Global Nuclear War is Good

Lets start with the Caldwell indict Look the Con keeps hinting that Caldwell does not actually advocate for nuclear war I know I have the exact same piece of evidence in my answers to spark.. (LOL we both need to update are spark files for this season), while that was true until just recently, Caldwell is all for nuclear war in 2018 in fact he now advocated for one. They also say that Caldwell is outdated, here is Caldwell in 2018 saying that Nukes are indeed the salvation that humanity needs. Caldwell 2018 (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. Is Nuclear War Survivable Published May 15 2018 "Donald Trump May Have Substantially Increased the Likelihood of the Long-Term Survival of Mankind." By his pronouncements on nuclear warfare, Donald Trump may or may not have raised the likelihood of an eventual global nuclear war. The likelihood of an eventual global nuclear war is already very high, and it is unlikely that his statements could change it much. It would appear, however, that he may very well have made a significant change in the timing of that war. He has likely moved the occurrence of that war much closer. By doing so, he may well bring about an early end to the Sixth Extinction, and he may well have significantly increased the likelihood of the long-term survival of mankind. Next lets go to the collapse debate, The Con makes a huge mistake again, the con drops the meadows in 14 evidence. This evidence says that the biosphere will collapse in 2020, that"s in 2 years. The judges can think that its crazy to claim that but it doesn"t matter because the Con drops it. They make an argument here about how every civilization ever has collapsed and then provides a list but 1.This collapse will not happen in 2 years, which it would have to, to solve for the biosphere collapse. 2.The Collapse that I am referring to is an extinction event of the entire planet not the collapse of just a civilization Next on the solvency part of the debate the Con again does not work here other than asking if we round up all of the worlds smart people and protect them" NO we want to kill everyone randomly and the industrialized areas of the world. On Survivability the Con Claims that they are not conceding to the fact the I won this portion of the debate and they would address it later, they can claim this all they want but the fact of the matter is they could not provide evidence to this at the time and would be extremely abusive to allow the Con to bring it up at a later time and expect me to address it properly. So the Judges need to grant me the survivability portion of the debate when the Con spends no time on this debate. Next to the mindset shift the Con makes an arg that there can be no guarantee of a civilization post spark. But that doesn"t mean anything when I am winning the timeframe debate of the collapse. In 2 years nothing will be alive on the earth unless the spark happens which the Con has already conceded solves for the collapse. So the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn"t mean anything at all. Remember from the second round I said I had to win four things to win this debate 1.We are all dead from the impending biosphere collapse 2.The Spark will stop the biosphere from Collapsing 3.Some form of life will continue post spark 4.Whatever form of life that survives will have a peaceful mindset towards the planet. So far the Con has not proven any of those things will not happen.