If rich countries eat less, poor countries could eat more

"First, my [o]pponent cited an article by '[A]nne [C]ollins' who[se] website sells a weight loss diet program. . Hardly an unbiased source. The consensus, with which my opponent agrees, says Americans are 'overweight' or 'obese. ' This contention is really worth analyzing. .. " . http://www.usatoday.com... Alright, so some people are categorized incorrectly. However, most Americans categorized as morbidly obese are morbidly obese. There is no denying that many Americans are too fat for their own good. "Short term, foreign aid can slow down a famine, but it cannot eliminate persistent hunger. " However, it would allow for poor countries to eat more, even for a short time. "I am defining 'foreign aid' as money or other resources given by rich governments to poor governments for the purpose of economic development or disaster relief. I agree that in the second case, foreign aid makes a positive impact, but not in the first. " That doesn't even matter, because the point is, they would eat more, even if the long-term effects are bad. "What if all someone eats in double cheesburgers[sic]? " They'd be dead. "Apparently studies show that Americans should not be eating 'less' but eating 'better,' which as I've said before is generally more expensive and time consuming. " However, there are still many Americans who should eat less. . http://www.manataka.org... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... "Is your contention that people are going to save their extra hamburger money to donate to foreign charities? " The real point is, Americans would be healthier, so less money would be spent by government on healthcare, so the government would put some of this surplus into foreign aid, which would then allow poor countries to eat more. "I could argue that eating less hamburgers (and fast food in general) will directly affect a significant portion of the US economy, leaving less tax revenue for the government to give as 'foreign aid. '" I think that the health care is more expensive than any tax on fast food. "I said the 'social ideal. ' Do you know anyone who would choose that person as a mate? .. ." . http://www.iconocast.com... Well, this guy would most definitely be able to be more productive if he ate less. "Note that my Opponent does not say less on 'food', but less on 'fast food'. " This would still have a direct impact on the cost of healthcare. "This relies on the population being healthier, not on them eating 'less' food, which is as I have demonstrated are not the same thing. " However, eating less is part of dieting, so obviously, eating less can lower the cost of healthcare for a good number of Americans, which would allow for more foreign aid. "There is nothing stopping an increase in foreign aid, even without a decrease in health-care costs. .. ." If the government spends less on healthcare, they'd spend this surplus on other things, foreign aid among them. "The people who are anorexic die of starvation trying to compete with all those from the second group who have lost weight. " They should probably eat more. However, there are more obese people in America than bulimics. "Of course, all the above paragraph is speculation, which is exactly what my Opponent has been doing throughout his argument, and why any sensible person should vote Con. " Here's the full chain of cause-and-effect: 0. Rich countries eat less. 1. All people in America who eat too much fast food (there are many of them) eat less fast food. 2. Some people in America are healthier. 3. Government spends less on health care, because it isn't needed as much. 4. Government has extra money. 5. Government puts some of that money in foreign aid. 6. Using foreign aid, government buys food from African farmers for impoverished Africans. 7. Poor countries eat more. So, the chain of events inevitably helps Africa eat more.