Post Nuclear War Survival

Rebuttals "Now if Our Founding fathers resorted to cannibalism it is only right that we do it to." and everything above about cannibalism. [It may be easy to assume that your proposed situation will come to pass, but to quote your round 3, "We know that if you assume, you only make an AS_S out of U and ME." People eating the dead described in first example, not killing for food. In the second example cannibalism was merely considered. The third example is also of eating the dead. The fourth is Wikipedia which is not a source, even if the information in the article is true find it somewhere else. The fifth example is also about eating the already dead. Eating those that are already dead is entirely different than killing for food. I would've acknowledged a source that described the murdering of a live individual for the purpose of eating for survival as evidence; none of my opponent's examples are depictive of what he describes doing. (My opponent also states that it is right to resort to cannibalism in this situation which is a claim entirely up to debate. I actually wouldn't mind having it.)] ~~~ "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." [The possibility for catching disease would be coupled with the fact that a person cannot survive on only meat for _3_ months [1]. There are other nutritional concerns that need to be taken into account such as the need for water. Drinking the drained blood of the bodies is also not an option because it takes an average of 42 days for blood to go bad [2], less if stored improperly. The storage of these bodies is also an issue as bodies take up a lot of space and fresh meat rots very fast. So in effect having a 9th member is not only against the rules but within the context of this debate impossible.] ~~~ "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...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." [In this statement my opponent describes the method that he would use to murder a person with a disability. In a survival situation one does not really want someone with murderous tendencies to be around them. If a situation like this occurred then I would believe that a group would band together to kill this person before I would believe that they would fall in line behind him.] ~~~ "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" [My opponent's contention there was that he is stronger than all three of us put together which is highly unlikely in almost any situation. It does not matter whether or not I am stronger than you, in this context you get to stay in the shelter. Also, a picture of you cleaning your kitchen counter while fully clothed hardly gives example to how you are "built" or strong. Serving in the military, on the other hand, is great evidence to show strength.] ~~~ " 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)...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." [My personal attributes have no bearing on the outcome of the debate since one of the rules of the debate is that you stay in the shelter. Period. You cannot leave yourself out to die in the fallout. The debate also did not include a section that required us to choose a leader for our group, this is simply something that my opponent chose to do and many of his arguments are based upon this choice. These are the reasons that my opponents statements that I am ugly unintelligent, weak, and meek are in fact personal attacks. He states that based upon the limited evidence these are the only assumptions that can be made about me when the only type of evidence to suggest this is evidence of omission. He is basically saying that because I did not say that I am handsome I am ugly, the same logic applies to all of his attacks. It is for these remarks alone that I should get the conduct vote.] ~~~ "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." [In the context of this debate the person debating picks the group. If it were any other way this would be a bad debate, but that applies to anyone who participates in this hypothetical situation. If a person who was mentally retarded accepted the challenge then would you argue that this person is the most capable leader? Nowhere in my arguments do I state that Janie Stanley would make a good leader and I have no idea why my opponent is implying that I did. She would make a bad leader.] ~~~ "Either interpretation only yields one logical answer, yourself... Furthermore the gene pool would be so messed up that it would be virtually impossible." [I did not state that only one could go in the shelter. Taking one person means that both you and them get to go inside. Therefore, my reasoning stands as per the objective of this debate which is to try and repopulate the earth.] ~~~ " 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." [Again with the false statement that I chose a 13 year old girl to lead, and the incorrect assumption that she would be the only one to live.] ~~~ "And I'm saying that I'm not buying that assumption and preparing for a case where others survived as its most probable." [If you did not accept the rules then why did you accept the debate challenge?] ~~~ " 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?" [Let's say that this nuclear attack happened when these children were at school. This is one example that adds to the evidence that they could have reached the said shelter without their parents. I never said that I believed it likely, only entirely possible and all of my evidence supports my claim.] ~~~ In conclusion my opponent's arguments are based upon assumptions made using extremely liberal interpretations of evidence and providing unverified evidence based upon personal experience. Also, I urge a Pro vote for spelling and grammar as my opponent misspelled Marjorie's name on multiple occurrences and cut off his argument in round 4 without any explanation. I believe wholeheartedly that I have trounced my opponent in this debate. [1] Page 184-185, http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://www.delmarvablood.org...