Question: Is obesity a disease?

Obesity is a disease Nice.

Obesity is a disease Resolution: "Obesity [1] is a disease [2]."I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the "Pro" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a "disease" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!

Obesity is a disease Lovely.

Obesity is a disease. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not "choose" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.

Obesity is a disease. Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.

Obesity is a disease. Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated "Cancer is a disease". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.

Obesity is a disease. Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.

Obesity is a disease I accept! Thank you for instigating this debate, @AndDontCallMeShirley. Good luck to my oponent...

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. My opponent con states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice."He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.

Obesity is a disease This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. "What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate?

Obesity is a disease. Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.

Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, "Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain." Sources http://obesity.procon.org...

Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.

Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such Many people suffering from overeating do so compulsively as a result of psychological problems. For example a depressed person might comfort eat to feel better. Why should these people be punished instead of helped?

Obesity is a disease. 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay "healthy" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.

Fatness ! Okay so I was lazy on the evidence, still the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. Because you didn't always address what I had said, it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. But I accept, I will present more evidence. Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. So I will go through your answer piece by piece. Fat is a choice. Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. Fact. There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. (1). So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience: Oxford definition: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury. With this definition many things can fit under this classification. For example, alcohol poisoning: 1, 'disorder of structure of function in the human' yes. 2, 'especially on the produces specific symptoms, acts in specific location' yes. 'Not simply the direct result of physical injury' yes. And so definitions are man made and broad, so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description, that it counts as the same thing as everything else under that category. There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them, because they are innocent victims. You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. Fat people are just unfortunate enough to have a weakness that has a effect on their appearance. Your second paragraph I answer above. Though I will add that I say (most the time) because you cannot rule everything out 100% if you are serious about science. It is mearly a humbleness, in practice, as if said above, people are fat because they have eaten too much bad stuff with not enough exercise. A tiny fraction has genetic disorders. Your third paragraph. So the statement you repeat at the top you do not dispute. So we agree that's accurate. You say it is not relevant to the dabate, well its relevant to your point about it being a disease like I have said above. You catergorize it as a disease, because diseases have an understanding by the general public to be inevitable. Therefore your point about glamorising them stands legitimate because its not their fault and you feel sorry for them and they shouldn't be discriminated because of something they have no control over. This is why the point WAS relevant because it explains why it is self inflicted and why your labelling of disease was an attempt to mislead the audience. Also, still on your third paragraph. I do not provide any evidence for fat people harming anyone when in the media, because that is not what I am trying to say. Glamorising fatness, as opposed to fighting it, is not the best choice. Nor can you do both. We want fat people to hate being fat lets be real! anyone who loves the person enough to want to see them grow old does anyway. Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. This could lead many overweight people remaining overweight, this could be because it could serve as an "identity" for example. Your fourth paragraph: I don't think you fully understood me there? The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. Them being, bad food education, stigma attached to "greens" and attitude towards sweets, unfulfilling jobs and shallow materialistic society that lead to depression and thus addiction (which is fatness, as addiction to food is what causes fatness), alcohol culture, not shameful to be lazy (to some). So how does the fact that people are getting ill from food reflect something good about the society? it doesn't make sense too me... you make this speech about liberalism and rights of the (diseased) but it has no relevance that I can see. I am not saying if someone is funny and qualified but fat, that one should offer the job to the same man who is just skinnier. I am saying we should not be pushing for, and prioritizing putting fat people on T.V in some political correctness frenzy. As fat is a problem that needs help and prevention, not more acceptance. More acceptance = more fatness More fatness = more death. Not good. And I could find evidence suggesting that if something is accepted then people will feel more comfortable doing it, I just take that as obvious. 5th paragraph. I am not saying show the top 8% only. I am saying we should show the middle 80% but also you must remember that its not 8% of women are skinny, its 100% of women are a healthy (quite skinny) normal size, and their diet can change that. If 60% of women in society are obese, should we show more obese people? No, we should not deliberately show more fat people to make the fat population feel better about their life deteriorating addiction. I don't fully understand what your point is on this paragraph so excuse me.. 6th. Don't understand what your trying to say here. 7th. No there isn't anything wrong with that. We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. 8th. When I say people with neurological or personality disorders I mean people who might normally be considered dangerous or completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. And so showing their real self is good to decrease stigma and help sufferers belong. It could be any other life effecting conditions, such as multiple-sclerosis, multiple personality, schizophrenia etc. Fatness is fatness, they may have a 'personality disorder' its called laziness, greediness etc. The are fat because they where to greedy or lazy to stop it, its not fair to put a sufferer of schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis in this same basket. Indeed its a cop out for a fat person to call it a disease, it reduces responsibility. Your 9th. What? its a hypothetical situation what facts could I of possibly got? Answer the question and stop avoiding them all, it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. (bare in mind I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive and others are just hard to find) the points still stand though and have not been disputed. Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. Your 10th. I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. Again with the avoidance, proof is here (paragraph 11) Paragraph 12. Ye it might be seen as respectful to be fat in a starving country of course! it shows you have money and you are probably more healthy than the others who are starving. It is not respectable, solely to be fat. Its what it says about you, in that culture that is respected. Not the fact that they are lazy and greedy. paragraph 12, yes health foods are for talking obesity. So what, I don't get why you are saying that? I would if I was in charge yes. 1. Hu F. Genetic predictors of obesity. In: Hu F, ed. Obesity Epidemiology. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008; 437""460.

Being fat causes problems for everyone Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].

America is NOT obese. True, to say "America is obese" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country "obese", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Fatness ! Okay so firstly, I don't know what the definition is for disease, and more importantly, it is not relevant. What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time). Nor does it even creep up on them like things such as cancer or strokes may do. By this I mean people are aware that they are overweight and it happens gradually. So you seem to be implying that fat people have no choice in their condition, this is frankly wrong. So although the American Medical association define it as a disease, that does not change the fact that it is self inflicted. So your point, though theoretically true, has no relevance to this discussion. People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people. Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem. You say only 8% of women have the 'perfect' shape. You need to tell me why this is relevant for me to respond to it. But I assume you are meaning that only 8% of women aren't fat and so magazines not showing fat people will make everyone depressed. 1. 92% of women are not 'fat'. I am not saying only have the 'top' 8%, I am saying don't glamorize fatness. Also, the reason why only 8% of women have this 'perfect' shape, and so many people are 'chubby' or 'plump', is not because of some natural phenomenon indicating that 50% of women (or whatever) are classed as overweight - it is because of bad practice in the culture. Again it is 'self' inflicted. Not what people typically consider a disease. You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying... I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone. But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem. And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can. Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana. Also you may argue that these things are also shunned because of the lifestyle they typically associate with - but marijuana at least is smoked in many cultures without problems, I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour. It always requires laziness or greed or ignorance. (not to mention mental weaknesses and problems). You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition. No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.

Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.

Should Americans get help beating obesity. If you have seen documentaries such as FED UP then you know that it is not only just a genetic problem. Children are growing up with their staple food being highly processed, high in fat and high in sugar. What choice do they have if that is all they are being shown and fed since they open their eyes? I am not defending the fact that it is alright for them to be obese but society should and could be doing a lot more such as creating awareness about healthy eating, good food practices and exercise. People need to intervene. In the documentary FED UP a bill was trying to be passed to stop unhealthy food being served however someone prevented pizza from falling under this bill because it contained tomato sauce which to some company counted as a vegetable. How much more ridiculous can it get? Not as ridiculous as the fact that heart disease is the number one biggest killer in the world and obesity the leading cause. Companies like this are controlling what our children eat and it can be clearly seen that they don't care about what happens to them. Obesity is a disease . It is a social responsibility that we help our next generation free themselves from the cycle To your point about 'Pro-fat' what really do you mean when you say people don't want to see reality? The reality that they see is a very different reality we see which is, once again, why they need help to be able to see what is right and make the suitable change

Fatness ! Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... “Obesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.” Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a “perfect” body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... “The Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.” Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of “perfect body.” http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed “too fat” women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are “too fat.” Harm 4: Women who are deemed “too fat” may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro’s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.

Obesity Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.

Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...

The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits. Indeed, I fully accept the facts my opponent cited and would concede that my opening arguments could be viewed as a (well-intentioned) elaboration of those facts. However, I should like to make it abundantly clear that the only reason I coloured the truth with some flowery language was to illustrate the dangers of allowing the obese to take advantage of our generous nature as a society. You see, in most developed countries the judicial branch of the government interprets the acts of the legislative branch in legal cases and thus sets precedents. The case I referred to in the opening round where an obese person was classified as disabled for the purposes of his accommodation in his place of work sets a dangerous precedent insomuch as if a person is classified as disabled as an employee then why should he not be entitled to a blue badge car parking permit or any other of the munificent benefits bestowed upon the handicapped? It is the thin end of the wedge. If someone is classified as disabled at work then, having been given an inch it is only a matter of time before the obese take a mile and try and cash in on all the benefits currently accorded to the genuinely disabled. Thank you.

Obesity yes, exercise is important. I guess what my main concern is people's assumption's about obese people. If you see someone over weight, do not assume its because they over eat. If you see someone thin, do not assume it's because they are healthy. The idea of being over weight has misled people into judging "fat" people.

