Post Nuclear War Survival

"I take issue with a few things in this statement. First, I did not come up with this argument, it was a school assignment that I thought would make a good debate. Second, because a person will leave peacefully does not mean that they will consent to being cannibalized. Let's take Gerald White as an example, this man served in an army infantry for 4 years, this would make him one of the most difficult people of the 12 to kill against his will. There may not be a fight when the issue is leaving the shelter, but there will be a fight when a person suggests that the group eats you. My opponent also makes the assumption that the rest of his chosen group will stoop to cannibalism which is a very, very illogical assumption even in a survival situation" It does not matter of who made up the argument, the point is that you agree with it and are allowing them to leave peacefully as you did not say otherwise in any of your rounds. My opponent also goes off the assumption that we would be killing these three people all at once. Definitely not. My opponent assumes that I have no cunning. Since I obviously have the charisma and leadership to decide who lives and who dies, it is easy to assume that the group will take things a step further and make use of all our resources instead of wasting them as my opponent suggests. First I would convince all 11 members to kill f Majorie Blaylock a weak and vulnerable woman in poor health. We would then kill Fred Frederick. Finally all of the members 9v1 could easily kill man who is only in fair condition and past his prime. And to suggest that our group would stoop to canablism, if they are already stooping to sacrificing people for the common good of survival what makes you think they wouldn't take it a step further and not waste the resources available in order to save one more person. Its obvious that I control the group. Whatever I dictate would easily be followed. This debate operates under the assumption that I have the charisma to decide who lives and who dies. I am only taking the next logical step of using the most available resources while my opponent advocates killing them. There is nothing in the rules against it, nor has my opponent brought up any reason why three people couldn't feed one man for a month. It also operates under the false assumption that everyone would eat the three dead humans. Only Bill would as it's his life that is being saved for it. Any human would eat anything to survive. Numerous Examples in real life: . http://www.nbclosangeles.com... . http://www.foxnews.com... The Donner Party . http://www.donnerpartydiary.com... Numerous other examples here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Including even our founding fathers . http://www.history.org... Now if Our Founding fathers resorted to cannibalism it is only right that we do it to. "All of the statements that my opponent makes about himself are unproven and should therefore be disregarded until proof is presented. " *First Points 2, 5, 6, were all deduced by simple logic and need no factual backing. Point 1: I am stronger Proof: . http://i45.tinypic.com... . http://i45.tinypic.com... Clearly I am built to overcome even the most capable to overcome a man who works mainly in electronics and is far past his physical prime. "Blaylock's health could be caused by some sort of physical disability that is beyond her control such as a missing leg and it is incorrect to assume that she is weak" Which lends only further credence to my claim that I could physically take her in a fight. I would simply kick out her fake leg and easily ghetto stomp her to death. Furthermore my opponent hasn't even contended that he is stronger than me. Thus Point 1 stands. Point 3: I am more healthy Obvious by the picture Point 4: I am more intelligent. Dropping even the IQ argument, it is obvious that I am most intelligent as I was chosen to pick the group thus implying I'm more intelligent than both Majorie and Fred. It also stands to reason that I am logically more intelligent than my opponent because I picked a capable man to lead the group instead of a weak and vulnerable 13 year old girl. *Second - Nowhere did I make the attacks personal, they are clearly pertaining to the debate on which the intelligence, strength, confidence, and all qualities both me and my opponent play a very strong role (determine 1/3 of the victory). If you choose to take offense to any of them this is no fault of mine. Next, none of them are baseless and all of them have logical reasoning and backing from the limited evidence available. Unattractive and not confident because my opponent did not appoint himself the leader of the group nor gave a physical description of himself. Weak because he did not have the energy to type a description of himself. Do not be swayed by baseless and false accusation. My opponent is clearly twisting my words to gain any advantage he can. *Third - My opponent this statement confirms that his health is below excellent and gives us another reason that my t is superior Furthermore my opponent makes a baseless assumption that health is determined upon physical disabilities instead of your actual health (freedom from illness or disease, eating habits and weight, mental health, injuries etc. ). There are plenty of people who have physical disabilities and are considered to be in excellent health. Furthermore there is no evidence to lead us to believe that health is determined by physical disability. "use absurd assumptions to try and prove his point. " What my opponent calls "absurd assumptions" I call making full use of the facts on hand and using reasonable logic to come to a conclusion. "I interpreted it as meaning if you could only take one person who would you take. " Either interpretation only yields one logical answer, yourself. If you can only choose one person and everyone else is dead why on earth would you sacrifice yourself for someone else. Even if you assume you could impregnate someone before choosing them, it still would hinge on whether that person would have a child and whether that person could morally have incest a million times to repopulate the planet. Furthermore the gene pool would be so messed up that it would be virtually impossible. I either situation of only choosing one person, I would choose myself. Why on earth would I sacrifice myself for someone else? Either interpretation only yields poor logic and reasoning on the part of my opponent. "At least I have the objectiveness to realize that other people could possibly be better suited for leadership " Clearly my opponent mistakes objectiveness for foolishness as he has no logical reason why a thirteen year old girl should be either the leader or the only one to live. Both interpretations use no reasoning or logic. "The parameters of the debate do not ask you to make that assumption, it tells you that the assumption has been made. " And I'm saying that I'm not buying that assumption and preparing for a case where others survived as its most probable. "In the phone book for my area there are 23 people with the last name Gray" In this statement my opponent sticks by his earlier argument that they are not related. However he is foolish in doing so. Adding to my earlier argument: Does he seriously believe that an 8 and 13 year old both happened to reach the a nuclear bomb-shelter quickly without any parents or guidance? And that their IQ's both correlate to their suggested parents? It is obvious that my opponent hasn't clearly thought out this situation, which again, points to his poor reasoning skills which proves that my team is picked by a more reasonable a