Post Nuclear War Survival

Rebuttals and Defense: "I will also be adding Bill Waters to my team. Now I know what many of you readers are thinking, but there are only enough supplies for 7 people and yourself? Why is this fool suggesting that a 9th team member stay when there are only enough supplies for 8? Well ladies and gentlemen let explain my resourcefulness." [Another Issue that I take with this is the entire allowance of Bill Waters to the group. In the original post it states: "To clarify, in the end there will be 8 people in the shelter, you and your 7 choices. You should not accept this debate if you do not agree to the above rules." 9 people is more than 8 people and a violation of the agreed upon rules.] ~~~ "My opponent came up with the idiotic idea to "which people will be required to leave. We will assume that those who are selected to leave will do so peacefully. At issue is the survival of humans." However, I have no intention of having anyone leave. Therefore my team will kill and eat the following people: 1. Fred Frederick 2. Majorie Blaylock 3. Gerald White To adequately feed Bill Waters for three months." [I take issue with a few things in this statement. First, I did not come up with this argument, it was a school assignment that I thought would make a good debate. Second, because a person will leave peacefully does not mean that they will consent to being cannibalized. Let's take Gerald White as an example, this man served in an army infantry for 4 years, this would make him one of the most difficult people of the 12 to kill against his will. There may not be a fight when the issue is leaving the shelter, but there will be a fight when a person suggests that the group eats you. My opponent also makes the assumption that the rest of his chosen group will stoop to cannibalism which is a very, very illogical assumption even in a survival situation.] ~~~ "1. I am stronger than all three of them put together. (Fred Frederick a man past his prime, Majorie Blaylock a weak woman in poor health, and my opponent who is so weak that he actually believes a 13 year old girl (Janie Stanley) to be more capable of leading this band. 2. I am more confident and better looking than all three of them. Fred (an old man no way beats a 20 year old man in the prime of his life), Majorie (a fat middle aged woman) and my opponent (who is so under-confident in himself that he fails to give any description of himself which is obviously indicative of bad looks and a lack of confidence) 3. I am more healthy than all of them my health is above excellent. Fred's is only excellent, Majorie's is poor, and my opponent's health obviously can't be too good if he doesn't have the energy to type a description of himself. 4. I am more intelligent then all of them. My IQ is 138 (as stated in R1). Fred's is only 132, Majorie's is only 133, and my opponent's cannot be much higher than 110 if he chose a 13 year old child to lead the group instead of himself. 5. I am younger and can procreate more than both Majorie and Fred, and since I have more confidence than my opponent I can easily mate with more females than my opponent making my reproductive capacity the most superior 6. I have more/superior education than all of them. Fred never specifies a college education neither does my opponent and that just leaves Majorie. Now seemingly Majorie is very educated having gone through Med school. However I object. Look at Majorie's health for a measure of her abilities as a healer. Having poor health but supposedly having lots of education in the medical field. It doesn't add up. Thus I am labeling Majorie's education as being an inferior one. After all, if you can't heal yourself who can you heal?" [Since I find it hard to separate these statement into separate rebuttals I will lump them all together in a large one: *First: All of the statements that my opponent makes about himself are unproven and should therefore be disregarded until proof is presented. *Second: My opponent calls me weak, ugly, and states that I lack confidence which are all baseless personal attacks that I take offense to and have no bearing on the debate at hand. I am an Eagle Scout, a senior in high school with a GPA of 3.8, and according to the last IQ test that I took my IQ is 143. All of these statements are true and I know that, but without providing proof that they are true there is no reason for anyone to believe me. Which is why I did not state anything about myself. *Third: Fred Frederick is in excellent health, and here is an example of a man who is in better health than I am [1]. Marjorie Blaylock's health could be caused by some sort of physical disability that is beyond her control such as a missing leg and it is incorrect to assume that she is weak (statement 1), fat (statement 2), or bad at her job (statement 6). I also say that if my opponent really is 21 with 2 years of college education then there is no credence to say that this is superior to a medical degree.] ~~~ "2. Wanda is more healthy than Majorie. Wanda is fair, while Majorie's is poor." [I can't disagree with that but in Marjorie's case her known pros outweigh her potential cons.] ~~~ "3. Wanda is more caring and is a better Peace maker In desperate times fights occur, people need mental healing. Who can do that job? Not someone who experience only in electronics (which consequentially won't be utilized for quite some time) (Fred) Not someone who thinks a 13 year old girl is a better leader than him (my opponent) and not some quack of a doctor who can't even heal herself (Majorie). Wanda is far superior." [This is simply a restatement of my opponent's original claims and does nothing to refute my points against. Extend my argument against her from Round 3.] ~~~ "Having shown both myself and Wanda to be superior choices than any of the three of my opponents choices, plus the fact that I have an extra player clearly gives my team a solid advantage. Not to mention we are led by an intelligent and confident leader." [My opponent has done nothing here but reuse an argument, and use absurd assumptions to try and prove his point.] ~~~ Due to a lack of remaining characters my argument continues where it left off here: http://docs.google.com... Sources: [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.facebook.com... (unfortunately you need to create a Facebook page to view the photos, for some reason my computer wouldn't upload pictures to a file-sharing server.)