Being overweight is bad 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you

Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!

Obesity In America should we do something I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.

Obesity In America should we do something Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it

Being fat causes problems for everyone The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.

An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems.[1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening. It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age. It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer?[2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well? [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112902182.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008, http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml, accessed 9/12/2011

Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ. If I may say obesity and smoking are two totally different things. Smoking: An act or spell of smoking something. Obesity: The condition of being very fat or overweight... I rest my case... The healthcare system could hardly refuse to treat people in need (smokers), after all how would that reflect on NZ? If someone needs treatment they need treatment, it is not something we can control. Smokers are PURPOSELY wasting their lives away, signing a death warrant and costing our health system a heck of a lot of money. Where as obese people are victims of fatty food, they just eat and eat, a guilty pleasure that in some cases can not be controlled.I will not argue that smoking is very addicting and once you start you cant stop but self control is a skill smokers need to master... Obese people are not costing the health system half as much money as careless smokers, that is a fact in concrete. Something you cannot deny... Here is a list of diseases caused by smoking... Gum disease Lung Cancer Heart disease Lung disease Diabetes Impotence Blindness... The list goes on and on... I recently interviewed a smoker and questioned her about the pros and cons of smoking, here is what she said: Zoe: I made a list of what I liked about smoking vs. what I hated about smoking ... and though I really missed it at first, looking at this list made me see that I didn't like smoking as much as I thought I did. What I Liked about Smoking: The bonding I experienced with other smokers. The feeling of creating a ritual. Watching the cigarette burn and watching the smoke swirl. Momentary gratification. What I Hated about Smoking: The after-smell on my clothes, furniture, car, house, everything. Yuck. Not being able to breathe properly. The constant nagging cough. All day, all night. Lots of phlegm, lots of throat-clearing and losing my voice mid-sentence. Painful heartburn every night and every time I drank coffee. Feeling winded after extremely mild activity. Severe throbbing headaches, occasional migraines. Lingering colds and bronchitis. Racing heartbeat, more sweating. Increased rate of hypertension. Dizziness after smoking too fast or [having] too many cigarettes. Nausea from smoking too much. The constant coppery, ashy taste in my mouth. Yellow skin, teeth and fingernails. Scaly, unhealthy-feeling skin. Anxiety from the fear about what I was doing to myself and the consequences. No relaxation, always feeling in need of something. A constant feeling of not being satisfied. Mini-withdrawals throughout the day. Feelings of shame while spending time with nonsmokers. Not accomplishing tasks because of wasted time smoking. The late-evening/middle-of-the-night trip to the gas station. Going out in bad weather to smoke alone. Feelings of inadequacy and substance dependence. Driving my cat out of the room every time I lit up. Dry mouth and constant feelings of thirst. Coughing so hard that I made myself sick. Trembling hands and fingertips. Fear. Of being unable to quit, of dying an untimely, painful death. The stinging feeling in my lungs when I tried to take a deeper or slower breath. Getting smoke in my eyes. Burning my lips on the filter. Trying to light short butts and feeling my eyebrows singe. Ouch! Re-lighting a previously torched cigarette, so I don't "waste" any tobacco. Overflowing ashtrays, ashes and dust everywhere. Burn holes in my car upholstery and on my clothes. "Will I fall asleep smoking?" "Will I catch something on fire?" Dry, chapped lips. The cost. All that money wasted on ruining my health and well-being. My nails and hair grew very slowly. Smoking fueled my compulsiveness relating to other bad habits, such as nail-biting and binge-eating. Having to reapply my lipstick after smoking. The filthy taste of cheap tobacco. Having to crack the car window in the pouring rain. Wet leg, wet arm, water in my eyes. Tar build-up on windows and furniture. The way my hair and skin smelled. Limited motivation and energy. Spilled tobacco in my purse, on my dresser, on my computer desk. Lighting the filter end by mistake... Dropping a cigarette while driving. Trying to tap my ashes out the car window ... while the window is rolled up. Dropping hot ashes or losing the tip of a cigarette. Oops! Tapped ashes in my drink. Feeling "exiled" in the smoking section/smoking room. Dulled sense of taste and smell. So here she was aware what smoking was doing and had done to her and yet she still to this day continues to smoke, she is trying to stop, she is doing everything in her power to out a stop to the bad habit but all her efforts are pointless. Nicotine patches and gum haven't worked for her. The people selling and distributing cigarettes are ending peoples lives, they have lost sight of everything and have been overwhelmed by greed. They do not care that every second of everyday people are dying, due to the effects of smoking... Let me tell you a story... My mother's father, a famous politician, smoked. They lived on a farm with animals, aside from the abundant fruits and vegetables they grew, they had also a small tobacco plantation. He dies at age 60, a waste of a life, my mother was at his side when he died and she has since vowed to try everything in her power to stop friends and family from smoking. I , nor my siblings ever got to meet our grandfather, a real shame as we have been told several stories about him, I am told I am like him but that is not enough, I wish I had the chance to meet him. He is just another victim of smoking. Smoking is a disgrace, I wonder what the reaction would be if smokers knew that an ingredient in rat poison is also found to be in cigarettes... Once again, I rest my case...

Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. http://www.youtube.com... Here's another video. It isn't necessarily about childhood obesity, but it is a good video on obesity in America (and is somewhat entertaining). Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child(ren). By neglecting to feed a child nutritious foods and allowing them adequate amount of exercise, you are abusing them. We can encourage them to feel better (which would maintain mental health), but they still will be physically unhealthy. The emotional damage of being teased for your weight (something I can relate to) is absolutely devastating. Eating dinner as a family (without distractions) has been proven to be better for the kids. Children are less likely to smoke and engage in risky behaviors. If parents are too busy to cook dinner and eat with their kids at the dinner table, maybe they should've reconsidered having a family. To answer my opponent's question, "And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter?": Of course it should matter! The human body wasn't meant to carry 30 extra lbs. of fat. The fat kid most likely has a sleep apnea or a CPAP machine to held them breathe at night. The fat kid will probably develop type 2 diabetes. The fat kid probably has high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. In response to my opponent's question, "Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion[?]": Society's opinion is the right opinion. Being overweight or obese isn't normal and should not be tolerated. Yes, we need to encourage positive self-esteem habits in our children, but something like being heavy is completely preventable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...

Fatness ! “the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. ” Not exactly, but since you are not credible we can’t take your word for it when you talk about fact. “it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. ” No sir, you just have to have evidence. You carry the burden of proof; you have to prove why it is bad to have fat people made to look beautiful. “Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. ” You have to prove why it hurts. “Fat is a choice. ” Yes, sometimes it is, doesn’t mean some fat people are beautiful. “Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. ” Not all the time. “There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. ” Yes, it does happen, so you are proving my point. “So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience. ” I’m not misleading anyone nor am I lying. I showed what the American Medical Association has said. Attack the arguments not the character of the debater. “And so definitions are man made and broad,” So are you saying you can only have a definition if it comes from God? You just brought up a definition… “so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description,”Just because Eddy doesn’t agree that the sun is in the sky doesn’t make it any less true. “There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. ” I’m not misleading anyone. I’m quoting the American Medical Association. “This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them,” Uh, no it’s a fact… “You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. ” Um, I’m not racist… I sure hope you aren’t ether. “Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. ” Uh, I agree they should not be ashamed but by this debate that’s what you are doing. Nobody should be discriminated. “Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. ” Uh, you have brought up no reason to believe that fatness is glamorized. “The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. ” No, you did not clearify, I was showing how that was good. “I am not saying show the top 8% only. ” That’s what the media does, anything other than the 8% is “too fat. ” “We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. ” By this debate you are implying they are ugly… “completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. ” A) That’s a horrible thing to say and B) That’s terrible. “it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. ” Um, that’s really sweet of you to say. Also, you look desperate too… “I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive” Uh, so you are intuitive enough to show this hurts society? You never explained that. “the points still stand though and have not been disputed. ” No they don’t, they had no backing on them and they hold no weight to this round. “Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. ” Uh, what? Even RoyLatham does that… “I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. ” I don’t understand. “Again with the avoidance, proof is here that proves nothing,” all it says is fat is bad, not why it is bad or why it affects our country as a whole.

Obesity I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.

An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn.[1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US.[2] The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few. We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions.[3] Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature.[4] Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for. [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE, accessed 9/14/2011 [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf, accessed, 9/14/2011 [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411, accessed 9/12/2011

The obese are immoral Immoral = involving right and wrong I would agree that having a 7 course meal in front of a starving family to be immoral. However, the debate topic is generally speaking about the obese excluding those who have metical conditions. I'll just start off by stating a few things and you can argue your side. 1) Society generates our views of moral and immoral. So what a southern American citizen, like myself, views immoral might be completely different from a citizen in Hong Kong, or even New York. 2) Time changes our social rules. Now, we have a very specific scale of obesity according to height and gender. Centuries ago, there was no such thing. In fact, being "plump" (now considered obese) was a sign of wealth and class. So in that aspect, if you were starving, you were a peasant, which was acceptable. 3) You're saying that instead of eating that 7 course meal that far surpasses what our society says we "need," donate money to charity so other people can eat and be healthy as well, right? Every culture, and every individual, has a standard of living. I bet you live in a house or apartment, probably have furniture, a t.v, a nice bed, refrigeration, a/c, etc. You can probably live on a quarter of the expenses your living on now and still be better off than those that are starving. However, that is all you know, that is how you were brought up and anything less would be uncomfortable (just an example). Those over seas, in Africa, who are starving know little more than being starving. I'm not saying that is right, or wrong. I'm simply stating that the definition of right and wrong changes. Basically, immoral is a word that changes by culture and over time. My country condones luxury living first, and then giving to charity. Other cultures differ, which is similar to the over all principal of morality. There is no concrete definition for being moral.

