Ok, so I was lying in bed last night not being able to sleep and came up with this idea. This thread shall be used for a proper debate. That is...

1. You are either on the proposing team, or the opposing team. No fence sitting.
2. The participants do not have to personally believe what they are saying. Just do what you can to win the argument.
3. Because of rule 2, there will be no flaming, in fact, proper debate ettiquette will be followed.
4. As such, all questions shall in fact be "Points of information".
5. All points should be brief, for the flow of the debate, and points of information are allowed to address one point only.
6. Therefore there will be no mass quoting. Hopefully this should keep the thread readable and hopefully quite fun.

Right, as a tester, the debate shall be on something light hearted, and if this works ok then we can try something meatier

I'll propose a motion:

This house believes that obesity is not a problem in todays western society.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Clearly there is no problem today with obesity in the developed world, as our technology is in a position to cater for those who either wish to be slimmer, in the form of stomach stapling, lyposuction and the like. Those that are massive and happy can have special equipment made for them, and work from home. Using computers with bigger keys for fat fingers.

Clearly the arguments have put forward above show irrefutably that obesity is not a problem, in fact, larger people can be put to work at microsoft putting together a superiour, unix build of windows, contributing to the rest of the world!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

While the minister for BS* raises some valid points, he is clearly misinformed.
Quite obviously there IS a problem, otherwise these workaround "solutions" would have not been invented.

Why would a doctor advertise his expertise in lyposuction if he did not expect an up and coming market for such an operation. Not only does the operation go against all natures intensions, it is disfiguring and expensive, as well as a form of gluttony!


* (Sorry, I had to call you the minister for something and we make as well make it realistic. I personally am all for some yelling, just as long as there is a disclaimer down the bottom like here... it would make it very funny. Dont go for stupid insults, put some thought into them!)

------------------
Founder of the Massassi Brute Squad (MBS)

B'tduz: A popular dwarfish game which consists of standing a few feet apart and throwing large rocks at one another's head.

"Yes, it's a bloody flying alligator setting fire to my city!" - His Grace His Excellency the Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel Vimes.

Morituri Nolumus Mori

But my good friend, gluttony, don't you realise, funds the economy of all western countries! The farmers of Yorkshire, of Iowa, would be out of work were it not for the beautiful spread of greed and gluttony through our culture!

(I couldn't think of a good insult, but yeah, it's all good! )

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

(Dammit I cant think of a good reply! This is hard now!)

The economy of western countries rides on the idiocy of the comsumer mind, not upon your menu!

It has been brought to my attention that heart disease has more than trippled since the introduction of the farms in Iowa. Furthermore, the farmers of Iowa DO no work due to the fact of their obseity so limits their movement they need a truck to get around. And I do not mean from town to town. I mean from door to door, room to room, couch to toilet.

(bahahah that wasnt too bad was it? No insult unfortunatly.)

------------------
Founder of the Massassi Brute Squad (MBS)

B'tduz: A popular dwarfish game which consists of standing a few feet apart and throwing large rocks at one another's head.

"Yes, it's a bloody flying alligator setting fire to my city!" - His Grace His Excellency the Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel Vimes.

Morituri Nolumus Mori

(Wiping the tears of laughter from my face!)

But don't you see that what the farmers clearly need is bigger, better tractors, open plan farmhouses with tractor access to fields, sofas and toliets alike! Such leaps in farming technology can only bring prosperity and dignity to the larger person! The investment into "large technology" as I have now coined it, will put the US and Britain at the forefront of cutting edge technology, crushing those tiny Japanese magnates, with their slight frames and backward thinking!

...err.. so there! ha!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

With regard to the question at hand, I believe my learned friend to be wearing his favourite pair of rose-tinted spectacles. I put forth the suggestion that in today's modern fast-paced world, obesity has become one of the largest killers in the Western world and whilst obese people may be put to good use at M$ as "coding monkeys", I believe the term, in this context, does not do full justice for those monkeys held in captivity...

However, my learned friend does make a valid point about modern technology benefitting the masses (I was so tempted to type "massassians" there ). The question I believe has to be addressed is where to draw the line between technology being "beneficial" verses technology being a "necessity".

