Informing People of the End

Thanks for the opening argument. I'll start by giving my own arguments then refuting his.My opponent correctly predicts my argument that the world will be thrown into chaos if this news breaks loose. So lets get to it.C1: All hell breaks loose1. Humans only follow laws if there's an incentive to do so. This is because laws are inherently restrictive; they limit actions we are allowed to carry out. I hate my boss, but even though I'd like to, I wont punch them in the face because I would be fired and thrown in jail. Plenty of people have grudges against other people and would love to abuse or kill them, but won't due to the threat of jail and/or death.2. Informing the public of eminent doom de facto removes all laws. There's no incentive to follow them anymore because it doesnt matter if you're caught and thrown in jail; you were going to die anyway. 3. When laws are removed, crime flourishes.A. Logic: Common sense tell us that if we legalized murder, rape, and theft today, then in a couple weeks the crime rate would be at an all time high. Even if some people dont join in the charade due to their own sense of morality, plenty of others will. Murder would be widespread, and people like Megan Fox/Jessica Simpson couldnt walk the streets anymore due to the threat of rape. There would be nothing stopping people from breaking into stores and stealing that iPod or video game they always wanted. The world would be turned to shambles.B. Empirics: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, almost all law enforcement had either deserted the city or were wiped out. This caused the crime rate and violence to skyrocket since there was no longer any incentive to follow the law (1). Hundreds of people left in the city also began to loot convenience stores without a care in the world, and many of the stolen goods were non-essential items (2). C. Conclusion: Don't tell the public that the world is about to end. They will lose all incentive to remain civil, and murder/rape will skyrocket beyond anything we've ever seen. This answers most of my opponent's arguments. If the world erupts into chaos and violence, this will interfere with people's ability to fulfill their "bucket list" and do the things they want to do before they die.C2: NASA conflictUnder this resolution, the government is the only entity that already knows the world is three months from destruction. NASA, being a federal program, would then be working on developing or finishing any existing space shuttles in the hopes that we could launch a couple hundred humans to another planet, giving us a chance to live on. However, if the entire public was made aware of the approaching asteroid, tens of thousands of people would be busting down NASA's doorstep and fighting each other, trying to get on the shuttle themselves. Imagine the NASA control room being flooded with hundreds of people fighting over who gets to get on the spaceship. This would interfere with the building process, especially if the fighting becomes explosive due to people bringing firearms. The conflict and chaos would prevent any shuttle from ever being completed, preventing anyone from even having a chance to live elsewhere, and condemning all of humanity to guaranteed extinction.C3: Nuclear strike1. India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars over who rightfully owns the area of Kashmir (3). This conflict has lead both countries to feel absolute resentment towards the other. They arguably hate each other more than any other 2 countries in the world. Each nation would like to see the other burn.2. The reason they haven't fought each other recently is because both have acquired nuclear weapons, so both sides fear nuclear destruction if they engage in aggression (4).3. Letting them know that the world is going to end in three months removes any such incentive to avoid hostility. They will start war immediately, knowing that they have nothing to fear but a death that's going to happen anyway. Due to the volatility of the situation, the war would quickly turn nuclear, at which point both sides send every nuke they have at the other, resulting in a planet that is either destroyed or unliveable due to pollution created by the explosions. The world would end well before the three month deadline.This is just one possible scenario. Nations like Iran, which could develop a nuclear bomb any week, could also feel inclined to start a nuclear war if they know they're going to die anyway. Al Qaeda would kick any possible plan they might have into action immediately if they learned what's going to happen. And who knows what would go through Kim Jong Un's mind.So there's several disdvantages to informing the public. Lets look at Pro's case.Terminal Patient/Right to KnowHis terminal patient example is not comparable because its an isolated incident. If we tell one single person that he's going to die in three months, then that's fine. There is no far reaching impact beyond the grief that he and his family feels. However, when we tell the entire world, that everyone is going to die, this has massive consequences. As shown, not only does murder and rape become widespread, but the human race itself gains no chance of survival. This threatened the public's right to life and security. Protecting the public's right to security is more important than protecting their right to know.EqualityTurn - Plenty of people wouldn't want know that they're about to die. Consider this line from the movie, The Bucket List:"A survey once asked 1,000 people, if they could know the exact date of their death, would they want to know? 96% said no." (5)96%. Of course, being from a movie, its questionable as to how accurate that is. But its undeniable that many people in the world wouldn't want to know the info my opponent wants them to. In essence, he forces this information onto a public that may or may not want it. And its understandable as to why people wouldn't want to know of this asteroid. If I were told this, my last three months would be lived in a pure state of panic and anxiety, knowing that I was just weeks away from death. Others would feel this way too. This makes this Equality argument non-unique, because even if I'm unfairly withholding information some people may want, he's also forcing information onto people that may not want it. Personal responsibility:Pro says that even if the world turns to chaos and crime in its final days, that's fine because its the public's decision as to how they want to live their lives out. This is absurd. If I'm on Death Row and a week away from death, I dont have the right to go kill six more people just because "that's how I want to live out my final days". People aren't entitled to living a life of crime just because they only have a couple months left.Last Meal/last rites This whole argument is an appeal to tradition. His argument is "criminals get a last meal, so citizens should too." Well, why should criminals get a last meal in the first place? There is no warrant. But more importantly, extend the World Chaos and Nuke War impacts. If the world turns to hell (or is torn apart by war) in its final days, this will interfere with my ability to have a last meal and rites. I can't have a last meal if I'm dead. So I dont think there's any benefit drawn off this argument anyway. But even if everyone did get a chance to have their favorite meal before they die, its undeniable that my disadvantages are greater in magnitude. The cons outweigh the pros. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://project195.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.thedailybeast.com...5. http://marysbestmovies.net...