Curb childhood Obesity for USA My opponent agrees with me that obese people are being discriminated against, that the cause IS because of their surroundings, (like I have mentioned) but he also said that we should not help them. Sir, I would like to point out that many children are being affected by this disorder and the effects that come with it such as: >Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes (an autoimmune disease that results in destruction of insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas.) >Cardiovascular disease >Stroke >Hypertension (high blood pressure) >hypothyroidism (caused by insufficient production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland.) >Dyslipidemia (a disruption in the amount of lipids in the blood.) >Hyperinsulinemia (where excess levels of circulating insulin are in the blood) >Insulin resistance (the condition in which normal amounts of insulin are inadequate to produce a normal insulin response from fat, muscle and liver cells.) >Glucose intolerance >Congestive heart failure >Angina pectoris >Cholecystitis >Cholelithiasis >Osteoarthritis >Gout (a disease created by a build up of uric acid. In this condition, crystals of monosodium urate or uric acid are deposited on the articular cartilage of joints, tendons and surrounding tissues. These crystals cause inflammation and pain, both severe. If unchecked, the crystals form tophi, which can cause significant tissue damage. Gout results from a combination of elevated concentrations of uric acid and overall acidity in the bloodstream.) >Fatty liver disease >Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems >Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) >Fertility complications >Pregnancy complications >Psychological disorders >Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) >Stress urinary incontinence >Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder Not all, but most of these will result in a painful death, and sir, you stated "Why should we help them...?" If we don't help our children prevent these treacherous diseases and conditions, who will? Not the media! in fact, they are contributing to diseases. but that's a whole different debate for a whole different time. Not the government- they have caused more problems than they have solved we have to attack one of the main sources: Schools! As I stated before "schools contribute to this growing epidemic when they limit food sources to saturated fats." We need to gather parents and school administrators and warn them of this disease that is growing before America's eyes. We need to donate money to raise awareness in health classes and we need to raise the number of Physical workouts everyday.

Obesity Okay be "flaffy" but it has disadvantages like:dyspnea,diabet etc

Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.

Smoking is as bad a Obesity Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;

americas weight probem is only getting worse The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.

Overweight people cannot be beautiful. I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un"health"y adjective harmful to health. "an unhealthy diet" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?

It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Many thanks to my opponent for her continued interest in this subject. With Britain now having one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, the problem has now become one of widespread debate in the general population. Firstly, it should be accepted that overeating is an addiction and obese people deserve proper medical help to overcome their cravings for food, just in the same way as a drug user might be trated for their addiction.. However, just as junkies that refuse treatment, or relapse, face mandatory rehabilitation, usually involving incarceration within a secure environment, so this same principle applies to obese people who persistently refuse to address their weight problem. This is not punishment, it is assistance for those people who damage their health and cost the taxpayers fortunes as a result. My opponent went on to quote Prof. Jane Wardle who said that parents shouldn't be held totally responsible for their children's excessive weight. I'm not a medical practitioner, as I already admitted, but it would appear to me that overweight kids' parents should be held to account. After all, where do the children get the food (or the money for food) from? Perhaps if they steal it, the parents may have an excuse, but if they are knowingly feeding them too much junk food, isn't that child cruelty? Wouldn't' a mum that plied her kids with alcohol or a dad that bought his kids crack be punished? Her final quote from Tam Fry reinforces my argument by suggesting that even with a gene predisposing one to obesity were to be identified, becoming overweight is not inevitable provided one leads a healthy lifestyle. In other words, becoming obese, or addicted to drugs or taking up a life in crime are matters of personal choice. In society, we have rights but also responsibilities, to ourselves and to others and if we neglect our responsibilities, we should expect to receive help in order to rehabilitate ourselves back into society, whether that is through prison for drug offenders or the workhouse for the obese. Thank you.

Fatness ! I will now clarify my point because it is said that it is confusing. Being obese is disease, it doesn’t mark who you are, your self-worth, or how great you can act or sing. It is relevant to this because it is a fact. Now a fact is not an argument in whole but it adds to your argument itself. So my point “being theoretically true” is relevant to this discussion. I would like to say that my opponent concedes that not all people are fat because they want to be, by saying, “What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time).” He is proving my point that not all people choose to be that way and it is therefore a disease. My opponent says, “People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people.” Now this is not relevant to this debate. The debate is on why fat people should not be in the media, not if it is a hobby or a choice. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing any substantial evidence proving that having “fat” people in the media hurts anyone. My opponent also said, “Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem.” Yes, it does reflect on our society it shows that not all a person is are looks, and they are not just for pleasure, it shows that they are a human being striving to show to us what they are going through and that people with diseases can overcome their outward appearance and look to who they are and what their talents are. He never proved why the reflection on our culture is a bad thing and I have shown you how it is actually turned into a good thing. It looks as if I should clarify this point also. I am saying that 92% of women are not what media shows as perfect. If you glamorize people who are perfect without showing that the other 92% are beautiful or talented in their own ways you are saying that they have little self-worth. “You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying...” There is no response, this is what your logic implies. “I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone.” Good then there is nothing wrong with showing people who have weight issues that they can be beautiful. “But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life.” You have shown no proof why obese people don’t have neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. “Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem.” My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. “And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can.” Of course you can, you could cuss me off if you wanted too but that doesn’t make it right. Now another thing you shouldn’t do is bring up assertions without any facts backing up your claim… My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This point can be discounted. “Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana.” Proof? You must bring up proof for the things you say. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This can be discounted. “I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour.” My opponent has again brought up no facts on why this is not true, just because he has never seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This can be discounted, but first let me educate you on this. :) It is a widely known fact that in Africa there are many fathers and husbands that cannot provide their families with very much food. Now when a woman gets fat it is a sign of plenty, abundance, and good health. So yes, there are cultures that believe being fat is a good thing. “You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition.” Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m also saying that fat people have every right to be in media as anyone else, and that fat people are worth something and have talents that should also be brought to life. You have not proven why this is false, this can be discounted. “No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.” That’s what we have organic food and Michelle Obama for. Also, you can’t just take companies out of production, just because you feel like it. I’d like you all to remember what I said in my first round that Jenifer Lawrence has been deemed too fat, if she has who will be next? Now for all of you who have skimmed through this debate I would like to fill out your ballot for you. Grammar and spelling: Flow Con. Pro has misspelled the words: habits, tackle, and fat. And used the incorrect form of many words such as take and used the word peoples instead of people’s. Conduct: Flow Pro. He has been a great opponent and hasn’t been picking on grammar or facts. Sources: Flow Con, Pro had blind assertions with no facts. And last but not least, Arguments: Flow Con because Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing why beautiful fat people hurt our country and he also conceded that not all people are fat because they are lazy.

The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled. In reply to his rebuttal should like to confirm that I agree that everybody in society should be treated equally: indeed, this is the crux of my argument; the obese want to be treated specially and receive extra benefits that other people who have self-inflicted lifestyle issues, such as alcoholics and drug addicts, are not entitled to. Obviously, if a person becomes obese because they are disabled and are unable to exercise, that's different - they should receive preferential treatment, not because they are obese but because they are disabled. Thank you.

America is NOT obese. As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the "obesity problem" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.

Obesity In my conclusion, I believe that overweight people should not be judged for their weight because there may be a reason behind that of why they are like that. There are various health reasons where that individual cannot control their weight and are too sick to exercise. People should not be judged by their looks.

Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. "Society's opinion is the right opinion." To understand this phrase my opponent stated, we must first understand who "society" is. Defined by the dictionary, a society is a community with shared customs. By that standard, a high school can be a society. Here's a quick example of when society's opinion was, in fact, wrong. 18 young girls at Gloucester High School (Massachusetts) decided it would be the right thing to do if they all go pregnant together. In addition, what happens when a society's beliefs leads to bullying, harassment, or even suicide? Teaching a child that they aren't perfect because they don't fit society's beliefs unbearable to think about. As stated by my opponent, childhood obesity is preventable. However, it isn't exactly easy to do. We live in a society where our national food is pretty much a Big Mac. The average income of a family does not necessarily provide people the ability to buy their children all organic, healthy food. It is both easier and more cost-effectively to simply provide a child with something that is unhealthier for them. [1] http://www.afa.net... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...

