Global Nuclear War is Good

Pro's arguments are only growing more convoluted and contradictory as we move along in this debate. They are also growing more and more presumptuous and illogical, as I will show below.First of all, they still have not addressed the issue that I pointed out is at the crux of the debate. Regardless of how many (if any) survivors nuclear holocaust leaves, Pro insists that an unsubstantiated, non-evidenced "spark" will create the inception of a great new society that will be categorically and objectively "better" than our current civilization. As the BoP lies with Pro, it is absolutely essential that they irrefutably prove that, assuming ALL of their other claims are true (a point on which I vehemently beg to differ), the consequent society will be one such that the positive effects of "global nuclear war" outweigh the negative effects.Pro states "here is Caldwell in 2018 saying Nukes are indeed the salvation that humanity needs." Despite the fact that this is still one person allegedly saying the same thing repeatedly, Pro then goes on to reiterate his credentials (which have nothing to do with science, anthropology, sociology, or anything else related to this debate) and then cites a quote about Donald Trump stating he may have increased the likelihood of long-term survival of mankind. If the long-term survival of mankind has been increased, why would we be favoring nuclear warfare?This is where Pro starts to contradict him/herself. They say, "the biosphere will collapse in 2020, that"s in 2 years" and just a few lines later say, "This collapse will not happen in 2 years"They then say, "The Collapse that I am referring to is an extinction event of the entire planet not the collapse of just a civilization" yet they previously stated, "When we survive, we will pick up the pieces, start anew with a new mindset." The word "survive", by definition, is mutually exclusive with the term, "extinction event of the entire planet." TFurthermore, it is clear that Pro missed the point of the argument about civilization collapse. The point was that, regardless of the sequential occurrence of the "global nuclear war" and consequent "spark" that will mysteriously give rise to the superior civilization Pro insists will occur, it is almost inevitable that that civilization will, in turn, collapse.Pro goes on to state, "On Survivability the Con Claims that they are not conceding to the fact the I won this portion of the debate and they would address it later, they can claim this all they want but the fact of the matter is they could not provide evidence to this at the time" however, as I've just illustrated, it would be impossible to provide evidence to specifically counter their argument since they've provided contradictory arguments. Will some of humanity survive the nuclear war and pick up the pieces? Or will it be a mass extinction?Next, Pro states, "Con makes an arg that there can be no guarantee of a civilization post spark...In 2 years nothing will be alive on the earth unless the spark happens which the Con has already conceded solves for the collapse. So the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn't"t mean anything at all."Aside from the fact that this "spark" is an entirely ambiguous, also-unsubstantiated event/force, I need to point to the phrase, "the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn't"t mean anything at all."**Let the voters be sure to recognize that Pro just stated that deciding whether the net effects of global nuclear war are positive or negative is independent of whether a new, superior civilization is "recovered."**Unless we are moving to a philosophical Nihilist argument (which would be interesting, but seemingly out-of-place here), this seems to expose a fundamental flaw in Pro's reasoning.Finally, let's move to the sequence of premises that Pro seems to think can be proven, in some sort of order (?), to affirm his/her argument.Again, they refer to this undefined "spark" that we have no way of understanding nor contextualizing in terms of the survival and/or development of civilization. Regardless, this series of logic is nothing short of silly. The BoP is on Pro, not Con, and Pro has not only done nothing to prove these claims true, they haven't even validated the logical progression of their points.Even IF we "are all dead" from the alleged collapse of an impending biosphere (debatable), and even IF "some form of life" will continue, Pro does nothing to define or explain what form of life this will be. Will it be a group of frogs? Trees? Microbial bacteria? Viruses? Mutant dragonflies? Who is to say that this life form will be sentient, let alone capable of developing a civilization, let alone capable of developing a civilization superior to that which currently exists. On that note, who or what is to say that "whatever form of life that survives will have a peaceful mindset towards the planet."In summation, the only form of consistency held by Pro's arguments is their inconsistency and tendency toward self-contradiction (as demonstrated above). Furthermore, Pro's usage of the same source, even if a quote is updated, is no stronger proof of correctness than it was previously. Aristotle believed in the geocentric model at the beginning of his career and at the end. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Pro makes the completely unproven claim that a life form which is not just conscious and sentient, but has a peaceful mindset toward the planet, will survive the nuclear holocaust and be capable of developing a superior society such that the positive effects of said nuclear war will outweigh the negative.Con did absolutely nothing to counter the ample evidence I provided showing the harm inflicted by nuclear warfare, but it is almost irrelevant due to their completely flawed logic, presumptuous thinking, and inherent contradictions.