The End of the World (Cameronl35's R1 New Year's Tournament)

I did respond but I responded as a whole basically disproving all of your arguments in one swoop as my computer is being ghetto. "plagiarism in the rules. "how is it plagiarism? I had no other words?Also I changed the beginning, my firs draft had quotes and said see comments, I tol you my computer keeps crashing and deleting crap. Anyway that concept is correct. I edited out the efront and used an entire different ending/ plagiarism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the authorhttp://dictionary.reference.com...did I say it was mine, I tried to give credit but my computer probably has a virus as it is changing minor things. Was it unauthorized no, did I credit my self once again my computer must have a virus and I tried to quote it twice. Also if you look at his wording and mine it is slightly different. "it is impossible to choose 50 people morally and fairly."The BOP is still unknown as you didn't specify bt you have not proven how this matters. Or why. Also you need o defne moral:moral; " of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical "http://dictionary.reference.com...So is choosing people to survive, therefore saving lives, ot moral? Your case neither pertains to or fits into this definition. Mine does, it is ethical as I save 50 lives, it is right conduct as we save the human race possibly, and it uses the distinction of riht and wrong. Your case doesn't fit anywhere in that. "You would want to pick your friends, family, the girl you like, maybe."False because I only choose those family members as they had skills, if they where bugger picking hobos I wouldn't have done anything and I wouldn't have chosen them. And again, why kill all 7 billion humans if you can choose 50 and have a chance to contuntue the human race? our case is quite odd. Also letting people choose is moral and right as no matter who they choose they still have a chance to contintue the human race. You asically say let's not try we might mess up. I say try we might mess up but trying gives us a chance. "He is a 5th generation farmer. He has more experience, more land. Now say that your neighbour was chosen to be part of the 50, and you were not. How do you feel?"So? Sure I would be pissed but so what? The choices the goverment made would be better because they would choose better people. So you care more about mad citizens then saving the human race? Once again...odd. "Thirdly, CON seems to be addicted to quotes, thinking they are reliable sources."my quotes are reliabl as they are from reliable people. Also I wasn't using them as sources i was just oing it for fun. as this is a fun debate no?Also I have proven that letting no one live is immoral and therefore you quotes help me. "Thirdly, CON seems to be addicted to quotes, thinking they are reliable sources."If oyu proved that destroying the human race is moral then the quotes help you, and those are reliable quotes you have. Sadly your quotes help me as I have proven that SAVING the human race possibly is more moral then killing it. "No, it's not moral to save a few lives out of many because you are valuing their lives over others."Guess what your doing, killing a whole race because of minor discrapancies. Which is immoral. That's like saying a baby is gonna die let's kill t because it only has a small chance of survivial. Which is odd. So your case more moral then mine? I think not. "So you would be okay if you weren't chosen because you were black?"The goverment would choose black people, but only if they had skils. Obama will probably still be president so if this happened he would be choosen, and he's black. Also why discriminate due to color in this situation? If a white guys skills where half of that of the black guy next to him the goverment woudl chos the black guy. Once again, kill a whole race of humans for minor problems. "No, the thing is, it can't be checked because you can't measure personality or skill or experience or worth."I will c/p that again and show how each would find something:interviews:would check personality and speech intellegence. interviewees with family and friends:Talks about personality, any issues etc. IQ tests:tests basic intelegence resemeexperience and worth in the feild back round checksprsonality also checks if he is a criminalIt can be measured easily. "therefore it would not have the space to store food. "It could be a buner that holds 500 people but it;s full of food so it only holds 50. You never specified so that is possible. Also th elighting works for inside plants, plant need the same lighting as one another, a tree could live of of a few of those lights. So if you had enough you could grow potato farms, 1 for every 2 seeds. Totally possible. "First, there is no hope. There is zero chance of survival in the new world."let's look athow you said the earth would end:"It is assumed that the world will end through asteroids, earthquakes, tsunami's, sun flares, those good stuff. "asteroids just put holes in the ground and would make lakes when the rain comes, wo would be useful. tsunamis would onlaffect sea regions and islands. sun flares would just cause global warming and faster evaporation, leading to more rain. and earthquakes temporarily. All of that is survivable. "If there was a bunker that protected against the black plague, and could hold 50 people, I'm sure things would have been very different."disagree the kings would just be there (most kings didn't get the black plauge) so they wouldn't have changed the world much. "That source is from 1998. No one lives there anymore."The copyright is 1998 you can still update t and keep it under the same copyright. Also let me use another source then:Less than 2 million people live in the Sahara desert. [1]people still liver there, but only a few. source from 2000. let's use a less credible source:"Thousands of people live in the sahara" [2]"population of the Sahara Desert vary from between 2.5 million to 4 million people." [3]Point proven. ==conclusion==His whole case is let's give up, turn back, we might die. My case i let's try so our race lives on. Our race has gone through tough times, we can do this. We need to contuinue our race, so voters vote him choose give up and kill the human race or vote me and save the human race possiby and have hope. Why give up due to minor flaws that might occur?Also the protesters would:a. not know where it isb. probably get shot on sightc. even if they know where is is the goverment would have it in a hard to reach spot. So they would not destroy it. Also you are brining in other things into this debate, like why add in extra protesters? Also how would you destroy a bunker? they are made to withstand some nasty crap. a picket sign won't do anything.How is giving up dignity? How will you remember if your dead? how is killing the human race and giving up moral?those are the reasons his case is flawed. Vote pro, vote for the human race. http://www.ahsd25.k12.il.us... [1]http://wiki.answers.com... [2]http://wiki.answers.com... [3]