Global Nuclear War is Good

Lets start off with the indict again. . They say that Caldwell is unqualified to speak on this subject. But 1. Judges I urge you to click on anyone of the cites that I have used by Caldwell and read stuff about him, there is not a person that is more qualified to speak on this subject that Caldwell 2. They never made any arguments about the environment or anything that they say Caldwell isn"t qualified to talk about. I have other sources that will conclude the same things a Caldwell that are experts in their fields but I don"t read them when the Con doesn"t make any arguments that deal with any of those things They bring up a quote about Trump I used. 1. Those were Caldwell"s words in 2018 that showed that he thought nuclear was indeed the way to save humanity. Next they say I Contradict myself on the collapse debate. 1. When I said that the collapse will happen in 2 years I am talking about the collapse of the Biosphere 2. When I said that this collapse will not happen in two years I am talking about the collapse of civilization that the Con is referencing not the collapse of the biosphere, that"s my fault if I was not clear enough. They say I contradict myself on survival of Civilization. 1. No I did not in fact not once have I said that modern civilization should survive. The con says I did when I was talking about the Mindset shift but I choose my words very carefully and so did Caldwell. Neither him or I claimed that it would be humans that survive the nuclear exchange. I did say it was possible that they survive but I never said I had to prove that humans or civilization had to survive post the nukes. ( To be clear I am not wiping out but I could have) They say I Contradict myself on survivability because the Con had nothing to read on it, this is a bad argument, just because they did not understand this part of the debate does not mean I contradicted myself and here are a list of pretty damning things they could have read here. Don"t let them now it is to late and I don"t get another speech to defend myself 1. Firestorms 2. Chalko 3. Escalation 4. Bioweapons 5. Ecosystems 6. Bees 7. Pole Shift Those are seven really good survivability claims that I would have made had I been in the Con"s position but they did not Finally they say that on the mindset shift that I said there can be no guarantee of civilization so that means that I contradict myself. Again the same applies from the beginning I said the four things I had to win in order to prove that nuclear war is good and the survival of humans and civilization where not one of them. Yes I did say humans could survive in my first round but I did not outline that, human survival was key. Lets break the debate down now The Con drops honestly everything and its pretty damning for them. They go all in on that I have contradicted myself. Lets start with the Biosphere collapse debate 1. The Biosphere is going to collapse in 2 years this argument has been all but conceded by the Con meaning you must weigh it as such when judging this debate. You judge may not think it will but that does not matter when the Con does not make that argument. 2. So with the impending collapse of the Biosphere we must do something to curb this or we are all dead. With that lets move to the Solvency debate 1. This spark or nuclear war will stop the Biosphere from collapsing even if you judge think that is a crazy idea or will not happen it does not matter because the Con never claims that and it is far to late for them to claim it now when I do not get another speech to defend myself. 2. Since this nuclear saves some for of life from the impending collapse that is why nuclear war is good and the Con in their last round did not argue this back so here judges is your easy way out. You should be voting Pro right here The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations, outweighs the Con Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014) Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and the extinction of all other species on the planet If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today? ( and no this is not a contradiction even though the con will try and say it is. I never wiped out) Next if we go to the Survivability 1. Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments 2. Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead Lastly if we go the mindset shift debate 1. The con only says this means that I must have to defend that a superior civilization will rise but that"s not at all what I am saying. All I am saying is that whatever form of life exists after the nukes will have a peaceful mindset. Never once did I say humans had to be the ones to have this shift. If humans do survive it they will have this mindset shift but even if they didn"t it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of a collapse again. 2. Since there is some form of a mindset shift post nukes that means I have proven that nuclear war is good. You are voting pro because of four reasons 1. I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win 2. The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020 3. The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is I contradicted myself and that I cannot guarantee that civilization will continue but again I did not contradict myself and It doesn"t matter if or if not civilization will continue because Civilization is gone in 2 years anyway 4. The Con contradicts its self and its really damning. If I fact I did have to win that civilization must continue post spark the Con did it for me. By listing all of the other civilizations that had collapsed in the past and there were 20 of them. This means that the past 20 Civilization collapsed some form of human life was able to rebuild. This isn"t a contradiction of myself about mind set shift because even if there is error replication humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life meaning that nuclear war extend life. Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won.