People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

Also, I agree entirely on the point he makes about better argumentation. It is necessary to judge not off of personal opinion, but on debating skills. I'd like to point out that the resolution does not imply a single country, not does it give a specific demographic of AIDS infection persons to be launched in space - so I'll base my case around the fact that the AIDS epidemic is a world-wide issue, and therefore when the resolution says, "people" it means people internationally. Formalities out of the way, I'll simply refute my opponent's points points before outlining my own. 1R. My opponent says that we will nearly eradicate the AIDS virus by sending everyone off into space. This is simple-minded thinking, but not necessarily wrong. However, because this solution is not a complete one (as he has agreed) we must examine the negative effects of it before we make any other judgement. Keep in mind that because this is not a complete solution, the negative effects tend to weigh more than if it was a complete and total solution. Also, my opponent points out that we would need to test everyone for aids. According to, . http://www.census.gov..., there are "6,661,364,777" people currently alive. . http://www.census.gov... details the fact that there are "4.2 births every second". So keep in in mind that's 4 infants that need to be tested every second, and 6.7 billion that need to be tested right away. A plan on this magnitude is simply not manageable. The economic drain of testing every single person in the world will require such a massive collaborative effort it would channel millions of dollars that are already being spent searching for a cure for AIDS. Now the money sent searching for a cure is simply being spent looking for the virus. That's hardly an efficient use of resources. There's also the fact that many citizens who have contracted the AIDS virus would be unwilling to be strapped to rockets, causing violent political and social revolutions in order to ensure their safety, thus destabilizing the governmental authority in almost, if not every area this plan is implemented in. As you can see, this plan is ludicrous because of the magnitude it requires, as well as the fact that it would be met with such a hostile response. 2R. "it is cost-effective to build a series of simple rocket ships to launch our infected into space" Let's examine the cost of a rocket in depth, to see if it really is cost effective. According to, ". http://www.nasa.gov...; a space shuttle: "cost approximately $1.7 billion". Besides this staggering number, there is also the fact that each launch costs, "about $450 million per mission. " The only way this plan could be implemented is if the shuttles held a large amount of people. The amount of people being able to be held within the actual orbiter (the passenger section) is around 20, whereas there's a much larger amount that are able to be strapped to the outside. . http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov... gives specific measurements of these aircraft, giving around 1,000 feet^2 to allocate for human usage. Assuming the average man is 5.5 feet, that's approximately 182 people able to be carried on one spaceship. Add the 20 inside and you get 202 persons per 2bil+ launch. That's hardly cost efficient! Besides this, there are currently 32.8 million people in Africa alone infected with the AIDS virus. Just to ship the AIDS victims in Africa it would take 162,376 space ship launches. Ignore the cost of buying the ship, and just add up the cost of launching the ship. That cost comes to around, "73,069,306,930,693" dollars. As you can clearly see, "cost effective" is not the right word to use in this situation. Also, remember that that's just the cost for Africa alone. There are also over a million HIV patients in the United States itself. . http://money.howstuffworks.com... lists the total US currency value at around 6trillion, which would bring the cost of liberating Africa of it's AIDS victims to: 73068706930693. Hardly a change. As you can see, this plan is so economically detrimental that it would cripple the entire world economy if it were to be implimented for just one continent, regardless of all the other 6 continents. 3R. My opponent argues that AIDS helps to fight overpopulation - however the countries most severely inflicted by the AIDS epidemic are not facing overpopulation. In fact, Africa, the continent hit the hardest by AIDS would be facing underpopulation. The result of this would be a clusterf*** of small factions, moreso than there is now, warring amongst each other for the control of small territories. In a society so ravaged by ethnic conflict, instituting a plan of this magnitude would reduce Africa beyond 3rd world and backwards through all the progress being made by the Red Cross, UN and other peace organizations to end up in larger ethnic and tribal conflict than now. This lull in population would allow rebel-factions to grasp even more control than they have now, and it would truly disrupt any peaceful negotiation that has taken place. 4R. Getting AIDS is not a crime, sleeping with someone who is infected without your knowing is not your fault. It is simply ludicrous to assume that punishing a disease by death (when it's already highly likely to cause death within the next few years) is ridiculous and should not even be considered. AIDS could instead be prevented by instituting a higher tax for those with AIDS. There are many other ways to prevent the spread of AIDS without blasting all AIDS infected people into space. 5R. My opponent's 5th contention is much like the 4th. The fact is, a junkie already knows that heroin is illegal and he is likely to contract AIDS. He still shoots up. The death penalty for this is no incentive to a junkie anymore than jail is. Now that I have addressed my opponent's points, I'd like to briefly move on to my own: 1) Shooting AIDS victims into space is not economically efficient. As I addressed above, the cost for launching JUST AFRICA into space would be around: 73,069,306,930,693. This is ridiculous to consider, as the United States only has around 6trillion in the federal reserve. The fact is, the only way to possibly accomodate this would be to cripple the world economy, disrupt the value of money, it simply cannot be done with the current economic balance. 2) Killing off over 40 million people worldwide would be considered genocide. The moral implications that arise are gigantic at the very least. The United States, a country which is helping to stop genocide amongst African communites would be supporting a far larger genocide by funding such an immoral plan. The AIDS epidemic is a large problem, but it is not endangering the survival of the human race. The lack of this risk shows that there can be no justification for committing genocide. As you can see - my opponent is trying to advocate the launching of over 40 million AIDS infected humans into space. We must run a full cost-benefit analysis, and we see that the only benefits can be achieved by this solution are non-unique almost nonexistant benefits that can be achieved cheaper and more easily. The costs though, are tremendous and are unique only to this problem. This is the only AIDS solution that involves genocide and cripples the entire world economy entirely. Such a solution cannot logically be passed, and it is your job as logical judges, at this point in the debate, to vote Con. Thanks, ~HQ