"You wouldn't be the first person to tell me to do research that leads nowhere. I'll pass. Thanks."
Nothing's wrong with me. I'm perfectly happy to use debate to inform others and myself, what i'm not happy to do is to participate in a debate where the opposing party refuses to do any research.
Essentially that would not become a debate, that would become a tutoring session, which unfortunately I don't have the incentive to participate in.
Do you understand the difference?
A) When you say that evolution has played a "non-role" in human's biological adaption to gaining fat, I would completely disagree. In fact it is almost common knowledge, that when people enter extreme diets depriving themselves from enough food, the body will react and set off physiological markers which will indeed entice the body to store more fat. This is why many people who undergo extreme diets end up whipping back and not only gaining their fat but normally more which can bring them unfortunately to turn obese. Furthermore it is evolutionary a good trait for humans to have this trait because it's what has allowed us to store reserves of energy in cases of long food deprivation periods as was more common before. On the other hand I would agree with your statement that the current obestiy epidemic that has swept the globe due to dietary flaws and genetically modified foods have no doubt lead to this imbalance in those who abuse this system and end up turning obese.
However, although that is true, it is completely beside the point of this debate. In the same way you amended you challenge to ensure I did not mistake "thin" with "anorexic" respectably so, I have already established more than enough times (And with links to reputable sources) that in fact "Fat" and "obese" are also no the same thing. Furthermore being "fit" and being "fat" are not non-excludable. Therefore your arguments are just repeating what you said before without listening to the opposing argument, and arguing against those. Therefore I see not the point of all of those points you made, which are interesting and correct information about contemporary obesity and our distribution of calories. Unfortunately since they are beside the debate, they don't really have any argumentative value and end up just being decorum which diverts the readers from really seeing that you aren't really arguing anything with those points logically.
B) Once more I agree with you that sedentary livelihood is detrimental for health and that we have not evolved to be so immobile. Yet once again, I've already discussed how many fat people are in fact quite active, and that being "fit" and "Fat" is not mutually exclusive. Furthermore I would like to point out that there are lots of people that have faster metabolisms or simply thinner bodies and yet lead very sedentary lives. So being sedentary is in no way restricted to being fat. Therefor this point really does't argue against how being fat is bad. I would like to point out you are arguing many "health" and "behavioural" points from the misconception that being fat comes in hand with being those other terms such as "lazy" or "slothful". Once again you are using circular arguments which is a logical fallacy. Just because some lazy people are fat does not mean that all fat people are lazy. That's not how it works, especially since there are lazy and slothful people across the entire BMI spectrum.
C) Thirdly, I have already proven (even with articles) that one can be fit and fat at the same time. Therefore I don't really need to find articles that show that being fat is better than being fit, because that is a question which is flawed since it does not understand that the two are not in fact mutually exclusive. Furthermore this is a debate, not a game to see who wins, but an attempt of both of us to reason concretly until we reach a purer truth. The question of this debate isn't "Is being fat better than being thin and fit", the question of this debate is "Is being fat good for a person" to which one must asses many paradigms, not only physical health. Since we have already demonstrated that health issues are negligble if not indifferent to being fat under the right conditions, then one can show that being fat is not bad for health. And since being fat is not inherently bad for health, but yet it comes with perks such as longer survival rates in emergency cases, more body heat, and many more aforementioned physical pluses, one can see that being fat poses many benefits on the physical front.
D) I would also like to remind you of the other points that are being made, because whilst you are strongly attempting to ascertain that being fat is bad for ones health, which we are already establishing its statistically not true, then perhaps you should try to diversify your arguments and come up with more.
I believe I have successfully disemboweled your that. ;)
PS: when you attacked my arguments and said they were "empty and misinformed purple prose" you didn't really quote any specific examples and showed how they were misinformed. So once again, throwing random attacks, especially if they are A) uncalled for and B) not even backed up, is only going to make you look bad. Don't try harder, try smarter.
PPS: Yes I'm new to this cite, and in time I don't believe I will learn you are "pretty much the science subjects hority" firstly because you don't even know how to spell authority, which is ironic because you are trying to use appeal to authority to put yourself into a position of higher standing (failing so). But furthermore your arguments and citings aren't really sophisticated and one could easily google them up, so I'm not really impressed as of now.
Man I'm not going to debate against someone who is uninformed.
The reasoon users cant use that password recovery system is because the lock screen of the iphone does not have that possibility. In addition if someone tries to guess the password enough times, then the phone will automatically all of its data.
While I agree with all your points, I would like to point out to further strengthen your case that prostitution is not a labor that employs solely female workers. In fact there is still a considerable percentage of the prostitution industry which employs male workers from positions in infrastructure to positions as prostitutes themselves.
