchops like Ms Davis or face prosecution. This is ridiculous: what employers want are hard-working, self-motivated, reliable staff - not people that would rather stay in bed and stuff their faces with junk food than go to work. Yes, of course, the fat will be subject to abuse, as my opponent pointed out, quoting the case in my source whereby the heavy-treading Marsha Coupe shrieked "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train" and who went on to whine: ""They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle". If Ms Coupe had actually been physically attacked, the perpetrator of the crime would be duly liable for punishment under existing laws. On the other hand, if she is using the verb 'attack' in the verbal sense, which I suspect she is, she is really calling for people who are impolite to be prosecuted for hate crimes. As a matter of fact, it is likely that the ill-mannered person who insulted her may well have called a ginger-haired person "carrot-top"; a person wearing spectacles "four-eyes" and a short person "half-pint" on the same train, we don't know, we don't even know if her story is true or just made up. In any case, people who are ginger, short or have poor eye-sight have a better case for protection from the law than Ms Coupe because they can't help having the physical characteristics they do, whereas she can - she can go on a diet and join a gym in order to lose weight. Speaking of gyms, there was one case my opponent chose to ignore, by the way - that was that of Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, and who whinged: "I have been discriminated against - I am a YMCA qualified fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises." This seems entirely reasonable to me, it would ridiculous to take lessons on how to get fit from some great big sweating pile of blubber, wouldn't it? If not, similar claims of discrimination could be widened further, but that would be wrong. For example, Richard Dawkins is well-versed in religious matters but I don't think it would be unfair if the Catholic Church turned down his application to become a priest. Similarly, Roman Polanski is well-read and very familiar with teenage girls but it wouldn't be unreasonable for a junior high school to reject his application to be an English teacher. Just like Tiger Woods should not complain if he were not shortlisted for the job as a marriage guidance counsellor, or Mel Gibson to moan about not getting the post of curator in a Holocaust museum, and so on. In conclusion, laws already exist to protect those who need it from hate crimes, there is no reason why the fat should be singled out for special treatment. Thank you. (1) http://www.nhs.uk... (2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...