One could logically follow a majority of these guidelines

@ 'Orlando, Florida example' Pro's analogy is misleading. When a tornado is in the area, one does not have time to perform so many contradictory actions. Let's look at a better analogy. I am spending a (1) day in Florida. My tour guide tells me that, to have a good time, I should logically do a majority of these things: 1) Spend an afternoon on the beach. 2) Spend a day at Islands of Adventure 3) Spend an afternoon scuba diving. 4) Spend a day at Sea World. 5) Visit X museum. 6) Eat dinner at X restaurant. He provides me an impossible task list for fun. If I spend a day at Islands or Sea World, I can only have dinner. If I scuba dive in the afternoon, I can't visit a museum. If we apply this analogy to the tornado situation, I have a limited amount of time to ensure my safety. I cannot "run like hell" from the tornado AND still strap myself to my roof and rage at the heavens. Pro then strawmans my side with three points. The argument I make is that if we want to "logically justify adhering to a majority (5 ) of these with the intent of preserving health and safety", then if one cannot either adhere to 5 guidelines or preserve one's safety with 5 guidelines, the resolution is negated. For Pro to win, he must show that adhering to 5 rules would be a logical way to ensure safety. Now for my own general argument against his case. Let's say I am infected with a disease. The doctor offers me a medicine which is guaranteed to cure me, and one which has a 50-50 chance of curing me. Taking both could lead to complications. If I want to logically make a decision with my safety as the ultimate goal, I take the best option. Anything else is foolish. In this debate, if I show that some guidelines have better alternatives then one should follow the better alternatives. The next general argument is about health benefits. Pro makes several statements attaching obscure health benefits to his arguments (ex. running like hell can notify people). It is important to put this in scope. Running and screaming would certainly lead to death, and be futile - people would already be alerted by sirens.. @ Contradiction Rebuttal A (1,3,4,6,7,8)] Pro goes on to prove my point. If I wish to avoid car crashes, then I have several mutually exclusive options. However, if I wish to avoid car crashes with my ultimate safety in mind, then I pick staying at home over flying in a plane - I don't want to expose myself to more risk factors. Similarly, if a tornado is striking and I want to ensure my safety, I HAVE to pick between mounting my roof and screaming, and hiding in a ditch. If one of them is to be preferred, then I logically ought not do the other. B (2, 4 8)] Pro never individually refutes this. It is impossible to remain calm and "rage" or "yell". One simply cannot do both! Because we have both conceded that 2 (remain calm) is a good thing to do, we must exclude 4 and 8 (roof-screaming and running), as they are foolish things to do. They contradict actual safe advice. C (6, the rest)] I do not need to prove that accepting Christianity is hazardous. In fact, all I do is show that 4 of the guidelines are unsafe. #6 clearly states that there is only one safe place. If there is only one safe place ("loving arms"), one cannot hide in a ditch (not "loving arms") to preserve safety. That means that one can only logically follow #6 to be safe. @ Mundane Rebuttals 1 (ditch)] It does not logically remain that a ditch is safe. A ditch is a place where water collects [1]! This means that flash flooding will first fill a ditch and make it unsafe. If you are lying in a ditch and it floods, you will drown, as the rules tell you "not...to sit up". This is encouraging people to drown in tornados. If someone violates rule 1 and escapes from the flooding ditch, they are liable to be struck by lightning. Sopping wet people are prime targets for lightning bolts. Tetanus remains a risk for those unvaccinated. 2 (calm)] While I do concede this, I actually gain offense here. We agree that staying calm is necessary. This means that one cannot follow 4 or 8. Remember, if staying calm is staying safe, running like hell and raging at the heavens, which are not staying calm, are both unsafe. One cannot logically follow a logical contradiction. 3 (shooting)] Firing gun at a tornado will not aid safety. Tornados will not be scared off, and people waste valuable time. Tornado sirens are far more effective. They go off before tornados hit[2], as they "provide warning of approaching danger". Deaf people can be alerted by means (TV, internet, people living with them) that do not endanger others. According to Pro's own source, less than half of adult males and females have access to guns. Tornado sirens, on the other hand, blanket areas with safety. 4 (roof)] By the same interpretation, rule 2 about staying calm applies on these 999/1000 non-tornado days, as well as tornado days. It just tells people to stay calm. Because we have both agreed that staying calm is a good thing, we both agree that this guideline is bad. 5 (prevention)] If tornados cannot be prevented, I cannot command someone to prevent them. Therefore, one cannot logically attempt to prevent tornados before they happen. Attempts to do so will only result in failure, leading to frustration and depression. This is actually detrimental to self health. I do not link this to mass suicide, or even create a slippery slope - suicide rates will just increase because of this. Pro then says that perhaps someone could invent the method. If this takes 20-30 years, then we are increasing depression and frustration for 20-30 years! 6 (loving arms)] Guideline 6 explicitly tells people to go to "loving arms". Under the Christianity interpretation the only way to truly enter God's loving arms is to die and go to heaven. Only then can one truly be with God. By telling people to go to God's loving arms during a tornado, we encourage them to kill themselves and literally be with him. People who literally interpret the command will perform suicide to be with God. We're not talking about missionaries or ad campaigns. We're evaluating these guidelines. By telling people that the only way to be safe is to be Christian, we are telling them to convert to Christianity to be safe during a tornado. Again, this disregards the individual and their own beliefs. Con has conceded that Christianity provides no divine protection. He also doesn't attack my eggs in one basket argument either. If everyone is Christian and Christianity is false, everyone goes to Hell. We shouldn't advise people down this road. 7 (basements)] You can apply rule 2 here. A storm shelter would not be safe - the only safe place is in "my loving arms". Hiding in a shelter would therefore be futile. 8 (run like hell)] Pro completely concedes that one cannot outrun a tornado. Because of this, following this guideline would lead to sure death. One CANNOT logically follow this guideline in the interest of safety if it leads to death. Pro's 'threefold benefits' are actually false, as people will ultimately die under this guideline. *phew*. Just made it =). [1] http://brandon.fuller.name... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...