Cartman I swear I'm not trolling you here, this is a real issue, I don't see what you don't get...
Please read the articles and do outside research until you come to understand what this is all about. I could answer your questions one by one, but I'm busy with stuff too, and it would be faster for you to google any queries you have.
But trust me it makes absolute sense, and it's very important. It's Apple vs the FBI which by extension is the government. This is a very big case.
"FBI Director James Comey defended the agency’s legal pursuit of access to suspects’ digital information, including that of an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino terrorists"
Although Apple claims that the FBI's request to unlock this specific iPhone could lead to a slippery slope to unlock many more or "all" as you put it. The FBI court case we are focusing on is in fact on this one, where the FBI is asking Apple to unlock this single iPhone.
Please read this article to get yourself up to speed:
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/
Now that you are up to speed, what are your arguments? I'll be excited to debate them, unless you convince me absolutely ;)
Before I begin to disembowel your counter arguments, which I must say have progressed in sophistication, but ultimately fall flat, I would like to address some of your foul play so as to ensure fellow debaters aren't mislead by them.
First of all I'm not technically overweight. To be overweight you need to have a BMI in between 24 and 29, and last time I checked I had a BMI of 23. Instead of trying to look to undermine your opposition by using Ad Hominem look for more solid grounding upon which to debate.
Secondly, you don't need to flaunt that you are a post-grad in biology with a specialization in Evolution, and warn me to be careful about it, especially if you are not going to make a point about it. Once again you are trying to appeal to authority to mislead our fellow debating partners, not to mention that it's completely irrelevant to the argument. Imagine if we were debating about another subject such as which candidate was going to win the elections this during this run, and you suddenly come up to say that I should be careful with my moves because you have a driving license which I don't. I would agree that you are more specialised in driving vehicles yes, but it would be completely irrelevant. So please, stick to the debate.
Now to your points...
A) While having a bmi 10-13% is agreed to be the optimal fat percentage, many people who are not athletes, can still be fit and fat at the same time. One does not exclude the other. And in fact people who are overweight and can be seen as fat, although some studies show that there is a negligible increase in some risk factors, its also been widely shown that with exercise, one can still be fat and still be as healthy as someone with 10-13% fat as you said. Btw someone who is fat would fall under the 25-29 bmi, and not above at which point it would be considered Obese. Furthermore the reason why being fat and exercising and staying healthy are not incompatible, is because many studies have shown that what one eats can have a greater impact on ones loss of weight, than how much one exercises, therefore one can be fat and still exercise and be perfectly healthy.
For a more detailed explanation on how we shouldn't judge by how we look, but about different internal factors check out this article from a medically acredited online database supervised by PhDs in the field:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/
B) Attacking an argument by calling it names is the best way to demonstrate to show that you are terribly desperate to weaken it, it does not however actually weaken it... it only makes you look bad. But I digress... My second rebuttal is that you state that my emotionally happy argument is flawed because fat people tend to suffer more from depression and anxiety. The problem with this argument is that you are suggesting being fat leads to these states of mind, when in fact being fat can be not only genetically predisposed but furthermore, it being fat could come as a cause of those very mental states you mentioned. People who suffer from depression experience different hormonal levels which causes them very often to be lethargic, so naturally depressed people are likelier to be fat or even obese. You've got the order of causality wrong. Although I'm sure there are some cases were being fat can lead to low self esteem, it is far less likelier to lead to depression (as that is a physiological illness that is controlled by the person). Even if some people have low self-esteem because they are fat, with proper education they would be able to see that what matters is character and the intangibles, not the body they drive in. In fact if that were to be the case the majority of people above certain age levels were gaining fat is almost inevitable would be clinically depressed, suffer from anxiety and have low self esteems, but that simply is not the case.
C) Just because you are fat does not mean you have trouble breathing. In fact it's normally the other way around, if you have trouble breathing because you are asthmatic lets say, you are more likely to move less because you get tired physically easier due to the lower levels of oxygen that reach the muscles. Therefore the lower levels of inactivity will naturally lead to gaining weight for most of these people, but please stop using circular logical fallacy to argue your points.
D) Finally the last point I'd like to make is that I agree with your proposition that "exercise improves ALL things!", but the problem is that it's quite irrelevant to the debate, seeing as I've already proven how being fat and exercising are not mutually exclusive. So once again, read what has been written, and respond accordingly.
There. Are. Advantages. To. Being. Fat. Period.
Actually "listen and learn" as you put it.
