Informing People of the End

This topic was great, and I'm sure there's plenty of other arguments we didnt have space to make that others might try out sometime. C1: Chaos 1. My opponent pulls a Mitt Romney and flip-flops on his original argument. In R2 he said, "If the last days are chaotic that will be because people have decided to act in a manner they see fit and they have the right to do so. " Now in R4 he says "I'm not saying that people should be allowed to run around and slaughter people if they want to". So first he says people have a right to be chaotic, but now he says they don't. So Its now clear that people turning to crime or violence in their final days is a bad thing, and they don't have a right to do it. 2. He drops that his Mental Differences argument doesn't answer my contention 1. Just because criminals are inherently different doesn't mean that the crime rate wouldnt rise if the news broke loose. Criminals are weird =/= crime rate stays the same. 3. How much crime? Pro says "the majority" of people won't turn to crime. I agreed to this last round. However, he drops my R3 argument that even if its a minority (1 in 4 people committing crimes) thats still chaos on a worldwide scale, interfering with the quality of life in our last three months. (by the way, his crime statistic source says 21.3% of people are crime victims (1). He says this is "low". Um. .. what? ) Based off the latter two concessions, this whole contention clearly flows Con. Humans inherently good? ?? Pro makes a puzzling quote that "Americans, in general have very low rates of crime" 21.3% (his source) is not low. He also says that "even if you multiplied the numbers by 10 it would not be enough". But thats a 213% crime rate. .. . Logic: He repeats that "the majority" of people won't turn to crime. As previously stated (and dropped), it doesn't take a majority of people to cause havoc on a worldwide scale. Even if its 1 in 4, thats 25% of people stealing and killing, knowing they have no consequences to fear from their actions. Empirics: Pro refutes my looting argument, but he still has no response to the increased violence and crime rate after Hurricane Katrina. My argument is mainly about violence, so this is concrete proof of what will happen under a Pro ballot. Anyway, Pro says maybe looters in New Orleans stole unnecessary goods like TV's because the grocery store was underwater, so they stole from Best Buy. However, I could just as easily say that more TV's weren't stolen because the Best Buy was underwater and not the grocery store. But lets be realistic here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, when people are stealing TV's, jewelry, and other unnecessary goods, its because they want to make an extra buck without having to work for it, not for "survival". This is empirical proof of my position. When people can break the law without worrying about the consequences, they do. If there were no police officers, crime would go up. If laws are removed, crime goes up. If people are going to die in three months and thus dont have to worry about getting caught and put in jail, crime will go up. Its pretty simple. "Nature of crime" This is a brand new response he's making to my C1. By debate standards you ignore new arguments made in the last round. C2: NASA His ONLY response is "we couldnt do all this in three months". He never responds to my rebuttal that NASA is engaged in 93 different operations in the status quo, and in this Doomsday scenario, all 93 would be cancelled and be relocated to working on space travel. This multiplies NASA's workforce and speed several times over, making this a feasible operation. His Kennedy Space Center alternative is another new argument made in the last round. By debate standards its ignored. Conclusion - humanity has a slight chance for survival under my plan. Pro's idea of informing the public guarantees our doom. C3: Nuclear strike This also clearly flows Con. Everyone is going to die eventually, but that doesnt stop people from starting wars and killing others anyway. All Americans will naturally die off over many years. But Al Qaeda still wants to destroy us themselves anyway. In the same light, even if a state will be blown up in three months, there still will be inventive for a rival state to destroy them beforehand. As the argument in R2 stated, there's actually MORE incentive, since they don't have to fear repercussions. "Lets go ahead and destroy them. It doesn't matter if they attack us back, the end of the world is coming". Viral Information Another brand new argument made in the last round. This should have been made in R2, not R4. Equality: Okay, so now he wants us to throw BOTH our polls away, now that we know that they both support my side. *Sigh*. I'll agree to this just because of this next argument: Pro completely drops my rebuttal that people would choose not to know because of the anxiety it would produce. If you knew you're dead in three months, you couldnt think about anything else this entire time. You would feel intense paranoia and other psychological problems, knowing you're days from death. This is completely unanswered, and thus serves as independent reason to prove that people DON'T want to know about the asteroid. Last Meal: Group with my C1. The debate here is basically has essentially become a rehash of the world chaos argument. Depriving the Good Pro writes a lot of paragraphs here, but only a couple sentences actually respond to my argument from last round. I showed that informing the public of the asteroid makes everyone live the rest of their lives in fear, knowing they're days away from death. Pro says that this anxiety would be offset by being able to die in the arms of your loved one, with your best friend, or laughing with old pals. Well, if I'm a day away from death, I'm not going to be laughing. Even if I'm with someone I love just before my time, that won't erase the paranoia of knowing that we're all about to die. Humans are biologically wired to fear death, which is why we work so hard to avoid it. So if we know 100% that we're going to die in three months, we will experience intense paranoia and psychological trauma. Even if we're able to be with friends and family in our final days, the negative emotions produced from the knowledge obviously outweigh that positive. Conclusion: I wish I could share the same worldview as my opponent. I wish I could believe that in the face of death, everyone will stay calm and civil. But they won't. Maybe if this were a Hollywood movie they might. But its not. Three months from inevitable death, humanity is not all going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya". Rape, theft, and violence would become extremely widespread, since people don't have to worry about being imprisoned anymore. Sure, a lot of people might hold out due to their own sense of morality. But just as many will realize that this is their chance to take everything they've ever wanted, by force, whether it be an object or a person. People who've always wanted to punch their boss, beat up that guy at work they don't like, etc, will do it because they don't have to fear consequences; they're going to die anyway. This leads to a chaotic world where laws arent enforced and crime flourishes in the world's final days. And if this applies to every day rivalries, it definently will to world leaders like Kim Jong Un and Mahmoud Ahmenijad, who now have nothing holding them back from nuking their enemies into submission to fulfill their own twisted desires. Thus I urge a vote against releasing this knowledge, and the corrupted world it would induce.1. . http://www.nationmaster.com...