Cannibalism

My opponent has correctly reduced the differences between our proposals to just a few points. I shall address these points, explain why my opponent's points of contention are incorrect or irrelevant, and offer more reasons why my proposal is better. 1. "I cant see a human driven turbine reaching a speed where significant power could be generated and if we were to allow them to simply just drop dead from exhaustion our scenery would soon end up like the one in the movie "the happening". " . http://www.green-trust.org... . http://www.alternative-energy-news.info... Pedal power has long been used as a way to provide energy and if we farm it from humans, we can definitely generate enough. After we have exhausted a human to the point of complete uselessness (when the amount of food we give becomes more costly than the energy he generates) we simply take him to a "hospital", where we can allow him to die, then use his body to fertilize fields. This will make sure that none of his "coworkers" sees people dropping dead constantly. "Also I see no way in which Cannibalism would stand in the way of enslaving the idiots to preserve fossil fuels. " I don't either, it's just that my proposal does the same thing and generates extra energy while fueling better food production. As per my opponent's counter arguments: Me: We bypass any sort of moral discomfort in consuming a fellow human being My opponent: There should be no moral discomfort seeing as we would all be living only to preserve humanitys existence and anything that could be seen to benefit this would be morally right. This is incorrect. There will always be levels of discomfort in doing things. We have never discussed WHY humanity is in this situation, thus, my opponent cannot suggest that they have been in this situation for a long time. As such, people would definitely have much more trouble killing and eating each other as opposed to enslaving them, working them to death, then using their bodies as farming fodder. Me: Useless members of society are used to produce a resource that the intelligent members can use. My opponent: Food is the most important resource for our survival. Yes, and my method would provide more food, while also providing enough resources to power machines, which enhance our chances of survival further. Me: Simply eating them provides little resources compared to using them to generate energy and then using their remains to fuel farming. My opponent: Seeing as eating them would in no way stop us from using them to generate energy beforehand, the argument boils down to the best use for the human bodies. Correct. My method has far more benefits. Now, as per my opponent's 5 other counterarguments: ME: Yes, it is good to recycle, but the recycling should be as productive as possible. Farming from the fertilized soil of human remains would be much more productive than eating humans outright, as the nutrients would allow for bountiful crop harvest after harvest. OPPONENT: I agree that this would be most productive were there not most likely huge meteors hurtling through space in our direction that our time would be better spent preparing for. Eating ourselves would get rid of the need to farm temporarily which would allow us to concentrate more on some of the bigger issues that might be threatening our existence. This is assuming an unlikely situation. Who said anything about meteors? In addition, if this threat was so imminent, we would still have plenty of food available. Furthermore, farmers would probably be useless in defending against meteors but will be good at farming. This makes my opponent's point irrelevant. Thus, we can conclude that in any situation that is likely, my proposal is much better. 2. ME: Working the useless humans to death would have the same result, except that we use them to provide much needed electrical energy. We can eat many things besides humans, why waste a resource like that? Even the msot useless people can be used to push a wheel or crank a gear OPPONENT: There is no reason why we couldnt work the humans to near death before eating them. Except the fact that eating them would yield much less food in the long run. 3. ME: As said above, my proposition would have the exact same effects except on a greater scale. Less mouths to feed, more food, plus a whole lot more. OPPONENT: Our arguments are more or less the exact same besides the fact that you would let them just drop from being over worked while I would have them work and then line up which would create less work meaning less to distract us from the big issues. And even though food is an important resource it would be quite easy to come by after the human population has decreased sufficiently. Depending on whether or not we manage to keep the earth from being hit by a meteor which would render it uninhabitable to us that is. There more we have on it the better! ! My opponent keeps speaking of imaginary "big issues" which were never discussed and thus, can be ignored by the audience. Furthermore, my opponent says that food is an important resource. Killing and eating humans will provide food quickly, but in the long run, destroys a good resource. Working them to death, then using them as fertilizer yields much more food and kills people as well (especially if we don't feed them much). The audience should not be fooled, my opponent is mixing two situations. 4. ME: The energy sources we obtain from working the useless humans to death will reduce our need for fossil fuels and help the atmosphere much more than it would to reduce the number of cows. OPPONENT: Well seeing as cannibalism wouldnt stop us from using useless humans to reduce our use of fossil fuels before their deaths that means my idea would be helping the atmosphere by reducing our use of fossil fuels and getting rid of all the cows while yours would only achieve the first one. . http://ourviewsonthenews.com... Cows don't really destroy the ozone layer. Everything releases methane so this point is null and void. My proposal is still more efficient in all manners. 5. ME: Pigs also taste like pork. We can use the extra yield of crop to raise pigs, which produce more meat in a given maturity cycle than humans do. More meat for less food. " OPPONENT: Pigs wont make their own way to the slaughter house which may distract us from more important work and slow us down in achieving survivalist perfection. Again, the focus on "more important work". None of this was specified and thus, the audience should ignore all mentions of these imaginary "important issues". I shall respond to this still though. Pigs won't make their way to the slaughter house, but humans won't either. We would need to corral them the same way. CONCLUSION: My opponent attempts to mislead the audience by making mentions of meteors and a lack of time and sophisticated problems that limit specialization of labor. None of this was discussed and none of it is reasonable. My proposal gives more food and other resources than my opponent's proposal and is more efficient in every logical way. The manpower required to carry out my opponent's proposal is equal to or greater than for mine. There are absolutely no arguments standing on my opponent's end. The resolution is negated.