Hope this helps. ;)
Please Cartman, ignore this guy, it's been too long now, and everyone else has left this debate, I'm asking you for your sanity and health, because I care about my allies.
Don't listen or respond to this troll anymore (on this debate).
Let's move on
Therefore have you switched sides on this debate? Or have you found any other potential weaknesses in my side of the argument (aside of physical health).
Thank you for agreeing with my point then, I do not see how it refutes it though. I've managed to convince you on this front i suppose.
After reading your article I come to understand that your slight confusion, as is normal. There is a distinction between being fat and being obese. When you are obese you have enough additional fat to cause health problems, many of which you listed. In fact the website refers to obese people, not fat people, therefore many of these points do not apply to the fat people we are debating over.
The following quote from the article you linked to brings up the flawed counterargument that I've tried to argue against: "Obese or overweight people are looked down upon. It's easy to feel bad about one's self". After reading this one might think that since one is overweight or fat, they should be scared of societal peer pressure, and that we should change for society, but in fact I would argue this is flawed because the problem isn't being overweight. According to this line, the real problem is how certain people "look down" on the overweight. This of course means that if you are fat you should ignore them, and that we should try to educate people in respect and acceptance of others, furthermore we should educate people in believing in themselves no matter what they look like, if they are ugly, or fat or whatever. Of course if they are obese they should lose weight, because obesity is when you are too fat, but when you are just fat that should be completely acceptable.
The other argument that the link you sent made was that being fat could result in a lack of energy and in turn in a more sedentary life, which I agree sedentary lives can be bad for health. However, the problem with this argument, is that it assumes people that are fat will be more sedentary because they have less energy because everything is harder to do. In fact if anything, many fat people do exercise a lot, and although this may sound counter intuitive, many studies have shown that in attempting to lose weight, what you eat has a much larger influence on weight loss than how much you exercise.
So indeed, people may exercise a lot and be healthy and yet be fat. One does not exclude the other.
Good attempts, but as I said before in my paragraphs, your arguments rely on misconception and a lack of distinction between obesity and being fat.
I'm very glad your response is as meaty as it is. Because in fact, most of the argument I've found online or articles are for apple, but I wanted to challenge myself and fight for the underdog of this debate (publicly for now).
I do also see that a transparency imbalance in-between the government and the people to be a very terrible and Orwellian future... On the other hand I still stand that although in the short run many people could be embarrassed to have this sort of transparency or scared, it would be beneficial as like you said transparency has always been good. The issue would now be on how to ensure that this is a fair exchange and that if apple gives in, so does FBI on some fronts.
And in fact as the decades pass we are seeing a more and more transparent future, and I believe if we continue at this rate it is possible we will enter a new future where transparency becomes more ubiquitous.
Thank you for the heads up Sparticus! I was beginning to sense that. Although I must say the most pathetic attempt was done by SlapShot in the "Is being fat good" debate, check it out and my response for a few laughs if you want.
Onwards with debate! :D
Hellno, I wasn't trying to get a point, I was trying to clarify... Just saying'.
If you'd like to argue that, do so with arguments, reasoning and examples, don't just state your view without backing it up.
I'm excited to hear your rebuttals and hope to see the level of this debate rise to new intellectual heights :)
Please check my points beforehand, so that you can respond properly (unlike Slapshot below, hahaha)
Everyone always values transparency. Anytime a party keeps a secret from another it is because it holds something that my harm the other party, otherwise, it would be perfectly okay to have it public.
In the long run if we all agree on transparency, the world will be a better place because everyone would post things knowing the consequences of it, and people would be more careful and respectful with what they post.
Therefore although many people would back up Apple due to privacy concerns, since in the long run everything is going to be transparent for the greater good, we might as well get the ball rolling as soon as possible.
"We need a black market in order for the government to be able to pay it's taxes"...
What the heck is this supposed to mean? It makes no utter sense. Do you even understand the terms you are using?
Can you clarify what you tried to say here it isn't clear semantically speaking.
A) please try to make your responses more clear, your grammar is confusing me.
B) What links are you referring to?
Could you clarify what you were trying to say so I can respond appropriately?
I believe that many people do indeed marry fat people. In fact that simply is statistically the case. When you say "nobody wants to marry somebody who is fat", I would argue this statement is flawed due to its generalisation and lack of basis. Are you implying that you wouldn't marry someone who is fat?
And yes, if I loved the person for who they were and their accomplishments, their BMI would not play a role in my decision to marry them.
