It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants

I will refute his points in the general order that they are written: 2. My opponents second paragraph seems to be an attempt to butter up how harsh his legislation is. "Restaurant – Premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public. ", As you see his definition legally applies to any place that can sell food. Hence a supermarket and drive-thru (a legal place to sell food) would clearly be under this legislation. The fact that my opponent is basically changing his own policy is essentially him negating the resolution for me; for to win this debate I only have to prove that their are flaws that means this exact wording of the legislation not be passed. Second I'd like to add that if obese were offensive, and since people seem to be so obsessed with staring at their habits, then even if they were at a drive-thru or at a super-market somebody would still be staring at them. "Behold the fat creature in its natural habitat". 3. I still don't see how fatty foods will be available. .. Remember by my opponents definition of restaurant is any place that sells food is applicable to this law; I repeat if he is changing his policy then he has negated the resolution. 4-5. My opponent here has basically given up the point that the law will have giant loopholes in it. Note, I'd like to point out that currently customers ARE allowed to go to a restaurant owner and make complaints about an uncomfortable guest, my opponent has not yet warranted that this happens in such mass amounts that it warrants government control over the subject. Further more I repeat why would restaurant owners want to lose their best customers? Remember by my opponents definition of fattening food fat people are forbidden to buy large quantities AND fat food. So a fat person can't even come and get the biggest salad on the menu, because that would also be considered fattening food. My opponent is basically willing to give up all civil liberties the obese have to eat the food they want. 6-7. My opponent here does not establish that OTHER people take offense to fat people. He claims that one state in America has proposed to make it illegal to serve fat people, however that is one state. 1/50, that's 2% of America. So my opponent has basically made my argument here. .. the law is so unpopular that it can only gain support in 2% of America, I'd also like to point out the word "proposed", the fact that it was not passed easily means that the law was not popular enough to even gain ground within that state. So therefore if my opponent has not even proved that 1 state, 2% of the country, wants to ban fat food their is absolutely no justification that a majority vote of 51% would ever get passed; in America that would be called oppression. 6-7 cont. Regarding the McLaw suits from my opponents (1) source. "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H. R. 554). While the bill has drawn some criticism as potentially overbroad, it enjoys solid if not overwhelming support with Congress, the states, the foodservice industry, and the public (Frumkin 2005). A recent Gallup poll reported, for example, that 89 percent of Americans believed that restaurants should not be held liable for an individual's obesity or weight gain " I'd like to point out that we believe in the principle of buyer beware, further more I'd like to point out two things to my opponent. (6-7) cont. If 89% of Americans believe in personal responsibility that means only 11% of the people do not believe in personal responsibility. My opponent has stated that 1/3 of the population is obese, hence their is at least 22% of obese that are absolutely fine with personal responsibility, and thus again their is no justifiable reason to have a permanent law. Further more I'd like to point out that all McLawsuits were not by fat people, "Similarly, in the case we mentioned above, McDonald's paid $10 million to settle a class action by Hindus and vegetarians over beef essence contained in the company's "pure vegetable" frying oil. " As you can easily see their are other reasons why one would wish to sue McDonald's and thus my opponent can not make the claim that only obese are doing it; however we are not arguing over McDonald's ethical policy. 8. I have already addressed the one state issue, remember it is only 2% of the population. .. still needs another 49%. 9. My opponent;s source source says , "93% said that they believed obesity was a serious problem", I'd like to first point out this was a survey of only 1,000 workers. Their are very easy ways to target specific locations to get the evidence and poll data you like. I believe the UK is capable of having way more than 1,000 people in the food industry; so I find it hard to believe that only 1,000 people can represent the broad majority. Second of all I'd like to point out the main point of his article were the obese are demanding larger portion, (#4) "71% of chefs and waiting staff believed customers were becoming greedier, with 64% claiming that consumers were demanding bigger portions. " 9 cont. Hence my opponent has made my argument for me. The obese are demanding even more fattening food so the idea that they don't want fattening food by my opponents own argument is completely illogical. Remember my opponent's definition of restaurant would make any legal place to buy fattening food illegal to sell, so thus he has essentially proved my point. The obese would be oppressed, if they are greedier and they want LARGER portions that means they want fattening food. Hence to pass this law it would be oppressive to the obese. 10. I have already made my point that the obese WANT FATTENING FOOD and thus by closing all-you-can-eat-buffets you are being oppressive to the fattening people. Further more buffet owners tend to serve cheap food with many fillers to ensure that people eat all the rice and not all the seafood; further more the fact that their are stable buffets means that they are more than capable of being stable in an obese society. 11. If their so lazy then how is it they manage to go to the food store in the first place! A "Fat pride" march is more than likely to be possible. Especially since so many of them demand fat food! 12. This is my opponents final argument and I find it to be the most oppressive and offensive of them all. The idea that we should censor something because it is "anti-social" is the most unethical thing that has ever been heard; it is a giant gateway to mass oppression. I'd like to further point out that my opponent has not proved that other people take offense at fat people. He has never warranted this claim so this statement is only his own biased opinion against fat people. Voters: My opponent has not proved that their is a critical mass of people that actually want fat food reform. Remember my opponent's sources proves that A. Fat people want food and B. Attempts at this type of legislation have not even been passed by even 2% of the country. 2. Further more I'd like to point out that my opponent has established that Fat people actually want fat food; thus the obese have no right have their civil liberties oppressed. The idea that just because their anti-social they should be censored out of society it completely immoral and unjustified. 89% of Americans believe in individual choice according to my opponents own article and thus their is no reason to mandate and enforce wide-spread government control. 3. It would hurt the economy because remember fat people can not buy fattening food anywhere that legally sells food; thus their are many places that rely on a huge demand to earn a profit. Supply and Demand; their is a very clear mutual balance in the economy between the fast food corporations and the fat people who they serve. So to forbid fattening food to the obese is just damaging the countries own economy.