The obese should be made to wear odour-combatting undergarments in pubs and bars

Since My opponent provided no definitions, I will then provide evidence that I feel will provide more clarity: Should be made: Mandatory Intestinal gas: Everyone has gas and eliminates it by burping or passing it through the rectum. However, some people may have symptoms that may be bothersome, such as abdominal distention, bloating, belching, and passing gas. {1} While my opponents base for his reasoning is quite funny and, the fact remains that it makes absolutely no sense nor has it been proven. Not only is his base for his entire argument flawed in many ways, we must also look into the fact that it is without a doubt offensive. With this said, I offer you my first contention: Contention one: Flaws When looking into my opponents case, we find that there are several flaws that has not been addressed by my opponent. These flaws including: its flaw in design and its flaws in terms of realism. Sub point A: Flaw in design. When looking into the design presented by my opponent, we find that not only is it flawed in terms of concealment, but it is also flawed in terms of safety. Based on the design presented by my opponent, this so called odor-combating undergarments are clearly visible to the point were it is almost impossible to try to cover them. This design thus creates a situation in which an obese citizen is unable to comfortably move without been ridiculed by fellow citizens. The fact that the resolution makes it mandatory that these citizens were this undergarments at all times in Pubs and Bars where hundreds of people reside, is also interfering with ones happiness at ones again, it increases the amount of ridicules directed towards these people. Sub point B: Discrimination. The fact that my opponent makes this undergarments mandatory for obese people and obese people only, we find that it then becomes discrimination without just course. Making it mandatory for the obese to wear specific undergarments designed just for the obese is equivalent to Hitler making all Jews move to a camp designed just for the Jew. My opponents justification for such a treatment was "because they release more intestinal gas than ordinary people. " Why is this justification flawed? My opponent provided no evidence to support his claim that obese people release more intestinal gas than regular people. Intestinal gas release is not dependent on ones weight, but the following reason: Smoking Lactose intolerance Eating certain foods Swallowing too much air An overabundance of bacteria in the colon {2} Looking into the list above, we can clearly see that the type of intake , not the quantity of the intake plays a large role in the amount of intestinal gas released. In conclusion, saying that a certain group releases more gas than the other without giving factual evidence is absurd, and making it mandatory for a specific group of people to wear something as insane as these undergarment is discrimination without a just cause. Sub point C: Safety Lets examine the design of these undergarment. The extended pipes that go with these undergarments might be compatible with oil rigs, but it is clearly not compatible with direct human contact. Wearing this is not only uncomfortable to the wearer, but it is unsafe to the point were one might hurt his/ herself trying to get up. My opponent makes the wearing of this garment mandatory in bars and pubs only, however the state in which these wearers might be in simply makes the device unsafe. With a limited clouded/ limited judgment, one might hurt themselves or even other people around them. My opponent states that these gases are burnt away harmlessly, however, he neglects the fact that these valves emit heat hot enough to burn the wearers skin. In other words, these undergarments should not be made mandatory as : 1. It interferes with ones liberty to make personal decisions 2. It is a form of discrimination as it is directed mainly at obese people alone and since it is mandatory, leaves no room to say no. 3. The entire resolution presents no factual evidence to support its claim. 4. The resolution is simply offensive. SOURCES: {2} . http://www.northshorelij.com... {1} . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... Thank you and I hope to receive your response soon.