[SUBMITTED] The Unhealthy @@DEMONYM@@ Catches the Worm

[West Barack and East Obama]

[title] The Unhealthy @@DEMONYM@@ Catches the Worm

[desc] A curious new weight loss fad has wormed its way into the world of fat slimming in @@NAME@@ - the deliberate self-infection of tapeworms.

[validity] has a good amount of obese people, capitalist

[option] "Tapeworm therapy is revolutionary!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of the procurers of this peculiar slimming aid, whilst squirming in his seat and clutching his stomach. "These days, the disadvantaged amongst us just don't have the time or money to eat balanced diets or do some physical exercise. But with a little help from a little buddy in their tummy to take in all the extra calories they consume, they can look beautiful once more. You should definitely be promoting these methods to the public! Of course, some people are going to develop a couple of... side effects here and there, but which other medicine doesn't do that anyway? Also, an unrelated question: do you happen to know where the nearest toilet is?"

[effect] people are turning themselves into worm food

[option] "Let's not open this can of worms too hastily." cautions @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a nerdy researcher from prominent pharmaceutical company Miser, as @@HE@@ flips through a thick clipboard containing colourful charts and coffee stains. "There hasn't been enough research into the risks and rewards of using tapeworms to lose weight, so we shouldn't start singing its praises just yet. But thanks to rigorous trials conducted by yours truly, Miser's approved weight loss pills can help you burn up to 10% of your body fat in a year! I agree with @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ that many consumers can't afford to lose weight, so you should be subsidising the production of our wonder pills to give everyone the equal opportunity they deserve."

[effect] the government subsidises medicines of mass destruction

[option] "You've all lost your damn minds." sighs @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, your Minister of Health, as he shoves a couple of nauseating images of patients' intestines in your face. "Weight loss pills can increase the risks of heart attacks, and don't even get me started on the idiocy of swallowing a parasitic worm. Yet people have been conned into thinking that these extreme health risks are worth it to lose a few kilos. These scams have gone too far. Arrest both of these snake oil salesmen and prohibit their products at once!"

[effect] it's illegal to be caught on tape

[Verdant Haven]

Good premise.

- The description could use the qualifier "weight loss fad" rather than just "fad." As is, it reads like some random trend kids are doing, and the actual situation is only introduced in the options.

- I think there's a missed opportunity in Option 1 to play up that idea that physical exercise – a thing which is free to all – is too costly. This feels like a great place for a riff on "the only thing more effective is diet and exercise" – this 'fad' is the lazy way out! Option 2 then would really feel like a proper counterpoint, looking for a an "alternate alternative" to the usual methods (by trying to introduce a different fad), and Option 3 would make sense as being opposed to both sides.

- Somewhere in there, whether in the description or in the first option, it might be useful to mention briefly how these things achieve results. Not everybody is familiar with the side-effects of intestinal parasites.

- Your effect lines are on point. The only tweak I would suggest is to change "weapons of mass destruction" to something like "medicines of mass destruction"

[West Barack and East Obama]

Good premise.

Thanks

I think there's a missed opportunity in Option 1 to play up that idea that physical exercise – a thing which is free to all – is too costly. This feels like a great place for a riff on "the only thing more effective is diet and exercise" – this 'fad' is the lazy way out! Option 2 then would really feel like a proper counterpoint, looking for a an "alternate alternative" to the usual methods (by trying to introduce a different fad), and Option 3 would make sense as being opposed to both sides.

I wasn't exactly sure how to do this, so I tweaked Option 1 and 2 a bit. How does it look?

I've made minor edits to address everything else.

[Australian rePublic]

[option] "Tapeworm therapy is revolutionary!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of the procurers of this peculiar slimming aid. "These days, the disadvantaged amongst us just don't have the time or money to eat balanced diets or do some physical exercise

So you can't afford to eat a balanced diet, but you can afford a tape worm? I can't imagine that they would be cheap. In fact, it would probably be the opposite, people paddling dangerous alternative medicines for rich idiots out of the price range of the average person. You know, like Goop. In fact, Goop could be a good inspiration for this issue

[West Barack and East Obama]

[option] "Tapeworm therapy is revolutionary!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of the procurers of this peculiar slimming aid. "These days, the disadvantaged amongst us just don't have the time or money to eat balanced diets or do some physical exercise