(Hey - I really like this - good idea Martyn )

-Jackpot

------------------
"lucky_jackpot is the smily god..." - gothicX
"jackpot is an evil evil man... so evil, in fact, that he's awesome." - Seb

"Life is mostly froth and bubble, but two things stand in stone,
Kindness in another's trouble, courage in your own"
("Ye Wearie Wayfarer" - by Adam Lindsay Gordon)

Cheers

I'll keep my trap shut for a while and let somebody else bite, but I'm glad people are getting it!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Attention! Does thou not knowest that obesity cost the noble American tax payer a mighty $75 billion in medical tallies for the year of two thousands and three?? This be funds from the Medicare and Medicaid systems, which could (nay, should) have been used for much more princely and virtuous ventures.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

My pompous friend Spork is trying to baffle you with flowery language - but do not be fooled! As with so many statistics and data, the evidence put forward is clearly falsehoods wrapped in deception and designed to stray the ladies and gentlemen of the floor away from the real issues at hand, which is that greed and gluttony is the only sensible lifestyle choice of our lifetime, and that obesity should be embraced as the new body beautiful.

No longer shall models be stick thin waifs corrupting our children into a resembling pile of undernourished matchsticks - they shall be healthy, portly children with all the mod-cons available to them for a dignified life!

(Obvious disclaimer to Spork for the pompous dig )

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

A dignified life, my portly chum Martyn, yes, until ye kids reach mid-20s and an abrupt trip to the emergency ward supresses any hope for a normal later life. I ask ye, should I, the noble tax payer be opressed with these burdensome fees? It be your kids who eat like hemp addicts at a 7-11, why should I be financially encumbered?

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

Indeed my colleague is correct. Imagine, if you will, that all women are equipped with devices for, not only traversing their giant buttocks', but also for sexual intercourse. Cybernetic genitalia could not only stimulate pleasure to increase the sperm flow, also increasing child-likelihood, but they could also be adapted to literally direct sperm to the correct central location in the uterus. In-fact, the entire procedure could be skipped, in which sperm is cyberneticly extracted from the genitals, via a handy locking mechanism, replacing the penis, then directly poured into a tin cup housing millions of yet to be fertilized eggs. This couldn't at all be possible if the woman held a 32 inch waistline, now could it? No, a woman of a larger weight would be able to house such a monstrosity of cybernetic genitalia! An entire assembly line of babies! They'd come out on a conveyor belt, already in a diaper! Huggies! You'd just have to restock the fat ***** every time she got low on tin cups, cigerettes, fudge bars, sperm, and diapers.

JediKirby

------------------
jEDIkIRBY - Putting the Romance back into Necromancer.
Proud Leader of the Minnessassian Council

Live on, Adam.

[This message has been edited by jEDIkIRBY (edited July 20, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by jEDIkIRBY (edited July 20, 2004).]

*sits back in the stands with a bag of popcorn* This is better than an Adam Sandler movie.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

However my esteemed friend imagine who would need to raise those children. People in daycares and nurses, and that would cost taxpayers even more money than to begin with, thus i draft in my modus operandi.

------------------
If you can read this you don't need glasses

[This message has been edited by Boco (edited July 20, 2004).]

I am very much impressed with the profound analysis given by my friend Boco. I would like to finish this thought by saying that costing the people money is a GOOD THING. That is because they won't have as much to spend, and the economy will decline. The declining of the economy will improve the environment and thus biodiversity. Biodiversity is key to survival of all species, including humans. So in effect, taking tax money will save the world.

Thank you and good day.

If a man wishest to grow a copious waistline, that is his own accord.

A man of wide stature does not affect society, nay, it is society that has goaded said man to gluttonize himself. It is our materialistic culture which has prompted our children to rest on the laurels of their possessions, and grow fat and slothful.

Perhaps if we, ourselves, did not indulge so heavily in the means to grow round- or neglect ourselves in the means to grow thin- our brethren would not so do unto themselves.