On your second point, I would argue that if your girlfriend or spouse wants you to lose weight that that is a perfectly normal desire, but like with most things about yourself from your dreams, personality, to habits, one shouldn't simply change who they are simply because someone else asks them too. In fact If your partner insists and/or emotionally black mails you into losing weight, that that in fact would be a good sign that they are a toxic person to be with. So in the end, you would be able to clearly assess that they don't love you for who you are. So yes, if my partner wanted me to lose weight, and after I explained to her I was healthy and happy with how I was (as I was not obese), and even after that she insisted and threatened to leave or any other sort of blackmail, I would indeed suggest one ends that relationship.
Blizzardbird,
When you respond can you please not copy paste the entire thing you are responding too, it's not necessary and we'd all understand you are responding to that if you "dispute" it.
Furthermore I don't see how your point attempts to dispute what you "disputed". Could you clarify what you were trying to say, or did you hit "dispute" instead of "support" by accident?
BlizzardBird,
First of all could I ask you to edit your rebuttal to delete my entire 5 paragraphs, it's not necessary and makes the page a bit clunky. Just respond, or copy the quotes you want to debate specifically. (hopes this helps format your responses better from now on ) :)
Now let's get into the meat of your rebuttal shall we? :)
You say that "being fat is devastating for your emotional and romantic life because it forces you into trusting your partner to really admire you for who you are instead of what you look like". But frankly I do not see how this is in any way a rebuttal.
In fact you just agreed with my point. Knowing that your partner admires you for who you are and not for what you look like is a good thing, not a bad thing. Unless what you are proposing here is that we should admire the surface more than the subtext, which frankly I find to be a superficial way of sustaining any relationship.
Secondly, if you are in a relationship with someone and you are fat you will know your partner loves you for who you are, not what you look like. There are a few cases where this may not be true though, for example if you are rich, fat and have a terrible personality. In which case you will worry that the person doesn't like you at all but instead just likes you for being rich. In which case the problem isn't that you are fat, it's that you are rich and that can lead to you attracting vain gold diggers.
So could you please rephrase your point, because I don't believe you are saying what you are trying to say. Otherwise try to flesh out what you are intending to say, and give me examples.
Dear SlapShot,
The mere fact you have addressed me as "the four people", goes to show that you indeed haven't even read the arguments made by the opposing before drumming up your argument. So before going on into a sanctimonious ramble where you use Ad Hominem and other pathos punching logical fallacies to try and strengthen your argument, think twice. Calling the opposing debating party "tubbies, idiots and stupid" does not qualify as reasoned argument, in fact it just demonstrates your lack of respect (and knowledge) for the art of debate.
First of all, your argument on the health issues surrounding Obesity have already been addressed in depth by the opposing "four people", which by the way were all me at the time of you posting this, you just didn't even have the respect (or intellectual prowess) to actually observe and think before you spoke. While I agree that obesity is detrimental to ones health, as I've argued being fat is not - at the fear of repeating myself on this point, please refer to my paragraphs.
Second of all how can we know you are a nutrition and health expert without any sort of qualifying degree to show? You are just trying to use the "appeal to authority" persuasion tactic, but quite frankly, falling flat with it.
In conclusion, read/observe and think before you rebuttal, or else you're just allowing yourself to become an easy target upon which sound minds can open fire against - I wouldn't want you to get hurt.
So quoting you: "LOL".
And I await your sound response pronto, if you have the "cojones" to do so ;)
I agree with the above, and yes I sort of fleshed out what you were getting at with "public good" argument (for those that need a more in depth explanation of it). :)
I understood that you wanted to dispute his claim. But unlike you some of us do care about the point system, so in respect to those that do, you could use clarify so that you wouldn't necessarily be giving a point to the side of the argument you yourself said you oppose.
I am in no way angry, just think it would be good this way.
Well said good sir.
Tends to happen when debates are generalized. That's why I also like the idea of doing debates over more specific cases, it would make the debating more intense and fun :)
IAmSpartacus,
Although I Agree with everything you've said, just for future reference, I would recommend you use "clarify" as opposed to "dispute" with these type of remarks, otherwise what happens if you use "dispute" is that you give a point to the other side of the argument unintentionally.
Just a heads up :)
Haha, don't worry, I just like to be highly critical and often verbose in my responses, which can sometimes lead to me sounding a certain way via chat (where tone is easily misinterpreted).
Your reply did not sound snarky, it was light humoured and poking at my argument, which is always welcome. :)
Finally, although I do understand that your preference would be to die of boredom, I would like to highlight that the odds of you dying from another cause in that case are higher and I wish you luck in achieving death by boredom. ;)
Thank you for the candid clarification. But yes, the problem with the debate's overarching question is that perhaps it may be not specific enough. I can imagine that the author of this debate prompt intended the argument to revolve around:
"Are you responsible for things your ancestor did to cause harm" + in cases where you've had zero influence over their actions.
