CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
You better stop believing then. You should know by now that if I am not seriously debating then I am not going to dig through peoples post.
No, wrong.
You know by now that I won't provide an example, therefore if you are pursuing this, we know that it is you who is hoping to provide me with an example.
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.
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.
Nobody wants to marry somebody who is fat.
Would you?
Are you implying that if you're partner wanted you to lose weight, she would be better of not being in a relationship with?
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.
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.
If she persisted and forced me to surrender or any other sort of emotional pain, I would indeed suggest this is one finished relationship.
Like constantly being in pain or the chances of dying early. Those are some pretty big cons. Honestly, There is little good in being fat. Unless we hit some ice age.
Lets not forget the stress it puts on family members when they have to take care of you because you can't. Lets not forget that being fat can cause some psychological problems.
Being fat really isn't good for you. The only good thing being fat can give you is body heat and attention( some of that attention won't be good).
Here are some side affects of being fat :
1.stroke,
2 .type 2 diabetes,
3.breathing problems,
4.osteoarthritis,
5.gallbladder disease,
6.sleep apnea (breathing problems while sleeping),
7.and some cancers.
Lets not forget the stress it puts on family members when they have to take care of you because you can't. Lets not forget that being fat can cause some psychological problems.
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.
Ahhhhhhhh. Okay, Usually when I hear fat I instantly think of obese because that is what it is usually linked to. Well then. There is nothing wrong with being fat. You can go over boards or the stuff lik I said in my last argument will happen.
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).
Like constantly being in pain or the chances of dying early. Those are some pretty big cons. Honestly, There is little good in being fat. Unless we hit some ice age.
Surely, there are circumstances in which rotundity can be preferable. For instance, were I to be shot in the trunk, I should prefer to have a thick layer of fat to slow down the bullet than such a thin trunk through which the bullet would have nothing to be slowed and simply go right on through.
However, considering the small likelihood of such an incident, or any other incident which would render being fat a positive, I must maintain the position that being thin is healthiest. Of course, not too thin, mind you. Emaciation comes with its own set of medical ills.
Usually not because it puts a strain on the various physical systems that keep you alive. But there are exceptions:
1) Living in regions prone to famine, a fat person simply has more reserves if the food runs out.
2) Living in one of those rare societies and times when fat people are considered the most sexy (and there were times in the past like that) then it can be good for you.
3) Living in an environment where smaller people are more likely to be preyed upon (like in a prison) it might be helpful.
So yes, there are exceptions. Overall, however, being fat usually eventually leads to heart disease and clogged arteries, probably COPD, and I'm sure many other health issues.
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.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't always read every column before I post. But I will say, however, I don't doubt there are medical studies linking even modest weight gains with health impacts. I can go look for them later if you want. But I don't think it's a stretch to say even simply being a little fat has some sort of impact on overall health.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't always read every column before I post. But I will say, however, I don't doubt there are medical studies linking even modest weight gains with health impacts. I can go look for them later if you want. But I don't think it's a stretch to say even simply being a little fat has some sort of impact on overall health.
But I will say, however, I don't doubt there are scientific studies combining modest weight gains with health impacts.
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?
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?
There are studies that combine health damage with bad weight, then study the link.
Not studies that separate the two then examine the link.
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?
How can you prove that being fat maintains the possibility for love?
The thing is, you said that if somebody told you to leave that you would quit the relationship.
But what if your partner only expressed strong anger and grief over it, but would not keep quiet about it?
Would you kick them out then?
If so, you might as well kick out every human being in a relationship.
The thing is, you say that if a partner expressed upset about you being fat, that would be alright for them to stay, but what if your partner showed extreme swings in her behaviour because of it?
The difference is purely perception and subjective opinions. There is zero objective distinction between a "big beautiful woman" and an "actually fat potty", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
The difference is purely perception and subjective opinions. There is zero objective distinction between a "big beautiful woman" and an "actually fat potty", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
There is a certain amount of fat storage in some areas of the body that the brain and the body is not meant to handle.
The four people who have at the time of this writing voted that fat is good must be tubbies themselves. For I can fathom no other reason somebody could be so stupid as to vote like that, what with all the information and education we have today about health and nutrition.
And the terrible cost that obesity takes on the human body. Obesity and the corollary results from it such as heart disease and high blood pressure and atherosclerosis and yes, Type II diabetes kill more Americans each year than do alcohol, tobacco, and drugs combined.