*bows*

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

You raise some interesting points Martyn, but, while modern science can rid us of some of our fat, It can not cure us to a point where these kind of eating habits are not dangerous. I think the obesity is the sign of a larger problem. This is that Americans have gotten lazy and stupid. All they know is what's on TV, and the only exercise they get is lifting their massive packages of junk food. There they sit on their couches all day being thought by preachy sit-coms. We've become a nation of couch potatoes. If we were attacked we would have to spends years in exercise programs to get the fat off of the people we draft. Also, if America continues to gain wait, it may get to heavy for the earth's crust to support and sink into the earth's core.

Do explain to me exactly why the we must pay such tax money for the medical bills of the average, unfathomably bulging (and more and more common) American citizen? It's their fault they consumed two-hundred-thousand too many Bigmacs! If the fat man (or fat family) can't pay his own depts, he might as well join the local circus.

------------------
What.

It is obviously too late to fully stop the problem of obesity, as it is to stop the problem of our population sinking into the Earth's crust. However, I propose that we begin research on utilizing these thousands of tons of burning fat as an alternative, and renewable, energy source.

------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

meh. I thought this was going to be more like the British Parliament. *pops a popcorn into his mouth*

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

Some of us lack the necessary linguistic skills for such an endeavour.



------------------
Map-Review | My Portfolio | The Matrix: Unplugged

Banks and banks of humming machinery! I've never seen so many knobs. We're going to have to do something, Charlie! Try pushing that button there. No? How about that one? No, not that one either. I know! I'll try pushing this one. Hold my hat will you? Good fellow.

Doesn't look like it me

Chuck your oar in, it's a good laugh!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Right then...

I second the argument for the usage of surplus flesh as a solution to the growing energy crisis the planet is facing. As a side track to those who wish to put their girth to good use, those who wish to do without can donate their excess cut-offs to fat-farms, where the flab will be incinerated along with local rubbish/garbage to provide green, renewable energy to the factories producing the afformentioned baby-churning-intercourse machines.

In summation, I feel that far from being a problem to society in the west, obesity is a godsend, and should be praised as the true path to the future!

...Ok, anyone want to round off for the opposition, or does everyone want to crack on?

If we finish, then we can just start with a new motion!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

I hearby declare the argument closed and we should move on to a new topic

------------------
If you can read this you don't need glasses

Ok, new topic? Since I started this one, someone else should propose the next motion!

Anybody?

Bring it on.

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Ok, The house shall now put forward a new motion, Should firearms be banned in the usa

Ladies and gentleman i believe that firearms should not be prohibited as of the second ammendment which clearly states that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms.

------------------
If you can read this you don't need glasses

With regard to my learned friend, Boco's comments, I would like to put forth the motion to ammend his phrasing so that it should read "Should firearms be banned (in general)?", for I personally feel that the original question somewhat limits the "audience participation" for some members of the House, who are not of American blood...

On this note I am divided - whilst I see no reason as to why it is necessary to hold a firearm outside of military purposes, I can also understand the reasons as to why people believe they should have the right to defend themselves, certainly as far as being attacked in their own home...

Naturally, I throw this issue to the House to discuss

-Jackpot

------------------
"lucky_jackpot is the smily god..." - gothicX
"jackpot is an evil evil man... so evil, in fact, that he's awesome." - Seb

"Life is mostly froth and bubble, but two things stand in stone,
Kindness in another's trouble, courage in your own"
("Ye Wearie Wayfarer" - by Adam Lindsay Gordon)

I would like to say now that I am not of American blood and am infact Scottish, however i only thought of the USA as firearms are banned from use in Britain

------------------
If you can read this you don't need glasses

[This message has been edited by Boco (edited July 20, 2004).]

Lucky-jackpot, I refer you to rule 1 - no fence sitting

Oh, and Boco, I think you can still have a pistol in the isle of mann, that's where Derren Brown did his Russian Roulette!

