Global Nuclear War is Good

JUDGES and Con : If you are in anyway confused by this debate read this overview and then go back and read the debate Overview: This argument is a simple one that I will break down into four parts that I have called 1. The Biosphere Collapse debate 2. The solvency Debate 3. The survivability debate 4. The Mindset Shift debate So first the Biosphere Collapse debate is simple I am just making the claim that the Biosphere will collapse and every living thing will be extinct in 2020 unless we rapidly deindustrialize. You may personally think that this idea is crazy or I am crazy but that doesn"t matter because the Con doesn"t make those arguments so please don"t make them for the Con and don"t listen to any new arguments they make here in the last round because I do not have another round to respond to them. The second part is the Solvency Debate. All that is happening here is that I am making the Claim that a global nuclear war is the fairest and quickest way to rapidly deindustrialize. Again you can think I am crazy but that doesn"t matter when the Con never makes any arguments here that says a nuclear war will not solve the collapse. Again please don"t listen to any new arguments the Con makes here either, I don"t get another round to respond to them. The Third part of the debate is the Survivability debate. Here I make the claim that as long as there is some form of life after the spark then the nukes where good because we did not all die in the collapse that we were going too without the nukes. You can think im crazy but the Con doesn"t make anymore arguments that says we wont survive so don"t make them for the Con. Again please do not let the Con make any new arguments here as I do not get another round to respond to them. The fourth part of the debate is the simplest and it"s the mindset shift debate. When I was learning this argument it was described to me as this. We know drinking and driving is bad. But we do it anyway just as we know that hurting the biosphere is bad but we do it anyway. Some people may stop when they learn how bad it is but others don"t we still drink and drive and until we get the slap in the face of the kid we just hit die in arms we dong get the message to stop. Will the nukes are just that. A slap in the face that says lets never get to the point where we have to do this again. The Con doesn"t make any arguments here so don"t let them make new when I don"t get another round to do so. The Con makes some claims that don"t mean anything in this debate but I will address them anyway. The first is that I only have once source that the collapse will happen in two years, that"s not true I have many more but I didn"t need to use them when the Con never disputes this claim. Don"t let them dispute it now. I don"t get another round to defend any new args they make. Next they say a plague is better and give reasons but 1.Less destruction is worse 2.By allowing for science to survive we are still industrialized which is the entire reasons for the spark in the first place Now in case the Con tries to bring up morals I will preempt them here Spark first, ethics and morals later. Spark must preclude. Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014) The adopted approach does not preclude those higher goals, but it does address the fact that if the planet is destroyed, then the achievement of those higher goals may be impossible. The adopted approach are necessary for) the achievement of higher goals. A.The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations, outweighs the Con Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014) Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and the extinction of all other species on the planet If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today? B.The judge should choose the vision for the world that extends opportunity for future generations, not steal it away for short term gratification. Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014) In the long run, as Keynes noted, we are all dead. In the long run, our sun runs out of fuel and the biological life of our solar system dies. In the short run, however, things do matter. Life is not without meaning and purpose, but you must define the meaning and purpose. Your life will be defined by the stands that you take. This planet can support human society and nature for a few more years, or it can support human society and nature for several billion years more. The choice is ours. C.It is morally wrong NOT to Nuke Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014) Why is no one nation or group or individual willing to kill to save the environment? That they would probably be defeated is not the answer, because terrorist groups operate every day in support of other causes It"s not because no one believes that the environment is being damaged by human activity " many people do. But few people are willing to do so for other reasons, even if they believe that their actions might save the lives of billions in the future. Ultimately, the choice between saving the tigers and not saving the tigers is the same choice whether a three-year-old Bangladeshi child lives or dies. Remember my second round in which I said I had to win four things to prove that nuclear war is good 1.We are all dead from the impending collapse of the biosphere ( I did that the Con never argued different) 2.Nuclear war will stop the biosphere from collapsing ( I did that the Con never argued different) 3.Some form of life will continue after the nukes ( I did that the Con never argues different) 4. That life will have a peaceful mindset towards the plant ( I did that the Con never argues different) When ever I say they have not argued different they may have done so in the first few rounds but I either 1.Answered it back and they left it there 2.They did not extend it to the next round Underview You will be voting Pro for four reasons 1.I won all four things I said were needed to win to prove nukes are good 2.The Con"s only argument coming out of the last round is that plagues are better but a.I proved they are not b.Even if they are that does not prove that nuclear war is bad. Plagues can be better than nukes and nukes can be good. Both can be true at the same time 3.I am winning the Timeframe debate which means if life is to continue we must try something 4.You have a moral obligation to try save future lives.