Informing People of the End

Thanks for the entertaining debate so far.C1: World chaosPro repeats his argument that people have the right to choose how they want to spend their final days, even if its a life of chaos. He doesn't respond to my argument that this is irrational, because its like saying a death row inmate 1 week from execution should be allowed to go out and kill six more people if he wants to, because he has a right to live his last days the way he wants. Extend. Here's another example: if a terminal patient finds pleasure in stealing, he's not allowed to do it even though its how he wants to spend his final days.a. Humans inherently good???My opponent cites a poll where 61% of people said they believed people are inherently good (so people wouldnt kill and steal if they knew about the asteroid). Unfortunately, people believing something doesnt make it true. Remember, everyone thought the Earth was flat at one point.Moreover, my opponent doesnt really substantiate his claim that humans are good by nature outside of this one poll. He uses the phrase "I think" to support his argument that the world won't turn to hell, with no real warrant/reasoning behind it. There's no specific logic provided as to why humans are inherently good. In comparison, I gave you the empirical proof that people would turn to crime (through the Katrina example), and the common sense argument that the murder/violence rate would rise substantially if they were legalized (which affirming basically does). Logic: This quote is important. Pro says, "In order to murder and rape and commit other violent crimes a person's brain has to be fundamentally different". However, the defense attorney source he gives to support this only talks about murder. The quote does not mention rape, theft, and "other violent crimes". Thus, his quote doesnt apply to any of those latter three abuses, meaning my side proves they will occur if the news breaks loose.As for murder itself, all his defense attourney quote does is say that killers have different brains. This doesn't respond to the argument that murder would go up if everyone knew there would be no consequences for doing it. Killers are weird =/= murder rate will stay the same.Empirics: Agreed, a lot of goods in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath were stolen for survival purposes. However, he ignores my sourced argument that many of these goods were non essential, such as jewelry and electronics. People stole them because they could. Moreover, he makes no response to the increased crime and violence rate in the wake of the destruction. Thus, I have empirical proof that, when people don't have to follow the law (such as in this asteroid scenario), people break the law. This accesses all the arguments about how affirming would skyrocket crime rates and potentially cause nuclear assault from extremist nations.C2: NASA ConflictNASA is currently engaged in 93 different research and building operations (1). They are extremely divided and strewn out. However, if we learn an asteroid is approaching, they would be able to focus all their resources on one mission; building a space shuttle (or more likely, upgrading an existing one, such as Atlantis or Orion) to send some humans to another planet, giving us a chance for survival. Considering that everyone will actually be working on the same project, timeframe isn't really an issue, answering my opponent's objection. At that point, extent the argument that this possibility will never happen if we inform the public of impending doom because they will be busting down NASA's doorstep and interfering with the building process, by fighting amongst everyone over who gets to leave the doomed planet. Even if my shuttle plan is crazy and only has a 1% chance of working, thats better than the 0% thats guaranteed by informing the public of the space rock. C3: Nuclear strikePro questions why rival states would want to destroy each other when they're going to die in three months anyway. Actually, the fact that they're going to die anyway makes no difference. For instance, most of the current US population will be dead in 60 years due to old age, but just because we're going to die anyway doesnt mean Al Qaeda doesnt want to destroy us right now. Same applies to any other war.Moreover, terrorist states like Pakistan and Iran believe that destroying their enemies will lead them to Jihad, creating a direct incentive to start a nuclear war during this three month deadline. The reason there isn't war right now is because aggression would be reciprocated by the enemy state, harming both parties. But if made aware that the world is about to end, they no longer have to fear the ramifications of their actions, creating incentives to start wars right now. This leads to a destroyed world well before our three months is up. This means no last meals or last rites.Equality:To determine whether a majority of people want to know of impending doom, we must compare my source from a Hollywood movie to his source from an online gaming forum. Thankfully, both sources actually support my side. My source says 96% of people wouldnt want to know they're going to die, his says 61%. Either way, I have a clear majority of people telling you they DON'T want to know about this asteroid. This is an independent reason to vote Con in this debate round. However, Pro says that actually both our polls are skewed because if you were literally confronted by someone who could tell you when you would die, you'd be more likely to say yes. There's no warrant whatsoever explaining why that would be the case. Its just blankly asserted. I'll just as easily say that people would actually be LESS likely to want the knowledge. I give the warrant that this knowledge (in context of the asteroid) would be unwanted because it would cause the person to live out the rest of their lives in panic and fear, knowing they're days away from death. Thus, my interpretation of the polls are warranted, Pro's is not. Pro then repeats that people have a "right to know" and that I'm depriving them of this right. However, he never responds to my argument that protecting the public's right to security (which I do by preventing mass chaos) outweighs protecting the public's right to know. Since if people die in wake of this knowledge, those people won't be able to "know" anything. Last meal:To save space, I'll go ahead and grant that having a last meal is a good benefit. However, group this with my Contentions 1 and 3. Remember, a skyrocketing crime rate and large-scale war interferes with people's ability to have a last meal, since thousands of people will die before they even get the chance to have one.Pro then says my world chaos argument is pure speculation. Well I'm sorry, I thought this debate was about a hypothetical scenario. I didnt know we were debating about something thats actually happening :/Depriving the GoodPro talks about how Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Centers weren't looted when they were destroyed. Neither of these relate to my argument. My argument is that when there is no incentive to follow laws (whether it be because police aren't around, or because it doesn't matter if you're arrested) people break the law. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 did not involve laws being removed, so these aren't responsive.Finally, Pro says if you affirm, people will be able to say their last goodbyes, right past wrongs, etc. I would argue that, in addition to my C1 and C3 nerfing this, living your final days in paranoia outweighs this benefit. If you Know you're going to die in three months, that will be literally the only thing you can think about for the rest of your short life. Knowing the end is weeks away will induce such fear and anxiety, the negative emotions would outweigh any possible benefit you could achieve.Good luck to Pro in his final round.1. http://www.nasa.gov...