Addiction is NOT a "disease" To refresh my answer Addiction (depending on the individual) may be any compulsive act repeated over and over. Now I ask my opponent, why is it that when real consequences are taking place, Broken Heart Syndrome would not be considered a disease? My answer having a "broken heart is not a disease " the heart itself before some emotionally feeling arose was perfect does not make for a disease one simply can't be defined a a real disease.then we could say a compulsive hoarder who refuses to part with anything' if you pick apart the underlying cause you may find this person has an emotional disorders NOT technically a disease but rather a set of imbalances due to a traumatic occurrence that must be corrected or rewired in order to release these habits. http://www.schaler.net... http://www.thecleanslate.org... This physical change of state is balanced by the arguments that addiction is simply an unwanted behavior, a behavior that doesn't fit the traditional idea of what a disease is. At some point before it becomes a condition over which a person has no control, addiction involves choice and human free will. To that end, it cannot possibly be categorized along with conditions such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or other neurological diseases.The question is an important one because both medical treatment and insurance reimbursement are diagnosis driven. Standards of care are drawn up based on recognized disease states. Insurance companies make decisions on what they will cover by looking at standard treatment plans for approved diagnoses. Government policies are also influenced by how you define addiction.Proponents of the choice model of addiction argue that the consumption of drugs or alcohol is a choice, and that just as people can choose to take drugs or alcohol, they can choose not to.

Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. To compare childhood obesity to child abuse is preposterous. In contradiction to my opponent's views, it is unfair to dictate how a child lives his or her life. Rather than hounding children about what they eat and how much they weigh, we should be encouraging them to feel confident in his or herself. It is agreeable that no, children don't always choose what they would like to eat, some times there are simply no other options. I, myself always being on the go as a child, am aware of the strain it puts on a family. It isn't always possible to sit down at a table and eat a nice, healthy dinner. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also easier to grab something on the go. In opposition of comparing childhood obesity to abuse, we should be making families aware of the dangers of constantly eating unhealthy. And since there are not always alternative options, if it is necessary to eat unhealthy - it should be eaten in moderation. For example, rather than ordering a twenty piece chicken nugget with a large soda and a large fry, perhaps an alternative should be a 6 piece chicken nugget, small fry, and a water. It doesn't matter how hard someone tries to instill good habits in a child, if the child is not motivated it will not happen. Perhaps it would be better to encourage a mandatory physical education class. As my opponent stated, "The fat kid will be teased" because "students will bully him because of his weight." Rather than worrying about this child's weight, we should be concerned with the school. If the school is allowing children to bully one another over something as trivial as weight, then we evidently have a bigger issue on hand. The school should be worried about making both children and their parents aware of bullying issues rather than a child's weight. And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion

The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits. 1. Let's have the facts.I'll start by clarifying a few facts and explaining why Mr. Eggleston's misrepresentation (or ignorance) of the facts is important.First off, his representation of the Court's ruling is not accurate. He claims that the Court's ruling establishes obesity as a disability and that the European taxpayer must now pick up the tab for them. This is completely false--in fact, the complete opposite of the Court's ruling.The question that was before the Court was whether (a) obesity gives rise to anti-discrimination protections; and (b) obesity could trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[1] The Court determined that obesity does not give rise to broad anti-discrimination protections, but that it could in some circumstances trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[2] If an individual's obesity causes a long-term physical, psychological, or mental impairment that hinders job performance, that may result in the requirement of an accommodation.[2] Notably, as in U.S. law, European law requires only accommodations that are reasonable in the circumstances, and the employee may still be terminated if the employee is not able to perform even with reasonable accommodations.[1]So, far from being a ruling that obesity is now grounds for the dole, the ruling stands for the proposition that, if reasonable accommodations can be made, the employee should continue to work. This is quite the opposite of how Mr. Eggleston has described the situation, and it should radically change the way he views the decision. The purpose of laws that prevent termination for a disability that can be accommodated is to keep people productive and off the dole, not to take people out of the work force.Second, Mr. Eggleston's representation of the situation in the United States is patently false, except for his proposition that we are "the land of the free and the home of the brave," which is spot-on. He warns the U.S. not to follow in Europe's footsteps, when, as usual, the U.S. has been far ahead of the curve, and has long since beat Europe to the realization that we are better off with working obese people than with unemployed obese people.[3] Our Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employment discrimination against persons who are found to have a disability due to obesity, as recognized by our courts and counsel.[4] When it comes to unemployed people, obesity can contribute to a determination that the individual is eligible for Social Security Disability benefits, and this has been true in the U.S. for quite some time.[5] Not that we in the U.S. have anything over the Europeans, whose welfare state has been encouraging all workers, both fit and obese, to seek the European dole. In other words, tying my first two points together, Europe has long been a beacon to the slothful, and with this new Court ruling Europe is now more in line with basic logic, which is that if you're going to be so kind to the lazy, you should likely make sure the employable are protected from needless termination and thus don't end up drawing a welfare check.Third, when it comes to costs, it is clear from Mr. Eggleston's exposition of his argument that he believes that the U.S. approach is quite ideal in terms of its expense, since he predicts doom should we deviate from it. Granted, he is completely unaware of the fact that the U.S. is leading this march; however, let's take him at his word that the U.S. approach has been economically superior, which, indeed, it has. Protecting the working rights of employable people is a good economic policy.In summation of this bit of factual clarification, I'll point out that protection of employment and the requirement of reasonable accommodations is, in fact, a benefit. And, it's clear that offering social security disability to some people with obesity has not managed to put the U.S. in competition with the European welfare state, so Mr. Eggleston's prophecies of doom are overwrought.[6] So, even if Mr. Eggleston tries to arbitrarily narrow the definition of "benefit" to eliminate the relevance of the Court opinion that he completely misunderstood or misrepresented (a narrowing to which I will not agree), that will not help him show the great danger in extending other benefits.2. Let's consider the morality.Mr. Eggleston's tirade reeks of moral disapprobation and a sense of his own moral superiority, so, I will consider the morality of benefits for the obese.First, I will dispose of his discussion of benefits for the truly disabled. It is irrelevant to me whether an obese person obtains handicapped parking, a place to sit on the train, or the like. I do not need it, and I do not begrudge him it. I do not understand the moral value of insisting that a person should suffer because he is obese, and if there is one, I encourage Mr. Eggleston to offer something other than harsh words. Second, as for his claim that the obese have done something to deserve their condition, while others have not, this is a false distinction. As pointed out by both the European Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit (a very conservative circuit), persons with disabilities are eligible for accommodation without regard to their fault in their condition.[2,3] It is not true that obesity indicates higher culpability, because many other disabilities are caused by choices, risk, and misadventure.[2] Furthermore, obesity is influenced by a number of conditions outside of one's control, as discussed by one of our less-than-liberal news sources.[7] Third, obesity is, as discussed by scientists,[8] influenced by a number of factors, including genetics and one's work environment. Making such harsh moral judgments as Mr. Eggleston offers about individuals who may have different results from the same behavior because of genetics is highly suspect. But what is even more suspect is his moral ignorance of environment. For instance, many sufficiently aged adults have had the experience of the combination of age, stress, long or irregular work hours, and limited time for proper diet and exercise due to commitments, leading to decreased fitness. For Mr. Eggleston, he sees a "greedy" person sticking his "snout" into the larder. A reasonable person would instead see a hard worker who has acquired a condition in large portion (no pun intended) because of his devotion to his work and commitments. Certainly it is desirable for a person in such a situation to take measures to improve his health, as most of us do. However, implying that those who fail or who may have more serious conditions that dispose them towards failure in health is something we should associate with laziness and lower life forms is simply harsh words. We should, rather, assist such people.3. In conclusion.I have established a case for extending benefits to certain obese individuals. The benefit of accommodations keeps people gainfully employed when possible, which is desirable, and there are moral grounds to assist people who have failing health. The Court's decision, and U.S. policy, is correct and economically desirable.Sources:[1] http://curia.europa.eu...;[2] http://curia.europa.eu...[3] http://www.eeoc.gov... [4] http://www.gordonrees.com...; http://www.insidecounsel.com... [5] http://www.ssa.gov...[6] http://www.npr.org...[7] http://www.foxnews.com...[8] http://www.livescience.com...

People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there. Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again. "Yeah, you can say that, but it's not true. Oppression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something because of your will." This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic. Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out.

The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...

Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse. http://www.youtube.com... Childhood obesity has doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. In 2010, more than 1/3 of children and adolescents were overweight or obese. We even have obese infants. Children and adolescents generally don't pick the choices of food that they have. They aren't the ones bringing in sugary cereals into the home. Sure, they may ask for it, but it is the parent's responsibility to make sure they eat well. There's nothing wrong with sugary cereals in moderation. By giving a child an excess of unhealthy foods and not instilling good health habits (less TV/video games, exercise, play sports, etc.) Parents are abusing their children because they are allowing their bodies to get used to overeating. Thus leading to type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.By giving your child the opportunity to play outside you are allowing them exert energy and get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity. Also, by age 6 most kids are in school. The fat kid will be teased. The fat kid can't run around like his classmates. Why? Because his parents let him get so big. Students will bully him because of his weight, which is something that he cannot control. We know that bullying can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... I'd like for my opponent to argue the following arguments: -Parents work too many hours, so therefore the easiest option is to buy fast food, pizza, etc. -Since the average household income is $40,000 junk food is cheaper than healthy food. -The schools should keep our kids active by mandating physical education classes -Parents are doing the best they can

People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people I'll take the neg on this case, arguing that healthy people are not more oppressed than the obese. Opression is defined as: the act of subjugating by cruelty, force, etc. or the state of being subjugated in this way[1] Although my opponent states how there are groups which advocate that the obese be treated equally, this does not prove that the unhealthy are being opressed in any way whatsoever. My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become, the more obese people there will be, and the more obese people there are, the less healthy people there are. However, this is a logical fallacy as shown by Occam's Razor[2]. Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false. This applies because my opponent's entire case revolves around the fact that the more accepted obesity becomes, the more people will become obese, which is a huge assumption. To make this argument is the same as making the argument that th emore accepted Homosexuals become, the more Homosexuals there will be, which is rediculous. Further more, simply there being less healthy people is not oppression unless the government comes down, forces food down your throat, and thus strips you of your right to be healthy. I don't advocate Obesity as an actual disease unless you have a legitimate medical condition that affects your metabolism, but there is no reason to assume that either the healthy or the obese are being oppressed. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://math.ucr.edu...

It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing "rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. " Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent/incompetent") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; "it was beneath his dignity to cheat"; "showed his true dignity when under pressure" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; "physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: "It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London " Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...

No its not wrong. Fat people have more rights going for them, and 95% decide to be fat. Obese is a new terminology for them to hide behind. They are costing the taxpayer more than any other section of society who decide to bring it on themselves.

Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Dear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance."No, being excessively fat, or obese is. "The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car."The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. "This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - "Britain's obesity death rate" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is "GROSSLY FAT" i.e. "RIDICULOUSLY FAT". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese."This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused."Obesity is not a paradox"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate."Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias."Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either."Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to "preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - "I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - "In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight."Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :)

Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse Peace

Obesity It seems like fast food is almost a daily topic in the news. Whether it is because of their ingredients (such as trans fat), the negative health effects (like diabetes), or being linked to obesity, fast food dominates the headlines. This then begs the question, "Does fast food cause obesity?" The simple answer is no. Consuming more calories from food than the body can burn is what causes weight gain. This means that you could eat fast food on a regular basis and not become obese. In fact, you can even lose weight while eating fast food. This, however, requires knowledge of not only how many calories you are burning on a daily basis, but also the calories in the food that you are eating. What Does the Research Say? Fast food is not the cause of obesity in today's society. However, because fast food is typically high in calories and the portions are large, it does promote eating too many calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Beside "fast food" there are another causes of obesity: Lack of Energy Balance A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT. Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active. Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use. An Inactive Lifestyle Many people aren't very physically active. One reason for this is that many people spend hours in front of TVs and computers doing work, schoolwork, and leisure activities. In fact, more than 2 hours a day of regular TV viewing time has been linked to overweight and obesity. Environment Our environment doesn't support healthy lifestyle habits; in fact, it encourages obesity. Some reasons include: •Lack of neighborhood sidewalks and safe places for recreation. Not having area parks, trails, sidewalks, and affordable gyms makes it hard for people to be physically active. •Oversized food portions. People are exposed to huge food portions in restaurants, fast food places, gas stations, movie theaters, supermarkets, and even at home. Some of these meals and snacks can feed two or more people. Eating large portions means too much energy IN. Over time, this will cause weight gain if it isn't balanced with physical activity. •Lack of access to healthy foods. Some people don't live in neighborhoods that have supermarkets that sell healthy foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Or, for some people, these healthy foods are too costly. Genes and Family History Studies of identical twins who have been raised apart show that genes have a strong influence on a person's weight. Overweight and obesity tend to run in families. Your chances of being overweight are greater if one or both of your parents are overweight or obese. Your genes also may affect the amount of fat you store in your body and where on your body you carry the extra fat. Because families also share food and physical activity habits, a link exists between genes and the environment. Health Conditions Some hormone problems may cause overweight and obesity, such as underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism), Cushing's syndrome, and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Underactive thyroid is a condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone. Lack of thyroid hormone will slow down your metabolism and cause weight gain. You'll also feel tired and weak. Cushing's syndrome is a condition in which the body's adrenal glands make too much of the hormone cortisol. Cushing's syndrome also can develop if a person takes high doses of certain medicines, such as prednisone, for long periods. People who have Cushing's syndrome gain weight, have upper-body obesity, a rounded face, fat Emotional Factors Some people eat more than usual when they're bored, angry, or stressed. Over time, overeating will lead to weight gain and may cause overweight or obesity. Smoking Some people gain weight when they stop smoking. One reason is that food often tastes and smells better after quitting smoking. Another reason is because nicotine raises the rate at which your body burns calories, so you burn fewer calories when you stop smoking. However, smoking is a serious health risk, and quitting is more important than possible weight gain. Lack of Sleep Research shows that lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity. For example, one study of teenagers showed that with each hour of sleep lost, the odds of becoming obese went up. Lack of sleep increases the risk of obesity in other age groups as well. People who sleep fewer hours also seem to prefer eating foods that are higher in calories and carbohydrates, which can lead to overeating, weight gain, and obesity. Sources: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... http://weight-loss.emedtv.com...

We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese' With many thanks to Veridas for his prompt reply, I should like to respond to the points he made as follows: There is no need for the word obese, except for communications between health professionals. The word "fat" is malleable enough to replace it. For example, if you say somebody is fat, you might think of a bloke with a beer belly or some bird with a big toilet on her. However, if you describe someone as: incredibly fat; morbidly fat; appallingly fat; hideously fat; disgustingly fat; etc. you form the impression that they have a serious weight problem. Furthermore, these descriptions have the added advantage of reminding the fat that being grossly overweight is not acceptable and that they should do something about it. Regarding my opponent's weight it would appear that he is technically overweight but his frame can carry the extra bulk. It also seems as though he gets plenty of exercise. I don't think he is the sort of person most people would describe as a "dirty fat bastard" – in other words, he is not one of the idle gluttons the Minister was referring to. My opponent underestimates the acute shortage of decent tottie around these days. Perhaps the situation is less dire down in Sevenoaks than it is here in London but I've resorted to shopping on foreign high streets for my fluff these days (get yourselves down to the Cï¿½te d'Azur, lads, there's more top quality gash there than you can poke a stick at). But my opponent raised a good point when he reminded us that there are also fat men. This is true, but what is not true is that they prefer fat women – they are still men which means they are likely to prefer nice, slim attractive girls. And slim girls aren't always grossed out by fat blokes, particularly if he is built like a rugby player or if he happens to be rich. In conclusion, the whole point of the Minister's assertion was not that we should insult grossly overweight people by calling them fat, as my opponent suggested, rather that we should help them to understand that being seriously overweight is unhealthy and it is not a disease, it is something they can actually do something about themselves. Thank you.

Obesity That is true, but there are supporters of those people, such as family members who help encourage those people to get better. There are personal trainers in gyms and there are friends that are willing to help their other friends get better. In conclusion, I believe that anyone who is obese has the chance to get themselves better and back to a normal weight by eating healthier, exercising, and having support from family/friends.

We should not have to live alongside sex offenders, drug addicts and the fat Many thanks to Crushilista for his considered thoughts on this matter. I tend to agree that we must treat this issue with delicacy and restraint - nobody wants to see smokers, drinkers, or slightly chubby people exiled from society. However, the obese, as the report I referred to in my opening argument proved, do have a significant negative impact on children of normal weight, just as convicted kiddie-fiddlers and the scum who peddle hard drugs do. Now, while paedophilia and drug-dealing is still socially unacceptable, being grossly overweight is becoming less so. Those of us who live in the West need only visit our shopping centre to see gratuitous gluttons unashamedly mooching about in pursuit of their endless quest for gastronomic gratification, totally unashamed of their appearance or behaviour. In days gone by, these people would have been shunned by society: condemned for their profligate consumption of excessive amounts of food and their general laziness, but these days, society is coming to accept that being greedy and indolent is the norm rather than the exception, which is a very dangerous and must be discouraged by all means possible. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... P.S. I'm glad my R1 argument made my opponent laugh - it was, of course, supposed to!