Unfortunately this was not specified, in which case my point still holds.
Madam Linkstar,
I would like to apologise if I sounded presumptuous. I was driven to highlight the various highly possible and likely chances that you'd die in a form which is not by boredom. Of course this sort of incident can only be argued at a granular level, and I failed to see that I was applying a generalisation to your case.
Therefore, let me extend my hand in repent, I am sure if you so desired you would be able to die of boredom. But let me ask the following:
Would you really prefer to die out of boredom?
Beauty and chaos tend to come hand in hand, wouldn't you agree? <3
Unfortunately due to the position in which we are right now on how much scientifically we know on cloning, the research community has to test their cloning on living animals, because we also have not overcome the creating life hurdle (Which seems much further away). You can't generate a dead piece of meat, because meat generates through live cell splitting. That's how all of us animals are formed. Therefore until we reach that point the scientific community has to do tests on living animals.
I understand that you may feel it's unfair and painful for the animals that fall under those tests, but think about it this way. If there is no cloning research, the only alternative we have right now is A) we all turn vegetarian or B) we continue mass killing animals with our factory system. Due to the fact that most people wont want to transition to vegetarianism, we would be forced to continue with option (B). Now don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty as much as you are, so if want to get rid of it we have to take action.
One of the best options we have right now is trying to figure out how to clone meat. But to do so we have to experiment on a few living animals until its all figured out. So basically both options that society has involves animal cruelty, but Roach, the difference is that while with one option we will continue mass killing painfully animals, with the cloning option, we would only be inflicting minor pain to some animals in the short run, but after that all or the majority of it would be eradicated.
This is why cloning research is worth it. :)
Stephen Hawking in responded to the question of what was his IQ in this way:
"I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."
Amen.
The problem with your argument is that it's vastly general.
I invite you to take a look at one of the possible examples I've given on this page to illustrate my counterargument.
Let's hypothetically say that you were raped by a mafia member. Then you asked your grandfather, who hunts for sport, to indeed find and kill this person in form of vindication.
Your grandfather exacts the revenge you were seeking for.
At that point you should be taking accountable for the harm that an ancestor of yours has committed, because essentially you have become an accomplice.
Although I agree with your sentiment, I do not believe this argument has to do at all with the side you are siding with which is "surely there must be a mistake". Could you clarify your point on this?
Before I respond I would like to preface that I do not believe in religion or the existence of hell and heaven. On the other hand, this philosophical debate as a hypothetical interests me.
Seeing as the only two response options that are given to us in this debate are: "they didn't earn it like I" or "surely there must be a mistake" -- through my understanding I would have to answer that "They didn't earn it like I".
Although of course I will be sad and distraught about all my loved ones being in hypothetical hell, the reason why I would have to go with this side is because if they are in Hell then they must have hypothetically all sinned. Otherwise they would all be in heaven with me according to the "criterion of being allowed to enter heaven".
If we take the assumption of christianity that assumes that A) a god exists, and B) to get to heaven you must have not sinned and/or if you have you must have repented for the sins, then logically everyone else but me must have somehow sinned and never repented.
Of course I do not believe I would be happy knowing that they were in hell, and quite frankly if we were playing by the book I would technically also be in hell because I don't believe in religion.
Ultimately I believe that although this question was hypothetically interesting, that the two response choices were poorly selected and thus the debate is a bit empty.
I would argue, that implementing the uniform would automatically resolve any dress code issues, and would therefor be a long term investment.
When dress codes are implemented, students find all sort of loopholes in them, or simply shrug them off, and if the student collective agrees on breaking some rules, this would become a slippery slope leading to ostensibly rude or revealing clothing or garments.
Here is a documentary which exemplifies my point:
Most developed nations agree that capitalism is one of the best economic systems that have been designed until now, evidence of this is the fact that the majority of strong developed nations have chosen to follow this path.
All capitalist economies function under the laws of supply and demand. If there is a demand in a society, then there will naturally be companies or organisations that form and will continue doing so until they fulfil such demand at which point the economy will reach a point of equilibrium. And both suppliers and demanders for that certain service will be satisfied.
I see therefor no reason why sex should not be sold as a service. Since many people demand and/or desire sex, and not everyone is looking for (or is able to have) a relationship, it stands to reason that they would desire sex by itself. This is why prostitution arose, to fulfil that demand. If the demand is not filled this results in potential welfare gain (synonymous with welfare loss) as economists put it. This means that the demand for the product is unsatisfied because no one is able to meet the demand, and therefor there will be unhappiness (Which can take many forms such as in this case: sexual frustration, chronic loneliness, etc). Now in this case the welfare loss is very important.
