CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
37
Yes, they should NO! What the heck?
Debate Score:70
Arguments:66
Total Votes:72
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, they should (32)
 
 NO! What the heck? (34)

Debate Creator

PEZZ(50) pic



Should people be told what they can and cant eat based on proportions and health issues?

People think that America is fat, and that this issue should be solved by controlling what people eat and how much of it they eat, and even taxing things like beverages because they have added sugar.  Shouldnt people decide what they eat? Is it really society's problem if there are overweight people out there?

Yes, they should

Side Score: 33
VS.

NO! What the heck?

Side Score: 37
1 point

By all means, people should be well informed about what is good for them and what is bad for them, what a proper portion size is, and how to control their weight. If I had to choose between being embarrassed about my weight, and dying early because of it, I would choose the former. It is a doctor's job to tell their patients the truth, even if it hurts their feelings.

However if you mean should people be somehow forced to eat healthy, or should strangers on the street be yelling at fat people, then the answer is no.

Side: Yes, they should
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

If you feel this way, then why are you arguing "Yes" when that yes implies taxing sweet beverages and such regulations?

Side: NO! What the heck?
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

Maybe I misinterpreted, I felt the OP was referring to whether or not the feelings of obese people should be spared at the expense of their health.

Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I take the broader, bigger view on this, which i believe is backed by medicine, but i am not stating that to support my reasoning or view.

If u choose to eat as u like then expect to pay for the consequences of your choices, that is after all what makes an adult. If u r not in the position to make the decisions yourself(i.e u r a child or under care or some other valid reason), then by all means eat as is provided.

However, the benefits of eating well, combined with exercise and other healthy forms of existing, should be enough to persuade anyone to make that choice. I am fully aware of the cost implications, time and effort/energy required to make this all work, but like a said, the pros outweigh the cons.

I think these health experts and officials should use sex to support their claims, maybe then people will listen.

I could go on about this for ever, but i'll leave it there.

Side: Yes, they should
1 point

What exactly do you mean by health experts should use sex to support their claims?

Side: Yes, they should
Talent(21) Disputed
1 point

Well, sex sells, and it gets people's attention. There are obvious benefits to be gained, sexually, from having a good healthy diet and lifestyle.

Since i find most people find it hard to motivate themselves or bother for whatever reason to be healthy based on the health benefits alone, then why not point out the benefits to be had by linking it with sex.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

"The economic cost of all this extra fat is immense. Direct medical costs are easiest to calculate, coming in at $93 billion, or 9%, of our national medical bill. But there are other costs as well that are harder to pin down.

...

One speculative solution: In surveys, people have said that they would be willing to lose 10 pounds--and keep it off--if they were paid $225. If people can't see the savings of staying slim, maybe the solution is to make their pocketbooks heavier."

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/obesity-fat-costs_cx_mh_0720obesity.html

Side: Yes, they should
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

I should preface this argument/rebuttal with the statement that I find it so flabbergasting that a large number of people in society want their governments to effectively compel those around them to live their private lives as they think they should, that I tend to be speechless when it comes to giving a proper rebuttal.

In a society everyone has different values, this is such an intrinsic part of life that we hardly think about it. If we suddenly started enforcing everyone's values as laws we would have a messy life full of contradictions. A good way to keep this from happening is to consider whether a law or regulation crosses the boundary of personal space. It's not perfect, but looking at laws this way keeps us aware of whether a law is too private or personal, and thus not worthy of consideration.

I'll give a prosaic example in the anti-buggery laws and anti-sodomy laws that used to (and in some states still do) exist. These laws made oral sex and anal sex illegal, their main support came from parties against homosexuality. The point? Sex is a private affair, and so this type of law walked on peoples' toes when it came to enforcement.

Still another good example can be seen in Kyllo v. United States where in order to enforce Cannabis possession restraints thermal imaging was used to eavesdrop upon a person's private property without their consent. In this case a person's private space was violated in an attempt to enforce a law that restricts the ability to own a substance.

I happen to value individual freedom very highly, as well as personal responsibility. Therefore I cannot comprehend the mindset of people like you (the one I'm rebutting as well as those behind the idea of an essential sugar/fat tax) because in my mind the only reasons you would want the government to be involved in other people's private lives is if you think that freedom is worthless and you need some sort of authority to tell people how to live their private lives, or perhaps worse you think that some aspect in the way you live ought to be the standard for everybody else.

Taxing sugar in foods or fatty foods is essentially fining people for choosing to have dietary preferences that are different from your own. It attempts to force them to choose to eat the way you approve. I can think of few things as petty as a mindset that finds the need to control such a thing in everybody's lives.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

Well said!