Fat Tax should be implemented Con argues that there are no objectively unhealthly foods. This is untrue, a medical dictionary (online) has defined unhealthy foods as any food that is not regarded as being conducive to maintaining health. They include fats (especially of animal origin), "fast" foods (which are low in fibre and vitamins), foods high in salt and tropical oils (e. g. , fried potato chips), and cream-based ("white") sauces (which are high in fat) and junk food as a high calorie food low in nutritional value. And furthermore as a collective society it is pretty clear that we all know what we classify as unhealthy foods. It is also further proven as no type of junk food was stated yet con already knew exactly what it is was when including an example of McDonald's which, by the way, is subject to biased as the CEO of McDonald's underwent this "experiment. " Con's point about discriminatory and regressive nature will be dealt with in my later argument along with the inefficacy of the tax. Finally, con ended by saying the government has no right to interfere with an individuals right or "choice" as I see it to their own health decisions. Choice, however, is only effective when individual's make choices that do not harm themselves. Obesity is a harm to oneself as I stated in round one. Also, where the government provides health care to a state and takes on the expenses, the state has every right. Tax is an effective way to fight obesity. There are already numerous programs running world wide that are in place to combat obesity. On their on they are ineffective, but when this tax is added it solidifies what these campaigns are doing. In short, we need to practice what these campaigns preach. Here, I address con's third point. It is important to address the obesity epidemic, even when families feel they have to spend more on food than they would like. Nothing short of force will cause people to change to healthier habits. It is important to note that low income households are the highest risk of obesity. These families are also effected by obesity related diseases. Thus spending more money on food now will save them thousands that will be spent on medical bills. Reducing obesity will make more productive people who can do more at work - potentially earning more and thus cancels out the tax. This tax is a paying it forward initiative - spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future. The government is within it's boundaries with this tax, rather than outright banning certain products -which would be the fastest solution it is providing a disincentive for certain harmful choices. This is an entirely legitimate action, as it does not remove choice from the table but awards the conscious choice and protects the general society from harm and medical spending is prevented. It is also important to note that in the EU a report found that fat taxes were effective and even caused competition in the "healthier" foods sections causing more affordable prices for consumers.

America is NOT obese. Ok, fine. I only used a small portion, but I know for a fact that all of america is not fat, there are many people who ARE obese, but not all of America. True, the obesity rates are getting higher, but it's not any of anybody else's business how much people weigh. It's their choice, and a few people choices--laziness, or overeating--don't affect the whole country.

Diet and exersise!!! "processed" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! "In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese." (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)

The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits. If you saw a physically handicapped person begging for food on the streets you'd help them out with a few quid (bucks) wouldn't you? You might also think it is disgraceful that disabled people are reduced to begging on the streets of a modern civilized country and decide to give money to a charity that helps handicapped people. You might even lobby the government to allocate disabled people more financial support from the public purse. And I would admire you if you did try and assist disabled people who, through no fault of their own, are often unable to earn enough money to meet their needs - any decent person would feel sorry for them - the handicapped are less fortunate than ourselves and we have a moral obligation to extend a helping hand to them. That's why we don't mind the fact that disabled people have free priority parking spaces located right outside venues in which to park their brand-new, taxpayer-funded Motorbility cars while we not only have to pay for our own cars and also to park them, but, additionally, have to walk further to get to where we are going. Neither do we mind giving up our seats on public transport to handicapped people, nor do we care that they get discounts at shows and at sporting events, and nor are we concerned that they are allowed to push in at the front of queues (jump the lines of people waiting) for rides at fun fairs (amusement parks). All well and good, until now that is, because now the obese have stuck their porky snouts in the handicapped people's trough by deciding that going to work to earn a living is too much effort for them and that they'd rather sit at home guzzling junk food at our expense by claiming benefits that used to be allocated only to genuinely disabled people. Sadly, we in Europe have got no choice but to subsidize the obese now that they have successfully lobbied for grossly overweight people to be classified as disabled. That's right, the European Court of Justice has ruled that people who are clinically greedy and chronically idle (big, fat, lazy gluttons to you and me) should henceforth not be required to pay for their own luxury homes, prestige cars, sumptuous banquets, decadent consumer items and lavish entertainment, and that European taxpayers should pick up their bills (pay their invoices) instead. [1] But wait, that's not all, from now on the obese will also be entitled to VIP car parking privileges at shopping centres (malls) and push in front of you at the fun fair. So, should the United States, where the percentage of the population which is overweight is sizable (no pun intended) follow the European example? No, America is the land of free and home of the brave, not the land the freeloader and home of the broke, as it would be if slobbering big fat piles of sweating blubber were allowed to sponge of the state as they now are in Europe. The obese are not disabled and they should not be entitled to disability benefits. Thank you. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us. To start off with my opponent Holds the BOP so he must prove "It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us." So now ill start:Obese people work just as hard as any other individual, its illogical to say that "the obese are similarly milking the system so they can stuff their big flabby faces at our expense" for two reasons;1) This Statement Refers to ALL Obese individuals; [1]More than 2/3 of America are considered Obese, that means the above statement says, Only 1/3 of the united states holds any job. However the [2]united states reports an unemployment rate of 6.1%, thus the statement is factually unsound.2)We don't carry the medical costs of obese individuals; We also have to see obese individuals are insured and employed, so we don't carry any costs.[3]Th e united states, in 2009, reported that 256 Million had insurance, that's around 85% of the population. This census also explains that it accounted for illegal immigrants, which at the time couldn't receive insurance, thus the 10.8 Million illegal immigrants boost the amount of individuals with insurance to 88%, so 12% of the population didn't have insurance and as I stated above that doesn't cover all obese people.My opponent has simply insulted 66% of the population and did not supported it with any facts. I would challenge him to show that obese people do anything he says they do, and where does this statements play in "We don't sympathise with drug addicts or alcoholics who make themselves incapable of getting a job so why should we care about the obese?" My opponent has obviously never heard of rehab, AA, or any other organization that helps addicts, and he seems to think that people who are over weight are the same as an individual who is addicted to a substance.So I offer a counter call to arms; People like my opponent shouldn't continue on, they are the people who attack individuals for their differences, they unaccepting and think its ok, we can only see a ballot in favor of the NEG.[1]http://frac.org...[2]http://data.bls.gov...[3]http://www.census.gov...[4]

Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres... The National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link.

how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.

People need to take responsibility for themselves Deregulation is like trying to play a game of football without a referee. Government can't demand that people take responsibility for things that they have no control over, especially when ordinary citizens are against big business that has huge amounts of money to spend lobbying in it's interest (making money and nothing else) while people are left without a defence against the negative effects of deregulation. Obesity isn't entirely the responsibility of a particular person, it should be treated as a disease like any other. “For an increasing number of people, weight gain is the inevitable – and largely involuntary – consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility altogether, but to highlight a reality: that the forces that drive obesity are, for many people, overwhelming.” [[Government Office for Science, 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. Project Report, 2nd Edition. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/17.pdf%5D%5D Why do people need to take responsibility for themselves in the first place? Telling people that they should have to take into account every possible consequence of their actions is both unfair on them and unneccessary. Where an action has consequent effects on other people (such as carbon emissions causing global warming) that an individual can't neccessarily foresee or take into account, we need the Government to step in and regulate to avoid those external harms.

Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. I accept and look forward to your first arguments!

It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us. So at this point I will be addressing the standing issues I have with my opponents case, then talk about why they haven't fulfilled the BOP, then end with a summary.Issue 1 - Sources and reading sources;I would like to address the sources my oppoenent has brought up a gallup study, but he obviously didn't read this study. The first paragraph reads "The obesity rate rises from 22.8% among those unemployed for two weeks or less to 32.7% among those unemployed for 52 weeks or more." So only 32.7% of unemployed are obese! the other 67.3% are not. his own study goes against his point of view. The point of this article was to show the increase from 22.8% to 32.7% not to say obese people are the most likely to be unemployed.Issue 2 - Hate Content;my opponents arguments are entirely comprised of un-backed hate content so lets look at some examples:-obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy?-is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim.-Why should we continue to work hard just to house and feed these lazy gluttons?-next time you see some sweaty fat slob dossing about instead of working remember it is you that helped pay for that greasy, super-sized burger they are shamelessly ramming down their blubbery neck.My opponent hasn't backed any of these statements and all of these statements are offensive and rude. He doesn't seem to understand how terrible statements like this are and how many people this effects.Issue 3 - Australia V. USA/ UK V. USAMy opponent seems to think that other countries validate action in the US. Australia is completely different from the USA, Australia has a healthcare system that costs more than other countries and has less laws mandating participation in it. while still requiring doctors to treat uninsured patients. we cant compare two entirely different systems to one another and hope they will overlap enough to necessitate action and the same goes for the UK.Issue 4 - The Magic Wand; My opponent is at the end of his argument bringing up how " there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim", However I would argue there is; Support from a community, family, friends, and peers can motivate those who are unhealthy to work towards a more healthy life style. But its still up to the obese individual, there's nothing wrong with being overweight and people like my opponent who assume there is often bully those with health issues to the point of duress. We should be more supportive overall of whatever decision is made.Issue 5- BOP I would like to point out at this point a BOP has not been fulfilled.SUMMARY (Standing arguments);~Opponents sources support NEG~Opponents arguments contain hate content~Opponent doesn't fulfill BOP

Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Prosecution could be damaging for the child. If they are aware that their parents are in 'trouble' because they are overweight, this could cause psychological problems for the child. Feelings such as guilt, worthlessness and an unhappy body image may occur. These could last well into adulthood and are far more difficult to rectify than a weight problem. Nearly all of weight related illness occurs during adulthood, when it is the responsibility of the overweight person to take action upon their own bodies. Whilst parents can influence and encourage children to pick up healthy eating habits, they cannot be held accountable later in life when the children have grown up. By this point they must take responsibility for themselves. We should be educating and helping families not punishing them. Blame is very unproductive and solves nothing. We need to understand the origins of the child's weight problem in order to gain better understanding, enabling the parent to help their child, not punish them. It can not be clearly proven that a child's weight problem is entirely down to nurture over nature therefore there is no clear evidence which would allow prosecution to occur.

Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse First of all, good luck and thanks for hosting this debate. I am not sure what structure you intend this debate to follow, but since you just delineated a few points with your first round I will do the same for the sake of fairness. I am American and will use America as an example country in which the instigator"s law could be introduced, but the issues I will outline are pervasive across nations. Point A: Impracticality of Enforcement and Economic Onus The enforcement the law proposed by the instigator would be not only exceptionally onerous on the legal system, but also oppressive to the populace. Considering the fact that nearly 32 % of children in America are obese (http://www.childrensdefense.org...), the amount of parents who would have to be arrested is astounding. In addition, the money that would be put into incarcerating all of these adults could be much better spent funding programs to fight obesity. Rather than incarcerating a significant part of the working population, which would stunt the growth of the economy and lead to the loss of millions if not billions of dollars, we could invest in expanding institutions such as physical activity and health education programs which fight obesity directly. Huge sums of money would have to be spent to enforce such a law as the instigator proposes and furthermore huge sums of money would be lost because of its enforcement. Rather than suffer these economic burdens so as to prosecute parents, we should invest the money into helping the children. Better to extend the hand of support than the finger of blame. In addition, the way such a law would have to be carried out is ludicrous. Whatever agency assigned to enforcing it would not simply be able to check the children for obesity and arrest the parents. To determine whether or not the parents are culpable, food consumption among children would have to be monitored. Diet would be mandated by the government. Certain restaurants would fail as their customer bases are diverted by the government and competition in the food industry could be threatened. Point B: Parental Culpability Parents are not always responsible for the obesity of their children. Besides the cases of children predisposed to obesity, which the instigator accounted for, many children resist their parents" encouragement of a healthy diet. Parents cannot constantly monitor what food is consumed by their children. Many children sneak unhealthy food past their parents. As a child even I, despite never having any issues with obesity, used to sneak candy and soda that my parents would not let me have. Punishing the parents for obesity that could have resulted from the actions of their children without parental approval is unacceptable. Point C: Societal Structure Our society has become conducive to obesity. Children are provided with increasingly more stimulating activities that do not require physical activity, to the point that many would rather play a videogame which involves a sport than actually play the sport itself. Many parents cannot force their children into more physical activity without jeopardizing their relationships with their children. Furthermore, the least expensive and most accessible food provided is often unhealthy. Low-income families cannot necessarily afford do provide their children with a healthy, balanced diet. This is especially true when working multiple jobs consumes time that could be spent cooking or a parent does not have the necessary skills to prepare healthy foods and must turn to fast food. Fast food is the most convenient and inexpensive food one can buy premade, and this shows in the high obesity rates of low-income households. In addition, even among store bought food to be prepared at home, unhealthy food is often far less expensive than healthy food. Top Ramen is the paradigm of this societal predisposition to unhealthy food.

We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese' Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like "obesity" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like "dangerously" "morbidly" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.

Employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace Let's draw a parallel between obesity and alcoholism, both conditions are self-inflicted and, given sufficient will-power and support, can be overcome. Please review the following job interview scenario: Hospital Manager: Well, Doctor Tikka-Masala, you are certainly qualified for the vacancy we have for a brain surgeon but I do have one concern: I can't help noticing that your hands are shaking uncontrollably, and that may be an issue when performing delicate operations on a patient's cerebral organ. Doctor Tikka-Masala: The reason my hands shake is because I'm a chronic alcoholic, but don't worry, after a few stiff whiskies they're as steady as rocks and I always down half a bottle of Jack before I operate on a patient. Hospital Manager: I see. The problem is, the hospital has a policy that says that doctors can only perform surgery when they are sober, which means, in your case, that we can't offer you the job. Sorry. Doctor Tikka-Masala: But that's blatant discrimination against alcoholics! {Takes a large swig of whiskey from his hip flask} Just because I like a drink doesn't mean I can't do my job, you. .. you. .. drunkist bastard. You'll regret this pal {hic}, you'll fvcking regret this. .. remember, I know where you work, I know where you fvcking work, you. .. you. .. sanctimonious, drunk-hating tosspot. I think you will agree, having read that dialogue, that the Hospital Manager was right not to proceed with Dr Tikka-Masala's job application, even though he may have judged the candidate to be unsuitable solely upon his addiction to alcohol. . Now, with reference to my opponent's rebuttals, while I agree that some fat women are able to provide sexual services just as well as slim women (although I don't think many tricks would pay for an obese ho to sit on their face, especially not on a hot day) and that certain athletes such as rugby players and American footballers may be, by BMI measures, technically overweight, clearly there are some jobs where the indolence and gluttony of the obese, together with their size, will make them unsuitable for the vacancy and, therefore, employers should be able to discriminate against them. Thank you.

Addiction is NOT a "disease" Most people assume "addiction" as the most heard of drug and alcohol but there are many ranging from A-Z. I argue that a person could develop a addiction to hording teddy bears (for example) I quote you on this" Whether the addiction a person has is to alcohol, drugs, gambling, or anything else has nothing to do with the status of an addiction as a disease. The resolution is not about the causes of addictions being a disease, but if addictions themselves are.Now if any given "addiction has become noted then can it be presumed this person suffers from a disease I will call "teddybearitits" will this person then develop physical symptoms from not having the root of what ails them? can we turn this into a life or death situation without a cure? I stand firmly even though this person clearly shows signs of mental or emotional imbalance it does not qualify as a disease.

It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us. That said, I agree that not all shiftless scroungers are obese and visa-versa but, the fact is, that obese people in the United States are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. {1} That should come as no surprise, however, as obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy? Furthermore, the same study shows that obese people in work are far more likely to take sick leave than other workers and, therefore, cost employers more. Meanwhile, in Australia, studies show that "Obesity is costing the Australian economy $637 million dollars each year due to indirect costs associated with increased sick leave, lower productivity, unemployment, disability, early retirement and workplace injuries. This is in addition to the $1.08 billion obesity related healthcare costs. " {2} Similarly, in Britain, the cost of treating the obese is threatening to bankrupt the National Health Service. {3} My opponent mentioned drug rehabilitation facilities and alcohol addiction counselling services, and similar programmes are available for the obese should they wish to take advantage of them. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim, it takes self-discipline in fast food restaurants and hard work in the gym to lose weight and keep that weight off, but those that manage it should be congratulated. On the other hand, those obese people who refuse to help themselves and think that the world owes them a living should be made to think again. Thank you. {1} . http://www.gallup.com... {2} . http://www.myvmc.com... {3} . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The obese are immoral "I'm afraid there isn't plenty of food to go round, that's why food prices are at a record high and at least 100 million people are being pushed further into poverty and hunger as a result." Not to sound rude, but did you read your source? Soaring prices have little to do with how much food is produced. Gas prices alone have a large impact on prices of our food.  http://www.worldhunger.org... The source above has accurate facts about world hunger and clearly states, IN BOLD, that we have enough food for the world's population. My opponent then demonstrates how we are different from the animal kingdom by providing an example that explains humanities intellect as the difference. Because of this difference, I'm assuming he is implying that humanity is not greedy because we have come together. I'm afraid you are missing the point. Humanity is not at the top of the food chain because of strength. We are at the top of the food chain because of intellect and the tools we have developed as a result. As of now, we are the smartest species known to man, and that is our strength, that is why we are still walking the earth. So "survival of the fittest" still fits in our scenario. We may be able to outsmart the animal kingdom, but we can't control our universe. For example, in a thousand years our earth could be 200 degree hotter. Some reptiles and insects may be able to survive the heat and eat each other. Humanity will have lost most of our vegetation as well as most of the animal kingdom which will eliminate most of our food, and that is assuming we can survive that heat, which isn't probable. We would ultimately die off. Species under water might be the only form of life left. That is just an example, may be extreme, but it illustrates the natural order and the fact that we are a part of it despite our stereotypical theory of being more important than the world itself. That being said, we will do anything to survive, just as other animals will. If you're stranded in the desert with a friend, 130 degrees and the only water you have will either keep you alive for 7 days, or keep the 2 of you alive for 2. Despite what the "moral" thing to do might be, we will fight for survival and try to live as long as possible with the hope of being rescued. The point is, we are animals; slightly more civilized than the rest of them, but that is only because that is what it has taken to survive. We are just as greedy. But, we have developed a system of government and money and protection and can therefore do more than simply survive, we can be comfortable. And we will do what it takes to be comfortable even if it means somebody somewhere else is dying. We could give all of our money away and save a life or two. But that would mean living in a tent and being uncomfortable. Is it immoral? No, simply our standard of living. Now, I think both of us have strayed away from topic, but I'll try and tie this all together. The following are my points and why the obese should not be considered immoral. 1)Immoral changes with time and place. Those in refugees, I'm sure, do not find it immoral to have an entire meal while there family and peers whither away. What we consider being obese now, was not obese 500 years ago and will not be 500 years from now. While the definition of morality is relevant, it doesn't prove that, by today's standards, obesity is immoral. 2)My opponent claims to be specific in food and not money, but then states the cost of food being a record high. Sounds like, to me, food and money goes hand in hand even from my opponents perspective, whether he means for it to be or not. We all live to the comfort level of our society because that is what is expected, and that is what we consider the standard of our comfort. My opponent's core concern is obviously saving lives by eating less, and blames the obese for doing that. Money provides food on our table just as much as it provides food on anyone else's table. So if being obese is immoral, then simply being comfortable in the way that most of us are living is immoral as well. The money we spend on a car, a/c, heat, television, cell phones, furniture, electricity, water, etc. All of this can be eliminated or at least cut down significantly so we can feed the needy. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't consider myself immoral because I have all of this, just fortunate. 3) To better tie together mine and my opponent's examples of why we are, or are not different than the rest of the animal kingdom: a. I am simply stating that we are no different. Sure, we are smarter, organized, and have developed tools as a result. But, we have done this only to survive, and it evolved from there. When we were cavemen, we had to make spears for weapons, discovered fire for warmth, and as time went by it progressed in to what we are now. We did this to survive, and it has evolved from there in to a civilization superior to other animals. 4)I am considered extremely skinny, and I can guarantee you, that I can eat more than your typical obese person. We all have natural metabolisms, mine is faster than most of your overweight people. That doesn't mean that they are immoral because they are fat but simply overweight because that is the way they were made. Sure, they can work out and trim the fat, but some people are going to be naturally bigger than others. My opponent has tried to demonstrate that being obese is immoral by giving an example of a family eating in front of a refugee camp. Obese or not, that would be immoral. Being obese has nothing to do with his example. He then gave a source, trying to prove that we did not have enough food on earth because the cost of food is soaring. His source had nothing to do with the amount of food and actually went to prove my theory that money and food go hand in hand. We then debated on the "survival of the fittest," and he claimed that we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom because we are smarter, which is true. However, it further demonstrated my point because it simply proves that we are here because of the tools we have made, not because we are physically stronger. This ties in to obesity because we are all greedy by nature and will have lived the life that we were born in to. Greedy, maybe, and quite naturally. Immoral, not by a long shot. So I will say it one more time, obesity simply has nothing to do with the morality of our society. Skinny people can eat a lot, and obese people can eat very little. If the obese were the only people to blame for consuming more than what is recommended, they would still not be to blame for starving children. Check the sources; we have plenty of food to go around. Starving families are in geographic locations that don't support much vegetation and are dying off because they don't have the money to import goods. Obesity is not the issue; it's more of an economic issue. I could go on and on to try and prove my point but I feel I have already done that. I hope everyone else can see that as well.