People who are extremely sexually frustrated are highly more likely to commit sexual harassment or rape, which in turn would increase the crime rate in a nation. Additionally, people who are chronically lonely tend to die earlier, and loneliness is also one of the highest reasons for suicide. Therefore if the demand for sex is met, a country would be able to minimise these terrible situations.
Now by now what many of you may be saying is that indeed there are also many cons in the prostitution realm. Indeed this is true, many countries have illegal human trafficking and parallel activity prostitution cartels, and this is terrible for the women, men, and children that are forced to work for these ventures. On the other hand, if prostitution is legalised, all prostitution enterprises would be regulated by the government to ensure safety and ethical standards (which would in turn eradicate injustice and all the other woes of illegal prostitution).
The only people that would be working in the prostitution industry would therefore be working in those jobs because of their own choice. Just like porn stars are working in a sexual industry too out of their own volition, but no one is saying they are being abused or that they are unhappy with their profession.
In conclusion if prostitution is legal, not only would illegal and unethical black market prostitution cartels be eradicated or almost eliminated, but in addition the demands of people who desire sex without a relationship would be met, therefor avoiding welfare loss. Win win situation :D
If anyone would like to disagree, bring it on ;)
I would also like to address the emotional benefits of being fat. As Grenache pointed out, in many societies being fat was not only considered sexy, but it was also considered a sign of higher status and class. Although in the majority of the contemporary developed regions of the world, what is considered sexy is now associated with skinny and being well built muscularly, it is still worth noting that since what is considered sexy changes every decade, although right now it may be the case that being fat is less attractive, it does not mean that it will never be the most attractive in the future again. Furthermore in many regions of the world, being fat still denotes that one is of higher status as they can permit themselves to the luxury of indulging in food.
Therefore while being fat right now isn't the most attractive, fat people still possess a level of status over skinny people, and many fat people with great personalities are still able to have their charisma compensate for their "fatness" and therefore it does not affect their romantic life.
This leads me to my last point, which is in fact that people who are fat, as opposed to people who are contemporarily speaking "sexy" are at an advantage when it comes to having a good relationship, and may even end up having better long lasting romantic relationships than people who are "sexy". The reason for this is because people with terrible personalities that are fat are disliked by everyone now a days. But people who have a terrible personality but are still sexy are still in their majority liked. Furthermore even if you have a great personality in addition to being sexy, you are still going to attract more vain, superficial and narcissistic people because they will be attracted by your physique and not your character.
The implications of this is that if you are fat and form a relationship, statistically the love will be purer and the relationship will be better because you are 100% sure that your partner loves you for who you are and not for your physique. Although sexy people still have good relationships, many of them experience worse long term relationships because most vain and superficial people flock to the attractive people, and therefore it's harder to find someone who actually loves you for who you are.
In conclusion, being fat is better for your emotional and romantic life because it ensures you can trust your partner to really love you for who you are and not for what you look like. Being fat is in effect a perk, because it acts as a natural sifter that gets rid of most toxic and superficial people, cuts right through them, and leads you to meet the people who have the best moral and emotional standings.
I agree with the various points that Grenache made.
I am not in favor in cloning everything, but I still believe that there are many things that could be cloned and would be better for society as a whole. In addition to what Grenache said:
A) Cloning research could help us discover the secret to longer lasting (or even eternal) youth, by cloning the same parts of your body that are growing old or weak and replacing them.
B) If we learn to clone animals, we could clone just chunks of meat, and therefore get rid of the terribly inefficient, unethical and painful meat factory system that we have set up globally. This would result in no pain for animals as we wouldn't have to kill them for meat, we could just eat cloned meat. It would also result in less deforestation which is normally caused by big farms cutting down forests for land for more factories.
C) There may be many scientific possibilities that we are unaware of that would be unlocked if we master cloning, and therefore we would be able to advance our race in ways we can't predict at the moment due to the fact we don't understand Cloning fully.
When you say "wastes billions of government dollars" , you were probably reading from a source that was considering the short-term impacts of the cloning research.
Furthermore if you think cloning is animal cruelty, think of the 1 billion cows we kill every year for human consumption. Also think of the terrible ethical treatment animals in these factories receive. I would argue the animal farm treatment of animals are far worse, because in animal farms the goal is to grow the biggest animal in the shortest amount of time to get the biggest chunk of meat with the least costs. Therefore animals are treated like shit (pardon the language but it's true), and not only that they are treated with the notion that they are going to die soon anyways so it doesn't matter.