So you can't afford to eat a balanced diet, but you can afford a tape worm? I can't imagine that they would be cheap. In fact, it would probably be the opposite, people paddling dangerous alternative medicines for rich idiots out of the price range of the average person. You know, like Goop. In fact, Goop could be a good inspiration for this issue

Well, yeah. Even if the indvidual cost of a tape worm was steep, it'd still be a one-off purchase and much cheaper than the long run than taking medicine or eating less processed food every day for years. While the Goop angle is certainly plausible, I prefer the way I've framed the issue here and think that it's a bit more probable since it's a bit harder to sell parasitic worms to the ultra rich for ripoff prices than the crap Goop does

[Westinor]

“Weird” in the description feels like the wrong word to use. Too much negative connotation. It can be replaced or removed, maybe “curious”/“strange”/something that relates to bugs or worms?

I think you have room for interesting characterization in Option 1 - the speaker is already leaning very positive on the worms, so it’d be a good spot to give a little glimpse on the side effects they don’t mention as well.

I like that the opposing alternative isn’t advocating for the ban of tapeworms and is instead only advocating positively (promoting their own product), it helps to distinguish from Option 3. However, I do feel like this option similarly suffers from a lack of characterization - in general, I also feel the dialogue is a bit stilted. The arguments and perspectives are very straightforward. and almost feel like someone else is speaking through the character(s) to argue a point. Is there any way to spice it up a bit?

I feel that if you want to keep option 3 where it is, the speaker and option should address both weight loss pills and tapeworms. Otherwise, narratively, it makes more sense to have the Minister of Health directly address the tapeworms before the lobbyist steps in - that way, the lobbyist also gets to play a more “third party perspective/alternative” that gives their position more narrative strength. You can also keep as is, as I’ve heard that weight-loss pills aren’t exactly all rainbows and sunshine either - incorporating that into the third option might make sense as well!

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thank you for the comments Westinor, I hope this is much better

[Australian rePublic]

[option] "Tapeworm therapy is revolutionary!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, one of the procurers of this peculiar slimming aid. "These days, the disadvantaged amongst us just don't have the time or money to eat balanced diets or do some physical exercise

So you can't afford to eat a balanced diet, but you can afford a tape worm? I can't imagine that they would be cheap. In fact, it would probably be the opposite, people paddling dangerous alternative medicines for rich idiots out of the price range of the average person. You know, like Goop. In fact, Goop could be a good inspiration for this issue

Well, yeah. Even if the indvidual cost of a tape worm was steep, it'd still be a one-off purchase and much cheaper than the long run than taking medicine or eating less processed food every day for years. While the Goop angle is certainly plausible, I prefer the way I've framed the issue here and think that it's a bit more probable since it's a bit harder to sell parasitic worms to the ultra rich for ripoff prices than the crap Goop does

Make this clearer

[Westinor]

Of course, some people are going to develop a couple of... bowel-related side effects here and there, but which other medicine doesn't do that anyway

Seems a bit curious just because obviously not all mainstream medicine incurs bowel-related side effects - this joke made more sense when it was just "side effects" given the absurd side effects listed in basically every pharmaceutical commercial, but this feels off now.

A broader read gives me the feel that you've landed a good premise and some really nice effect lines. Good work :)

[West Barack and East Obama]

Bump

[Sprose]

For option 2, i find the frasing of agreeing with the previous speaker to be a little unnatural. Maybe have him have his own arguments about health benefits of weight loss (since he already claims that it has been approved by health organisations) or that beauty should be available to everyone? That makes him more distinct.
But could be personal preference

I think this issue looks pretty good!

[West Barack and East Obama]

For option 2, i find the frasing of agreeing with the previous speaker to be a little unnatural. Maybe have him have his own arguments about health benefits of weight loss (since he already claims that it has been approved by health organisations) or that beauty should be available to everyone? That makes him more distinct.
But could be personal preference

I think this issue looks pretty good!

Thank you for the feedback! However, I personally believe that it is necessary for Speaker 2 to be agreeing with Speaker 1. It would feel a bit off to also argue that most consumers can't afford to lose weight without referencing Speaker 1 who also says the same thing.

And thanks for the overall comment on the issue :3

[West Barack and East Obama]

Bump