Global Nuclear War is Good

Let's go through this final round's argument in order. I feel I have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pro has not only used insufficient, narrow-minded, outdated sources to back up specious claims, but has also provided arguments rife with contradiction. Perhaps most importantly, they have completely failed to satisfy that which they themselves have resolved, that the net result of the action they recommend will be "good"."Judges I urge you to click on anyone of the cites that I have used by Caldwell and read stuff about him, there is not a person that is more qualified to speak on this subject that Caldwell"All of the articles cited on Caldwell's website are simply ones he wrote himself. This hardly confirms him as a qualified candidate to speak intelligently with authority on this matter. He has degrees in math and statistics, which also do not qualify him to speak on this matter. Furthermore, these degrees were conferred in 1962 and 1966, respectively. I think that suffices to say any academic standing he may have had is severely outdated. He has also authored books such as "How to Play the Guitar by Ear"."They never made any arguments about the environment or anything that they say Caldwell isn"t qualified to talk about. I have other sources that will conclude the same things a Caldwell that are experts in their fields but I don"t read them when the Con doesn"t make any arguments that deal with any of those things"I would direct all voters to my Round 1 statement in which I very specifically argued regarding the following (among other things):- Effects on Climate- Effects on Agriculture/Ozone Layer- Effects on Human HealthI think it goes without saying that the climate and ozone layer very much concern the environment.Furthermore, the BoP is on Pro. It is incumbent upon him/her to bring up all of these alleged sources from "experts in their fields" if they substantiate their currently unsubstantiated, contradictory claims."Next they say I Contradict myself on the collapse debate."In Pro's final argument he states that he was "not clear(ly) enough" arguing that the biosphere would collapse in 2 years, though civilization would not. The biosphere is defined as, "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth (or analogous parts of other planets) occupied by living organisms." Surely if the regions of the earth that are occupied by living organisms collapse, those organisms wouldn't be able to survive. Thus, in trying to counter the claim that Pro contradicted him/herself, he/she only served to further this notion."No I did not in fact not once have I said that modern civilization should survive. The con says I did when I was talking about the Mindset shift but I choose my words very carefully and so did Caldwell."Grammar aside, this point doesn't make much sense. Yet again, Pro references his/her only source (Caldwell) who has degrees in subjects unrelated to this debate from over 50 years ago. They claim that they have not said that anyone from modern civilization would survive, but that there would be a "mindset shift". Mindset is defined as, "the established set of attitudes held by someone." Unless we enter the realm of an intense metaphysical debate, the word "someone" implies personhood which, in turn, implies conscious being(s). Thus, a shift in "mindset" requires continuity of consciousness and memory which, by definition, necessitates continuity of life. This, also by definition, implies survival. IF Pro meant to say that, though humans would be wiped out, a new civilization of similar beings would arise capable of generating a new society, surely they should be required to prove that this would happen. Just because they didn't list this on the things they need to prove doesn't negate the fact that they have to, if not up front, at least when I challenge the point."Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments"I specifically raised questions on the nature of the survivability that Pro referenced when I stated: "...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?""Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead"It is here that I feel Pro has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of logical discourse. Ignoring, for a second, the fact that they contradicted themselves when they tried to argue that there would be life after "the nukes", they most certainly have not proven that post-2020 life would be better than pre-2020 life. By what definition is nuclear war "good"? Pro has still not provided this. Suppose the conscious life that remains after 2020 is filled with nothing but pain and suffering. Would ending the existence of a current society in which many are flourishing in the service of generating a civilization filled with misery necessarily, "good". Not only do I have substantial misgivings regarding Pro's eschatological claims, I would also note that there have been countless previous predictions of when the "apocalypse" would occur which have, of course, shown false. Just a few recent ones include:- June 30th, 2012- December 21st, 2012- August 23rd, 2013- September 23rd-October 15th, 2017- April 23rd, 2018However, such predictions can be traced all the way back to 66-70 CE.(https://goo.gl...)"All I am saying is that whatever form of life exists after the nukes will have a peaceful mindset. Never once did I say humans had to be the ones to have this shift. If humans do survive it they will have this mindset shift but even if they didn"t it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of a collapse again."Only certain life forms, not necessarily limited to humans but certainly limited in some way, can have a "peaceful mindset." Thus, Pro should at least need to prove that such a life form would survive/arise after nuclear apocalypse. Pro also did not prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that, "even if they didn't, it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of collapse again."Pro completes his final argument as such:You are voting pro because of four reasons1.I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win. Not only have they not done this, but they have not countered any of the claims or arguments I've made in response to theirs. With BoP on Pro, it seems that this, alone, should sufficiently decide the debate.2.The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020. Again, Pro has not proved this at all. Firstly, they did not even sufficiently show that life would end in 2020. More importantly, perhaps, they have not defined, "good", but they have not shown by any stretch that "one germ" surviving past 2020 is a "net good" as compared to humans living until then.3.The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is I contradicted myself and that I cannot guarantee that civilization will continue but again I did not contradict myself and It doesn"t matter if or if not civilization will continue because Civilization is gone in 2 years anyway. This is, again, patently false and subject to the same fundamental issue that Pro seems to be missing here - that he/she needs to show that, in order for nuclear holocaust to be "good", the positive effects must outweigh the negative. In order to show this, in turn, they must first show that current civilization will not survive past 2020 (which they have not done sufficiently), and then that whatever life follows will be of superior nature. They most certainly have not done the latter.4.The Con contradicts its self and its really damning. If I fact I did have to win that civilization must continue post spark the Con did it for me. By listing all of the other civilizations that had collapsed in the past and there were 20 of them. This means that the past 20 Civilization collapsed some form of human life was able to rebuild. This isn"t a contradiction of myself about mind set shift because even if there is error replication humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life meaning that nuclear war extend life.Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won. Again, this is misdirection, fundamental misunderstanding, and contradiction on Pro's part. In Round 3, we established that Pro 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'". He/she is now saying something completely different. Furthermore, the fact that the collapses of past civilizations preceded the rise of new ones in no way implies that any sort of "good" society will arise post-nuclear-apocalypse. This is because of the fairly obvious (I believe) reason, that those civilizations did not collapse due to a complete annihilation of the world in which the future civilizations arose. I previously outlined, in ways Pro did not contest, a few of the many ways in which nuclear war would set up a future world in which life would be unlikely, impossible, or simply uncomfortable. The listing of these civilizations does not imply that "humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life" because that very listing does not imply that humanity will survive this particular type of collapse.