On the other hand in cloning research, the researchers are actually interested in ensuring the animals come out better and healthier, so their ethical measures are clearly going to be better even if they still have made a few mistakes. But they are only human, and they are trying, because in the long run cloning meat without having to go through the process of growing and killing a living animal may be more efficient and painless.
I would disagree with your statement because although you may say they are wasting animals at cloning centers. I would argue that they are also wasting and mass killing and effectively torturing the majority of the animals that meat manufacturing factories host.
Via hormonal injections, physically making holes in the cow's side to reach with their hand into their stomachs and place certain things or remove excess dung to stop the clotting of the overworked animal. Claustrophobic cages, poor treatment, brutal killing. Just look at all the documentaries about chicken or cow factories and the unethical practices undertaken by the companies.
Ultimately I would argue that the few animals that are hurt during the development of better cloning options is worthwhile, as in the long run we would be able to get rid of the factory system to implement a more efficient, ethical and environmentally friendly system that still produces meat for everyone in need of it.
You don't get to repeat your argument, that's called redundancy and a lack of arguments, so to balance out the poll I just wanted to point that out, I'll be responding to your point in your repeat of the argument.
Secondly I would like to argue that biologically and evolutionarily we are naturally designed to hold some fat, and its with good reason (as fleshed out following):
In a world where there is a scarcity of food, animals, including humans need to find ways to hold reserves of food to survive periods of time were food supply may be lower. Just like camels can store water in their humps, humans store energy in their fat. So in regions that are prone to famine, or if a natural disaster occurs, or if someone goes bankrupt and loses their ability to make an income, or if they are lost in a location deprived of food, etc. The fat person will have more reserves of energy, which would mean they would survive for longer than their lower BMI counterparts which would die earlier of starvation. By being able so survive longer people have a higher likelihood of being rescued or finding a way to stably sustain themselves again.
Therefore although we are not hunter gatherers anymore and in most developed countries, the majority of people are able to have access to food. There are still millions of people globally that would benefit from being fat in regions more deprived.
Furthermore people who are fat but also have access to food reserves, still benefit from the safety net their fat could provide in the case of some unexpected emergency or situation (as some were listed above, yet there are many more situations were it would be beneficial to be fat).
First of all thank you for finding three arguments that can be used for proving that being fat can be good for a person, without trying to refute them.
But secondly and most importantly, although I see where you could be coming from, I believe your view is erred and due to misconception and a misunderstanding of the term fat as opposed to obese. Please do look at my more developed argument to see what I'm trying to get at.
I know this is a dangerous position to take, but I would like to go out of my way to convince you that being fat actually comes with lots of perks and may be even better in the long run than not being fat.
First of all before jumping into some of my initial points, I would like to make the distinction that this debate is about being "fat" not "obese".
According to the oxford dictionary, whilst FAT means "the presence of excess fat in a person or animal, causing them to appear corpulent" , the word OBESE means "grossly overweight". Furthermore, according to medical sources, the medical definition of OBESITY is "a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health".
Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, I want to clarify to everyone, that we should not be focusing our arguments around obesity, but around being fat. It is therefore logical to conclude that if someone is fat, while they make look more corpulent, medically the excess fat isn't sufficient in this case to negatively affect the health of the people who are fat.
So my first argument therefore is that: people who are fat are in good health, and do not hold any medical risks caused by their BMI (body mass index). Some people are just a tad chubby, or fat and it's not a health issue for them, so when it comes to health, fat is neither good nor bad. It's neutral, and therefore it's good for a person to be fat, because it's good to be in a healthy physical state as opposed to an unhealthy one such as being Obese or being Anorexic.
Do challenge my point if you dare ;)
One has to have a very strong will power to die of boredom. I would argue that if anything, after a day or two, your survival instincts, hormonal levels and biological indicators, would cause you to spring into survival mode and you would try desperately alive until you run out of food or die due to some accident.
If you really would want to just die, you would probably instead of just waiting, would reach a point were you can barely stand the pain of hunger or thirst and you would end your life before reaching death by boredom.
Therefore I would argue that your death by boredom is highly unlikely.
IQ Tests cannot accurately and consistently measure intelligence because they are ultimately flawed.
(A) They are culturally biased
(B) Cannot be done by illiterate people, yet some people are illiterate because they've never come into contact with text or they've never been taught so they are illiterate due to environmental factors and not intelligence.
(C) Does not take into account the motivation of the participant (one may be highly intelligent and put no effort into the test so they would get lots of Questions wrong).
