People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

My opponent has missed the point entirely. First, I'll refute his two contentions before rebuilding my five contentions. 1R.) First of all, he's doing this math based on surface area of the rocket and common cargo hold. We must remember that this ship will have no return mission, so we can obviously forgo some of the inside machinery for that for more cargo space. Moreover, it is entirely possible that people can be stacked on top of one another on the rocket, perhaps even four layers deep, thus dramatically increasing efficiency and decreasing costs. And remember, we don't have to make it safe: we don't expect them to survive. So, we could make this mound of humans even deeper by disregarding safety precautions. Furthermore, it is possible to erect a huge pole on the end of the rocket on which to put even more people on. All of this would dramatically cut costs! Of course, I am unable to actually predict on these costs, as we no tests of this nature have occurred. Also, this money spent on the rocket simply goes right back into the economy. Think about the huge economic boom to the steel industry! I will get to the costs that it saves the world when I rebuild my own case. 2R.) This entire contention is about morality. He has given no reason why genocide is morally wrong. In order to win this point, my opponent must prove that morality objectively exists. This is an impossible thing to prove, so the PRO should automatically win this point. Back into my case: 1.) In his refutation he's talking about a scenario in which we are constantly screening everyone for AIDS. This is not what I proposed. I proposed doing an initial test with everyone that we can (obviously, no plan is perfect, and some people will fall through the cracks), and then sending the first launch into space. Then doing a repeat in five years. Surely, the AIDS rate will have dropped by then, and will probably be so low that we only need to do one repeat of this plan. Also, in his brith rate, he's also ignoring the death rate of 1.8 per second(http://www.census.gov...), which brings the world growth rate to 2.4 per second. Since his attack is based on false assumptions, you must disregard it. Also, he makes the argument that this will undermine the authority of governments. But we're only killing 40 million people. There are 6.7 billion people in the world. This not a big enough percentage to possibly be able to destabilize the governments of the world! Furthermore, rebellion will obviously be put down with some good old fashion Stalinism. After this plan is put in place, the stability will be even greater than it was before. We are simply protecting the vast majority at the cost of the small minority. It's simple Utilitarianism. 2.) I already told you how we can cut costs with the whole rocket scheme. Now, look at the costs we'll save. First, an average person consumes 1835 kilograms of oil per year (http://www.worldmapper.org...). multiply this by the 40 million people that my parent says are affected infected with AIDS, and we have 73,400,000,000 kilograms of fuel used by the infected per year. Right there, we have a good reason to do this plan, as the world supply of oil is running out quickly, and this will provide us with more than seventy billion kilograms of extra oil per year. Now, looking at money. There are about 8.5 kilograms of oil in a barrel, meaning we'd be saving about 8,635,294,117.65 barrels per year. Multiply this by the current world price for oil per barrel of about $112.21 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...), and we save an amazing $968,966,352,941.18 per year. Now, multiply this number by five, since this plan will be introduced roughly every five years (as I stated in my opening argument), and we get $4,844,831,764,705.88 We're saving four trillion dollars on average JUST IN OIL. And this isn't even talking about the huge reduction in pollution that would result from that much less fuel being used. Furthermore, this is without even touching on the amount of money that the AIDS epidemic is costing us. This is an ongoing cost that just keeps piling up more and more debt. Isn't it better to a smaller price now that to let this epidemic get any worse for our economy? We're also disregarding the amount of money it just takes to keep these people alive. Think about all that with the economic side of this debate. There are clearly more economic PROs than CONs, especially when you consider the solution I gave to cut costs on implementing this program. 3.) My opponent talks about Africa. First, since we are both Americans, and since Americans have never actually cared about Africa, this is irrelevant to the debate. But I'll refute this point anyway. First, I don't see how less people can possibly lead to more factionalism, as factions are made up of people. This argument is, first and foremost, a nonsequitur. Yes, Africa would face under population. AT FIRST. The reason that Africa is so under populated is because it is so heavily infected with AIDS. It discourages immigration and investment. Think about the huge influx of people into Africa when they learn about all of the new job opportunities and utter lack of AIDS! The continent will prosper! This new immigration will increase more capitlist investment, furthering Africa's economy, and ultimately bringing it into the first world. Now, you might say this is speculation, by my opponent's refutation of my original contention is entirely specualtion. Seeing as how my speculation is more logically-founded, I should win this point. My opponent's argument about Africa degrading in such a way is simply flawed. 4.) Of course having AIDS isn't a crime. NOW. That's the entire point of this debate. We're talking about making it a crime. Now, looking at the positives of punishing AIDS with death, we can clearly see a huge incentive to practice safe-sex. This is also a much greater incentive than that provided by the fines proposed by my opponent. Death is a bigger incentive than taxes. 5.) He says that the death penalty is no more of an incentive for a junky than jail is. But it is more of an incentive. Dying is a much hevaier loss than doing some time in prsion. And my opponent ignroes that now the junky will be risking BOTH. The bottom line is, people will do everything in their power to avoid getting AIDS if they know that the government will kill them. I'd like to clsoe by pointing out that I have offered you five independent reasons to vote PRO. My opponent has only offered you two reasons to vote CON, one of which he cannot possibly prove. If I can uphold a greater number of contentions than he can, I should win this debate based off of a simple cost-benefit analysis. Thank you.