I'm just helping my mum fix her laptop, I'll post properly in a while! laters

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

I see my current stance has been rejected and therefore I shift my persuasion to side with the "anti-firearms" view - although I still maintain the view that "country" and "culture" undoubtedly play a decisive part in each individual's response

I would also like to apologise to my esteemed colleague Boco, as I was in fact unaware of his nationality, but assumed it to be American

-Jackpot

------------------
"lucky_jackpot is the smily god..." - gothicX
"jackpot is an evil evil man... so evil, in fact, that he's awesome." - Seb

"Life is mostly froth and bubble, but two things stand in stone,
Kindness in another's trouble, courage in your own"
("Ye Wearie Wayfarer" - by Adam Lindsay Gordon)

Mr. Speaker, the House of Massassians, I propose that the constitution is changed.

Simply saying "We should have guns because the constitution says so!" is no argument at all. All the statistical evidence shows that having a gun in a house makes it far more dangerous, and so the best way to "protect your family" is to not have a firearm in the house. America has a ridiculously high gun crime rate, far higher than that anywhere in Europe where countries have much stricter laws on gun control. Having said that, Canada that has similar gun laws to America, and also has a far lower gun control.
So, America has problems, but perhaps the gun laws are not the single root of the problem. I do think, though, they must be part of the problem.
There is no reason at all why the average Joe should have a gun. Were gun laws stricter, it would be a lot easier to separate legal from illegal. Yes, the "bad guys" would still have guns, but it'd be a lot easier to tell who the "bad guys" are. And anyway, there is no reason why the average Joe should have a gun in order to tackle the "bad guys". America is not a country of vigilantes.

I propose that tightening gun laws can do nothing but good. The problem that must be overcome, though, is the culture of firearms. On this very forum I have seen several "post your favourite gun" threads. Living in Britain, I have never once seen a real gun, nor do I know anyone that has a real gun, nor do I know anyone that thinks guns are "cool" or has any desire to own one.

I bow to you, Mr. Speaker, and step down for now.

*cheers for Mort-Hog *

I would like to unanimously ("unanimous" as in solely me ) second Mort-Hog's views - I feel my learned friend is indeed most wise and raises some very interesting and, in my humble opinion "valid" points. Simply because an age-old consitution that hasn't changed with the times to reflect culture and society's "advances", is no excuse as to why any "tom, dick or harry" should own a gun.

That is solely my two english pennies worth (not that I'm trying to bribe/influence members of the House of Massassians...)

-Jackpot

------------------
"lucky_jackpot is the smily god..." - gothicX
"jackpot is an evil evil man... so evil, in fact, that he's awesome." - Seb

"Life is mostly froth and bubble, but two things stand in stone,
Kindness in another's trouble, courage in your own"
("Ye Wearie Wayfarer" - by Adam Lindsay Gordon)

[mort, please try to stick to one point, as I'm having to hurt myself to not quote particular parts of your post, remember the one point rule, it's there to keep structure, so that there are not 7 seperate arguments at once]

While firearms may not be safe in the home, Canada is a prime reference to why America does not need more strict gun control, but instead, more gun awareness. Teaching a young child gun safety and care gives them responsability in a controled environment. Sporting allows the idividual to aleviate stress, and perhaps anger that would, given the usual attitude and actions of Americans, result in the harming of the other party. Instead the person is able to shoot game, or skeet in hopes to aliviate stress.

I'll withdraw my statement if anyone decides to argue against hunting animals.

JediKirby

------------------
jEDIkIRBY - Putting the Romance back into Necromancer.
Proud Leader of the Minnessassian Council

Live on, Adam.

I apologise.

I agree, I think the real problem is a cultural issue. That is a long-term issue. I'm not one for easy short-term fixes, but changing the law is much easier than changing a culture, and a change in the law could have very (comparatively) immediate effects on gun crime. It's not the full solution, no, but it'd help.

Hunting for sport is a different issue.
You don't need a rifle in the house to go shooting for sport. You could easily keep the rifle at the shooting club. You don't go out into your garden and start shooting stuff up.

I agree.

------------------
jEDIkIRBY - Putting the Romance back into Necromancer.
Proud Leader of the Minnessassian Council

Live on, Adam.

Purely due to the fact that there's plenty on one side of this, I'll drop in on t'other!

(Damn this is hard!)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the floor, Mr Speaker, it is my job to persuade you that guns should not be banned, that guns are a benefical factor in our safe society.