Tubbies in denial, that's who votes "yes fat is good" on this debate.
You idiots either need to do some reading and research on nutrition and health (ask me if you want, as I am pretty much an expert) or put down that quart of Mt. Dew and the cheeseburger and get off your spongy asses and go for a long walk.
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 read your arguments. You want to be careful when speaking of evolution with me. I am a post grad Biology student who specializes in it.
While true that there is such a physiological balance we call essential fat..which is probably what you were speaking of when you said we evolved to posses a certain amount...this is NOT the same as being called fat. Or obese. Thus your argument is misleading if not erroneous.
Essential fast in a healthy male adult is about 10-13%. This means you would do well not to drop below that level unless you are required by some sort of personal reason or activity to do so. Like a world class swimmer or long distance runner..who can sometimes get down as low as 6-8%.
A fit and reasonably active adult male would do nicely to have between 16 and 20% body fat. A woman who is fit and active will often have 5-7% more fat.
Your emotionally happy argument is also crapola. I am perfectly fit and have a bf content of about 14%. I run about. 15 miles a week. I can tell you and ALL docs and health professionals will also agree that fit and healthy..that is--NOT fat-- folks are almost always better off emotionally and are happier and enjoy a higher quality of life than the tubbies. The latter are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety and low sef esteem.
Why would anybody who has trouble breathing or can't walk from here to there without getting winded be more happy than a lanky and toned and fit person be? Exercise improves ALL things! Sleep...cognitive functions...confidence....emotional outlook..and fit people tend to live better. Which again dovetails into being happier than some fat slob who gobbles cheeseburgers like skittles and has a cholesterol level that is four times his IQ .
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:
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.
Since you asked I will mention evolution and it's role in fatness.
It is actually a non-role.
The current obesity epidemic is not a result of the evolution of homo sapiens on this p!anet. Rather.it is a result of our increased practices and dietary flaws that are a very new occurrence. That is...they have occurred in increasingly egregious propensity for only a very short time....in the grand scheme of our sons here.
Our absurd sedentary lifestyle coupled with over the top availability and ingestion of refined sugar and processed food and trans fats and worse..high fructose corn syrup. This has been happening primarily for only a few decades. Given that homo sapiens and our predecessors..homo erectus and homo habilis have been around for approximately 200,000 years...well..do the requisite math. That's a mere 1/10,000th of our time!
That looks like this: 0.00001.
And in that short...nee..miniscule time frame we have gone from a species where obesity was once as rare as today somebody having schizophrenia..or terminal cancer...to a staggering one third of all adults!!!
We today burn one fourth the calories we did when we left East Central Africa for Europe. And on average we consume twenty times more sugar!!
Thus...we did NOT evolve to sit in front of TV and computers and desks all day and eat our fill of sugard or simple carbohydrates . no....those things have always been rare treats. At most! And not daily dietary staples.
Evolution works via selective inheritance of genetic trait that prove advantageous to our specific environment. Obesity needless to say is not one of those.
Had homo sapien man some 50,000 years ago been as fat and lazy and slothful as many of today's adults we would have never vanquished Neanderthal man when we met up with Him in Europe back then.
Thus...we would not be having this ridiculous argument now. I have a hard time believing you cannot grasp this simple fact.
A Gamew for you...find me two MDs who agree with you that being fat is better than being thin and fit like I say. And show me where ONE. Thing I claimed in my posts is wrong. Provide us links for this. And you win!
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.
Allow me please to slightly amend my challenge........
Find me some MD who agrees with you that being fat is better for us than being at a healthy weight. Which is indeed considered thin by many. Especially the tubbies!
Like me. I am 6-2 and weigh 170 lbs. My bmi is perfect. But a lot of my overweight coworkers and friends say I'm skinny.
So yeah....go for it Einstein. Gimme a link. I had to amend this cuz I didn't want you to twist my Boeing nal wording in my last post and think by thin I meant anorexic thin. I could see you tubby lovers digging some link out of your ass that says slightly overweight is preferable to anorexic. Which it is.
No. Your stance has been that fat is better than fit.
Show me. A reputable source. Not your empty and MIS informed purple prose. Also use a link to refute anything I have claimed. On evo or fitness.
You are new here...in time you will learn I am pretty much the science subjects hority around these parts.