If your argument has no place in this society, then this society has no sense of itself.

Side: NO! What the heck?
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"I find it so flabbergasting..."

I really don't see what the big deal is. A minor carrot/stick isn't going to affect any individual's life in any great way. It's not like the Gestapo is kicking in doors and disappearing people off to fat camp.

"If we suddenly started enforcing everyone's values as laws we would have a messy life full of contradictions"

I agree, but we do enforce universal values. And I think controlling healthcare costs is sufficiently universal.

"A good way to keep this from happening is to consider whether a law or regulation crosses the boundary of personal space."

Privacy and personal space are important, but they are not sacrosanct. You have to weigh the cost of invading one's personal life against the potential benefits. You also have to take the degree of invasion into account. A minor economic incentive, for example, is almost completely non-invasive.

"anti-sodomy laws"

The difference is that anti-sodomy laws were based on invalid premises.

"Kyllo v. United States"

Yes, I think it's clear that was a bad law. Again, it's a question of degree.

"in my mind the only reasons you would want the government to be involved..."

I want to maximize the well-being of society. It's the only logical thing to do. If that requires government to be involved in people's private lives, then so be it. If obesity didn't cause problems for everyone, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Who is going to pay people to people money to stay thin?-----

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

Shouldn't people be stopped from looking like this?

Warning - Googled a picture of a fat woman. May cause distress unless you're American.

http://weird-websites.info/Ugly-People/images/fat-ugly-girl-non-nude-pictures.jpg

They're not going to do it on their own because westerners tend to be weak minded and weak willed. Money seems to be the best motivational tool - so tax the shit out of them until they loose weight. Or inject them with AIDS - it's not likely to spread because tbh... who'd tap that?

Side: Yes, they should
1 point

so, all i have to say is that i found an image to combat the one you have. yep. sorry that link is ridiculous, but look anyway. you may have to look for the image, not sure.

Supporting Evidence: large woman (www.bing.com)
Side: Yes, they should
1 point

Couldn't find anything.. don't know what I was looking for..

pictures of life? is that some hippy shit?

Side: Yes, they should
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Shouldn't people be stopped from looking like this?

How about we tax ugly or average-looking people like yourself too.

They're not going to do it on their own because westerners tend to be weak minded and weak willed. Money seems to be the best motivational tool - so tax the shit out of them until they loose weight. Or inject them with AIDS - it's not likely to spread because tbh... who'd tap that?

People won't get plastic surgery on their own, they're too weak-minded. We'd better tax them until they get a face lift and remove their ugliness from society.

Side: NO! What the heck?
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

Can't tax me. I'm good looking.

Cosmetic surgery is wrong. For selfish reasons anyway of which 99% of it is.

All it takes is will power. And maybe a better society. Not the dirty, savage, barbaric american society.

Side: Yes, they should
3 points

It's important for overweight Americans to change their eating habits, but it shouldn't be forced on them, they need to do it on their own. It would be an easier process though if there wasn't so much junkfood and fastfood out there to tempt them. If any laws or restrictions should be made they should make them for the food industry.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

no, people should not be told what they can or cant eat. why would anyone want to be so controlling as to go so far as telling someone they cant have something because "theyre too fat"? how does anyone think they have the right to say that? not only is it rude, but very degrading, and all people have feelings. this just hurts them.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

No it is everyones right to be able to eat as they please, no matter what the consequences are to them. After all it is their body.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

okay, although i am your enemy, i will be cool with you, and i totally support what you are saying here.

Side: NO! What the heck?
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
1 point

You will be cool with me? If you agree with what I post there is no reason to disagree or state how you are my enemy. You may be my enemy but your not mine, as far as I can tell you hardly no any of my views.

Side: Yes, they should
1 point

I eat what i want, when i want to. Nobody can or will tell me other wise

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

A free society allows people to make choices for themselves, even if those choices are harmful to the person.

Side: NO! What the heck?
1 point

A tax on sugary sweets is outrageous (especially considering the price on sugar has gone up with importation laws being changed). People should be able to eat as unhealthy as they wish because it's their deathbed or health insurance that they have to pay for their diabetes medication.

Side: NO! What the heck?

Being fat is matter of choice, nobody forces anybody to eat 3 double cheeseburgers at one sitting and a 40 oz coke.

Side: NO! What the heck?

If certain foods make a person happy, I can't see taking that happiness away from them.

Side: NO! What the heck?