America is NOT obese. I agree that childhood obesity is rising, but that is the parents' problem. Not everybody else's. If the parent thinks the child is too overweight, then they can do something, not concern the rest of America with it. And most of the time, with the negative emotions, it's because if they're feeling depressed, or stressed, or sad, or anything else negative, they'll just sit on their lazy a$$es and stare at the TV all day, thinking "Oh, whoa is me. I'm getting fat because I'm depressed." You know what, no, they're not getting fat because they're depressed. They're getting fat because they're LAZY.

Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. My opponent has the burden of the proof. My opponent has not stated how or why obesity is the most pressing issue in America, he has only stated that it is a pressing issue.As Con, I will take the opposite stance. A recent Gallup Poll reported what Americans thought what was the most important problem in America today. The results are shown below[1]: As we see above, obesity wasn't even on the list. The economic issue Americans thought as most important was unemployment/jobs and non-economic Americans thought as most important was dissatisfaction with the government.Let's take another poll. What Americans thought as the top five "Most Important" U.S. problems are listed below[2]: Now that we have an understanding of what the American population thinks, let's go on to the why and how. Obesity is an issue, but it is nothing compared to the United States's debt crisis, struggling economy, poverty rate, war relations, etc. My opponent has yet to prove how obesity is more of an issue then all of these things. Since my opponent hasn't brought up a legitimate argument for me to rebut, the task of rebutting goes to my opponent.Sources1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...

Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Seeing as I made an argument in round 1 I will not post an argument in this round to make it fair. It has been a good debate. Health risks linked with being fat- https://www.niddk.nih.gov... Obesity rate in America- https://www.google.co.uk... Fat girl problems- http://www.essence.com...

America is NOT obese. “I walk down the street every day, and through my school every day, and I hardly see any overweight people at all.” This is an example of the 'unrepresentative sample' fallacy [1]. You are using a small segment of the country and drawing a conclusion about the whole population from your findings. This is problematic because (the United States of) America is a very heterogeneous country in many facets. It is: A wealthy country, although it contains many poor areas (such as Detroit and Cleveland). A murderous country, while containing many areas with low murder rates (such as Hawaii, Iowa, and New Hampshire). A racially diverse country, while containing many racially homogeneous areas (such as Maine and North Dakota). Any resident of these counterexamples could make a similar claim to yours about their own area of residence and draw a conclusion about the population of the U.S. that is very false. The United States has a demonstrably high obesity rate [2]: Thus, it is accurate to say that the United States is an obese nation. Sources: 1) http://onegoodmove.org... 2) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg

Free choice This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others. Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.

Obesety in adolecents is the fault of the parents. Parents should be held responsible for their children being obese. if you make the argument that the children are the ones eating, yes, but the parents are buying. I am interested in any point of view. please share with me and may the best man win.

Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. After doing extensive research, I've found that poverty is one of the leading causes for obesity today for many reasons. One of the reasons is their low income, and not being able to afford health food. Today, the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy food, leading to morbidly obese rates in children and young adults. Also, they do not have access to gym facilities, which doesn't help this issue.

Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today. Still looking forward to your first arguments.

Obesity Yes, that is all valid information, but not everyone is judgmental of others. Sometimes, a person is quick to judge, but once you get to know them, they find out the truth. Even if you can't control your health issues, there are still ways to thin out. If you need to eat for diabetes, you can go to the gym after school or just go for a jog around the neighborhood. Although people with diabetes have to eat certain things at certain times, it does not refrain them from exercising and then furthermore eating healthy at times where they can eat healthy.

The obese should not get the same benefits as the disabled. Perhaps he expects us to feel sorry for him, he being the lazy, greedy, salad-dodging slob who is panting like Elton John at a boy scout meeting as he hauls his huge sweating folds of blubber across the car park to World of Iced Donuts, Greasy Burgerland, Deep Fried Seal Pups 'R' Us, or wherever? Perhaps he expects to be allowed to park right outside the shops just like the disabled person are? Perhaps he also thinks that the taxpayer should pay his rent and give him cash handouts so that he can give up working and spend more time lying on the couch stuffing his face, just like the government subsidises the disabled? And perhaps he also thinks that people using public transport should give up their seats for him just as they would for a disabled person? He probably does, because the one thing that the obese seem to have in more abundance than greed is self-pity: as far as they are concerned, the fact that they are idle gluttons has nothing to do with their weight; they kid themselves that they are big-boned / have imbalanced hormones / suffer from glandular issues / are genetically predisposed to obesity (delete as applicable) when the truth is that they simply eat too much and do too little exercise - the World Health Organisation has confirmed that obesity is entirely preventable and is solely the fault of the individual concerned. [1] Still, that hasn't stopped the obese and their sympathisers from lobbying for special privileges for idle, grossly-overweight gluttons. For example, Europe's highest court is being asked to rule that the obese should be treated the same as those unfortunate people with real disabilities. [2] It is my opinion that the obese should not be rewarded for being greedy and lazy by being given the same benefits and privileges as the disabled, especially when there are children starving in the third world because the obese have consumed far more than their fair share of the world's finite food resources. Thank you. [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are "obese", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.

Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence Nowadays there are so many warnings about the dangers of obesity that if a parent ignores these warnings it is out of choice. If a parent ignores any danger that could affect their child’s health then they are guilty of neglect and should be prosecutable offence. From experience, I can say that the problem is not as much ignoring the warnings as it is a failure to control the child. Parents are not so ignorant of the medical maladies because they do see and hear the warnings. But many parents are unable to deny their children. They see the obesity as less threatening than the possibility of losing the "affection" of the child. Parents typically do not want to be the "bad guy" who must enforce the rules of positive values and will, in more cases than not, allow the child to maintain a poor diet and eat too often. I am the stepfather of a mildly autistic male who is now 20 years old and roughly 380 lbs. I've seen this played out in person and I can confidently state that, until this allowance of bad vaules is changed, this problem will run even more rampantly. If parents are unwilling or simply unable to make the necessary changes then, perhaps it is time for the legal system to step in...they would if the child were being physically abused. I maintain that the outright allowance of obesity and its many maladies IS physical abuse and should be dealt with appropriately.

Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.

America is NOT obese. Everybody says that America is a country full of obese slobs, correct? I don't believe that to be true. I walk down the street every day, and through my school every day, and I hardly see any overweight people at all. Sure, there are some kids who could do with a diet, but that doesn't make all of America fat. Does it?