I shall draw reference to current affairs within my own town, as a suspect of two double murders is loose in the North of Engalnd, I know that I personally would feel more safe knowing I had a firearm under my pillow (Actually, my dad's got a liscenced shotgun in a locked cabinet in the loft, but that's an aside). Self defence is a right that all poeple have, and one that we should not be denied of. If a gun is the way to do it, so be it ladies and gentlemen.

(not so hot, but hey, it's late, and I've got to crash, I'm at work early in the morning!)

Laters folks!

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

I agree with Senator Martyn one-hundred percent. Even if firearms were banned, just imagine how long it would take to confiscate them!

------------------
Massassi - Muh-Sah-See

Can we talk about the women with the sexual devices again?

------------------
"Look at me! I'm Tracer! BLAHBLAHBLAH!"

-MBeggar

We can, alone, together.

Would you feel more safe knowing that you've got a loaded pistol under your bed, knowing that some pistol models are known to explode for no aparent reason, even when not loaded? Would you also feel so safe knowing that a man who had no intentions to harm you would use that same firearm against you? Would you also take into consideration the fact that, unless you've had combat training, nearly anyone could stand at your window, or door and fire nearly and gun while you were sleeping, and you wouldn't even wake up before you died. Sleeping with a firearm doesn't sound so safe anymore, does it?

JediKirby

------------------
jEDIkIRBY - Putting the Romance back into Necromancer.
Proud Leader of the Minnessassian Council

Live on, Adam.

Mr. Speaker, the reason these four murders are such a shock is because it is an extremely rare occurance in this country and especially so Yorkshire. The reason this is such a rare occurance is because of the solid gun laws.
All four of these murders were committed without a firearm, all were, from what it seems, killed by knifewounds. Killing a person with a knife is not easy, even if they were women or elderly. Imagine how many more he could have been able to kill if he was in the possession of a gun. All you have to do is pull the trigger.

You see this news and you are shocked and frightened because you do not usually see this.
But now imagine, you see this news and you are not shocked and you are not frightened because you see this all the time.

To me, the second scenario is a lot more frightening.

Relaxing gun laws will only make things worse. But gun laws only cover gun crime. This was not a gun crime.

There is more to crime than guns. The real solution to crime is to understand crime. If this man is caught, the police should try to understand why he committed the crime. That is useful. Locking him up and throwing away the key is not useful. Once you understand the causes of crime, you can prevent crimes from happening in the first place; not because people are too afraid of the law, but because they simply have no reason to commit crimes.
Of course, it is more complex than that, and there will be many reasons for many different crimes, but to tackle it socially is to tackle it totally.
Once crime is understood, there will be no need for gun laws. Of course, there will be no need for guns either.

But anthropological studies take a very long time, especially with a subject such as crime and deviance, and in the meantime strict gun control offers the best short-term solution possible.

/bows

I feel that this topic of disscution is lacking, if only slighty, from my absence*, and so i will aleviate that problem forthwith.

I will side with emitable Martyn of the House on this particular issue, if only to provide a more equal balance in the debating parties. I point you to the fact that 90%** of criminals in the United States of America use a gun in thier illegal activities, and, if there be such a situation as a member of the household subject to whatever sort of illegal activites are taking place, that member should have access to a weapon with which to defend themselves. A knife is a common item in most homes, but the ability of a knife to defend against a gun is almost non-existant unless wielded by an expert knife thrower, and still the gun will be more accurate. Other then this and the occational bludgening weapon, a house normally is berefit of weapons unless a gun is currently possessed by a house member. Therefore, the crimial has a complete advantage over the house's occupants. This is a situation which a person should never have to face, and as such guns should not be banned. Thank you.

*gotta love that arrogance

**Just to ask, are the 'facts' we're using, especially percents, actually real? if so.. uh.. ignore that <.< >.>

------------------
"No good can ever come from staying with normal people"
-Outlaw Star
"Some people play tennis. I erode the human soul"
-Tycho, Penny Arcade
"I'm a Cannabal-Vegitarian. I will BBQ an employee if there is no veggie option"
-DX:IW
A Knight's Tail
Exile: A Tale of Light in Dark
The Never Ending Story²[/i]