Post Nuclear War Survival

Excerpt of the founding fathers source: "Percy, in his capacity as interim president of the colony, tells us how he dealt with a man accused of killing, salting, and eating his pregnant wife. " My opponent is already sentencing people to death by making them walk outside to die. I am simply saving a life by utilizing the dead. My opponent however does make a very valid point about the nutrional value of eating human flesh. And I agree. Upon realization of this evidence I propose that the three humans be mixed in with the regular fare and that the blood would be drunk during the first 42 days by everyone, which would thus enable an extra person to survive. Either way, an extra person can be salvaged by resorting to cannibalism. Having an extra person will make a ton of difference in terms of foraging, knowledge, and reproductive capabilities. Thus having logically asserted that an extra person could be gained, that there is historical backing from our founding fathers, and shown the benefits of another person. I rest my case that my team would be better at repopulating the earth because we have a leader who knows how to exercise every option. "In a survival situation one does not really want someone with murderous tendencies to be around them." My opponent fails to realize what a survival situation is. It is a situation in which you are forced to survive (complex definition I know). However if such a situation calls on me to provide for my team, I will gladly do it. My opponent on the other hand is hoping that 3 people will sacrifice themselves willingly and thus will be unprepared for when a brawl breaks out. One of the people being asked to sacrifice themselves can easily turn on the group and murder the leader of it, my opponent. While I am prepared for such a situation my opponent will completely be caught unawares and will be the person being ghetto-stomped instead of the person ghetto-stomping. Should we put a leader in charge who can't or will not defend his group from danger? Do we want an unprepared leader? No, vote Johngriswald for world leader. "It does not matter whether or not I am stronger than you, in this context you get to stay in the shelter." It completely matters. It is my team vs your team. If the difference between our teams is 3 people and you and I are one of those, then if I am better than you and the other two people and another of those 3 on my team is better than anyone of the three on your team, then my team is better and more capable. "Also, a picture of you cleaning your kitchen counter while fully clothed hardly gives example to how you are "built" or strong." My opponent doesn't show a picture of himself for obvious reasons. He can see my muscular physique and is fearful of how he will appear in comparison. I am obviously the victor in terms of strength. "than all three of us put together" No my contention is that I was stronger than each of you individually. Stronger than a 13 year old girl, obvious. Strong enough for someone who puts up no defense upon seeing my picture than I am stronger than him. Obvious. And stronger than a middle-aged man who is past his prime and just happened to have minimal army experience. "My personal attributes have no bearing on the outcome of the debate since one of the rules of the debate is that you stay in the shelter. Period. You cannot leave yourself out to die in the fallout." It completely matters. It is my team vs your team. If the difference between our teams is 3 people and you and I are one of those, then if I am better than you and the other two people and another of those 3 on my team is better than anyone of the three on your team, then my team is better and more capable. "The debate also did not include a section that required us to choose a leader for our group" My opponent stated in R1: "mush state the individual that they would take over all others " Which is a definition for the word leader. On either my interpretation or my opponent's interpretation of this statement, my opponent's choice's holds absolutely no logic, while my choice does. "are in fact personal attacks. He states that based upon the limited evidence these are the only assumptions that can be made about me when the only type of evidence to suggest this is evidence of omission. He is basically saying that because I did not say that I am handsome I am ugly," They are not personal attacks if they apply to the debate, which they obviously do. By not choosing yourself as leader of the group, or attempting to contend that I am stronger, in better health, leads me to believe that I have the advantage in these aspects. I am obviously more confident wheras you aren't because you do not talk your own abilities up at all. "If a person who was mentally retarded accepted the challenge then would you argue that this person is the most capable leader?" Obviously a mentally retarded person would not be selected to choose the group to repopulate earth unless the people that choose him to select were even more mentally handicapped. As that is not the case (judging by the IQ's) I am far more intelligent since I happened to be selected. Hypothetically. "Nowhere in my arguments do I state that Janie Stanley would make a good leader and I have no idea why my opponent is implying that I did. She would make a bad leader." My opponent shoots himself in the foot by stating that who he would choose a bad leader over all others when he choose the person who he " would take over all others ". He gives us no logical reason why he would not choose himself over a 13 year old girl who would make a bad leader. Leading me to believe from his decision making that he is either illogical or mentally ill. "Taking one person means that both you and them get to go inside. " No where does this state this anywhere in R1. It says "the person who you would choose over all the others" It does not say "The person you would choose to go with you inside the shelter above all of the others" I have already endured one typo, but my opponent in the last round is attempting to rework his R1 resolution. This is bad conduct and I suggest the audience fault him for it. "incorrect assumption that she would be the only one to live" An assumption that occurred because you failed anywhere in this debate except for the final round to clarify the meaning of "the person who you would choose over all the others" "If you did not accept the rules then why did you accept the debate challenge?" I accept the rules and have played by them. I however choose not to follow a faulty assumption which in no way involves the rules. "l. This is one example that adds to the evidence that they could have reached the said shelter without their parents." Then wouldn't there be a much higher proportion of children in the shelter than adults? Your reasoning fails and logically it stands to reason that my argument is the most probable outcome. In conclusion my opponent failed to clearly clarify what "the person who you would choose above all other is" He has failed to refute that I am the more capable than any of the three different people (including himself) on our teams. Furthermore he has failed to refute that Wanda is a superior choice to Marjorie. He has claimed that I have used liberal interpretations of the evidence, but honestly if this debate is not about liberally interpreting limited evidence then what is it about? My opponent has offered little reason why his team is superior and instead has spent the debate accusing my arguments of having "limited evidence" when I am using the entirity of the proof available to me. He also notes that I fell short on my conclusion last round. However I'm sure if you observe the actual amount of typing done by me vs my opponent. I have far more information despite that my opponent carried his argument onto another page.