The United States should conquer Africa

~~~~~I too intend to troll this topic. Since we're both trolling, I propose that the debate remains a tie~~~~~I negate: The United States should kill all black people.Value: Sex. Sex is the ultimate act one can commit. Actions which reduce the total amount of sex in the world must be regarded as evil. Judge on which case allows for maximal amounts of sex.Criterion: Not killing and maiming people. Dead people cannot have sex, and maimed people are highly unnattractive. Thus, by not going to war (and not killing people) there will be more sex in the world.Contention one: Argument from selfishness 1. If something does not benefit Thett3, it should not be done2. A war with Africa would not benefit Thett3.3. Therefore, it should not be done.Premise one seems uncontreversial, after all, why would anyone want to harm Thett3? Oh thats right, they wouldnt. Things that harm Thett3 could reduce his sexual activity, thus meeting the burden for negation in my framework.Premise two is obvious. Thett3 has to register for the draft in 2 months, and a war in Africa would obviously require a draft. Africa has over 1 billion people[1], let's assume that only 5% (a tiny estimate) actually decide to fight us, we would still have to kill 50,000,000 Africans to conquer the continent. Using the current number of fighting men the US has (around 1 million) thats a kill ration of 50:1. That's clearly impossible. The US cant even conquer Afghanistan in ten years, let alone Africa, so Thett AND Zaradi would both end up drafted and have to fight the war, and as a result would either die or be wounded and have less sex appeal. Or be mentally scarred for life and accidentally murder their girlfriends after the war because they have a rambo style flashback to their time as green berets. This would also lower the total amount of sex in the world by taking out active females.Premise Three logically follows. Contention two: Appeal to the votersA war in Africa would probably make the United States impliment a full military draft due to their massive numbers and probable ferocious resistance. Over 60% of DDO is between the ages of 18-34, and of military age[2]. So a war in Africa has the potential to DIRECTLY harm 60% of you. Vote Con. Also, the more people that die, the less overall sex in the world. Contention three: Cancer CureBecause wars cause causualties, doctors are needed and are drafted into the military. This causes the doctors to focus on curing wounded soldiers instead of searching for the cure for cancer. This causes more cancer patients to die, and thus lowers the overall amount of sex in the world by reducing the number of potential partners.Contention four: Jimtimmy and Reasoning should vote Con because they dont want to have to take care of a bunch of blacks in Africa.Obvious. Contention five: The United States should focus its resources on conquering CanadaWhat does Africa have to offer the US? A bunch of sand? Please.Canada however, offers us a lot more. It offers us Hockey Stadiums, Canadian Bacon, nonentity/tulle, Maple Syrup, leaves, forests, oil, and much much more! Contention six: The cats would be harmedNot only would many African cats be caught in the crossfire, but American cats would suffer the pain of having to lose their owners, and having a lack of canned food and table scraps, since all of our supplis would be funding the war effort.Contention seven: Chinese invasionCard: Blackvoid '12, Private interview: "US African conquest links: Chinese invasion"Link: "Africa is an AIDS hotbed, we intervene their all out troops get disease and die. With our military destroyed we will be defenseless against a China invasion."More AIDS leads to less people able to have sex. The resolution is negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://www.debate.org...;