(D) Does not take into physical or mental handicaps that would cause the participant to move slower through the test and therefore not able to complete the test at their full capability (IE: dyxlecis may be very intelligent but take a while to read some letters because their brain sees them differently, or people who are amputees and have to use the hand they never used to write on the test).
(E) Many people actually study and practice to get better at the test, and so the test is not able to measure accurately the difference between raw intelligence and hard work
(F) Intelligence is an ambiguously defined and understood term therefore it is hard to quantify such concepts. Therefore the measurements will be set with parameters that potentially could be misleading in terms of what they actually are measuring.
Although I agree with you that the end user is responsible for whatever he does with the gun.
It is also indeed the manufacture's fault do to the fact that they understand they are selling a product with the potential of being used in dangerous or illegal ways. Therefore the seller should ensure that they put up rigorous safety and purchase regulations so that no one that shouldn't be eligible to own a gun owns one.
Of course the system is ultimately flawed because the user could be very good at lying, or might even have dangerous intentions arise in him/her way after the purchase (during which it was verified that they were no harm at the time).
The state should not fund sex for the severely disabled due to the principal of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.
If the state choses to fund sex for the severely disabled it would be forgoing the possibility of allocating its funds to other far more important causes such as:
A) Health Care
B) Education
C) Infrastructure
D) Research and Development
E) Poverty
And the list goes on.
Let me clarify that It's not that I don't believe the severely disabled do not deserve sex, it's just I believe that if they really wanted to have sex they could get it through other non-discriminatory services/products such as:
A) Legal prostitution services
B) Sex Toys, Robots, Devices
C) Attempt to have a relationship with someone else
So ultimately no, the state should always fund projects that will be beneficial to all or the majority of its citizens. And it should chose the projects that would have the greatest impact on its society. Funding sex for the disabled would not fulfil this criterion, and simply isn't more important/impactful than other options (some listed above).
Your argument relies on the assumption that one requires "faith" for democracy to work. This is not the case, in fact the fait should not rely on democracy itself (which is a system that is proven to work to an extent under the right conditions), instead you should have faith that the conditions are right.
Think of democracy like a tomato farm. If everything goes swell this spring and summer, there will be an abundance of tomatoes. Tomato farms don't just suddenly stop producing tomatos and start growing other vegetables, that's not how it works.
The only reason it might stop producing tomatoes is if the conditions are not right.
If their is no rain to water the farm, and the plants dry up and die then its not the farm's fault it's the weather's fault.
So if anything you should have faith in the weather conditions.
Likewise if Donald Drumpf wins the elections this year, if anything you should lose faith in the people that voted for him, not in the system.
While Donald Drumpf winning the elections would make me think poorly of the majority of American Citizens. It would not alter my view on Democracy.
All political systems no matter how good they are have flaws, the reason being is because most things are not black or white, they are grey. Human complexion and psychology and behaviour is overwhelmingly complex, so much so that science is still trying to fathom it's intricacies.
Therefore to believe that we are able to create a utopian, flawless governmental system that would cater to every need and solve every issue effectively and efficiently without even comprehending our nature to its full extent is already a ludicrous endeavor.
On the other hand, although admittedly even though it's impossible to have a perfect system, or at least that's been the case until now, does not mean we shouldn't try, and indeed Democracy is a great effort in the grand scheme of things. So much so it may be one of the best systems we have until now as it has proved to bring us to the socio economic position many western and developing nations are reaching right now socio-economically and technologically. On the other hand it does come with some flaws.
The most important one in this case, and which these elections are emphasizing is that since the public has to vote, IF the majority of the public is misinformed, easily manipulated, and/or dumb, and only under those conditions, then it is highly likely that as a majority the public will make an erred or poor choice indeed.
So ultimately, no. While my opinion on the intellectual state of the USA's Public, and its education system might shift, my view of Democracy will still be the same.
To give you an example let me draw an analogy between Democracy as an instructional manual for a society's governance, and a recipe for making brownies: A recipe for making brownies is simple, you take the ingredients from milk, to powdered chocolate, to eggs, etc. Then you follow the steps, bake them and voila good old fudge brownies. BUT if you get the steps wrong, or you change an ingredient, or don't get the measurements right, etc. Well then you may get either bad brownies, or no brownies at all. Therefore what's variable isn't the recipe, which is permanent but always correct. What's variable is the cook, the one who follows the recipe. Is he is not prepared to follow the recipe, or if he is simply terrible at doing so, then obviously you are going to get terrible brownies or non at all.
The same applies to democracy. You fuck up during your votes, or the president is a lying megalomaniac, well, then you are going to get some fucked up brownies, or in this case presidential campaigns.
