CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

--- I do not contend that these countries would not sense the attack; however, I do contend that they have no systems in place to prevent such an attack. There has never been, and unlikely to be in the near future, a possibility of a successful missile defense system. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... --- "Martin's demands would be seen by the U. S. administration as "arrogant and unrealistic. " Public opinion polls in Canada have shown that joining the missile defense system is highly unpopular. " 2) My Implementation Method clearly states that all countries with nuclear capabilities will be destroyed simultaneously. --- "Each bomb shall have impact approximately 30 seconds apart. " It is therefore unlikely that any sort of counter strike could be successfully deployed in merely 30 seconds. 3) He gives no clear path from ‘attempting to nuke the world' … therefore leading to Sparta being destroyed. My Implementation method has prevention from such possibilities, and not only has he not said how Sparta would be destroyed, he hasn't even commented on how my Implementation would not be satisfactory. Nuking all countries with nukes clearly prevents the likelihood of a counter attack with substantial magnitude. 4) Therefore, I urge the judges to drop this cost against my case. It is irrelevant whether the other countries die (as my resolutional analysis stated). Furthermore, the likelihood of a counter nuclear strike is no where to be seen. COST II: Consequences of Slavery 1) My Implementation prevents concerns risen by my opponent. "D. Any unnecessary slaves shall be killed. Preferring the less valuable determined by cost of keeping the slave alive, work ability, and retribution attempts. E. If it is deemed that more slaves are needed, then additional countries, not yet destroyed, shall be chosen based on army size (smaller preferred), and population size. " --- Now I am not claiming that I will know exactly how such a major operation will go step by step, which is why I put in the adjustments that may necessarily need to be made. Sure there will be some slaves that are not useful to Spart, thus they shall be killed. Perhaps my opponent makes a good point about their diseases, so they will be killed. At a worst case scenario, we are looking at 30-40 million slaves still. For a country of only 70 million, that is plenty. If more, however, are deemed necessary, at this point of the Implementation Method, there are still un-nuked countries that we can get more slaves from. 2) There has never been a slave rebellion of considerable effectiveness. Not to mention I have Implemented a measure of killing ones who do. --- I doubt my opponent could prove otherwise. 3) Having minimum wage "slaves" (which really defeats the purpose) creates a decent economy. Having slaves that only need to be fed, clothed, and cheaply housed would create an economy of epic proportions. Not only that, but there is a real question of control that my opponent doesn't seem to realize. My case makes sure that these slaves will be acquired, whereas his case hopes for them. Even if he did get a considerable amount (say one million, which I think is pushing it), he still has to match up with my multi-million amount of FREE slaves. There's no contest. ---You can have your goodwill; I will keep my effective measures that actually get the job done. Onto other arguments… 1) Sovereignty (and some economy) A) Sovereignty is VITAL to Sparta. In fact, it is more important than any other countries sovereignty. --- Sparta is a military nation. In a world peace society, the armies would be controlled by the U. N. Therefore 43% of Sparta's economic market is at the hands of a vote in which Sparta only has one of. If it doesn't go their way, it would be a DISASTER. That is why self-rule is not a very promising claim, and that is why Sparta should not join. B) Basic claims, such as right to use/not use death penalty, torture techniques, etc. would likely be at the hands of the U. N. while under a society of world peace. Another considerable cost. 2) Likelihood of Spartan army being used. A) Quote from "Scenario" --- "[Sparta] has the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world. There is not a piece of military weapon that Sparta does not own in abundant supply. " B) Everything Sparta put into that is out the window once you accept my opponents premise. A huge abundance of economic wealth would go out the window at a substantial degree. Wasted time. . . Shut down weapon research facilities. To say that a "militaristic nation" (as my opponent puts it) would not take an economic hit during "world peace" is completely contradictory. C) There is really 2 options here that the U. N. could take. 1) Split up the troop usage among the countries (more likely to be voted in than option 2) Or 2) Strictly use Spartan troops (Remember, Sparta would only have one vote among hundreds of countries. Not to mention that 30 million troops wouldn't (probably) be all used) Therefore, economic impact and job loss is imminent on the CON side of the debate. 3) Alleged consequence of Spartan unemployment. --- I think if you accept this point (that Sparta could go to other parts of the world to work), then you MUST vote PRO. Think about it. The country would be broken up. No longer would they have any international power whatsoever. Their citizens would see family friendships destroyed as they move apart. I mean its sort of an option between having complete control. . . or handing you countries sovereignty over to an international power and see your country disperse. --- Whether you accept the unemployment argument, or whether you accept this argument, you must vote PRO. =================== I would really like to see my opponent argue some of my following claims: 1) Economy (at least a more specific look into it) 2) COST III: Loss of International Power 3) COST IV: Continuous Conflict and Death 4) World Peace after the major conflict (If you vote PRO, there would be world peace at a controllable level. No more wars (besides perhaps civil wars). You would therefore be left with "world peace" with no control vs. realistic world peace with control) 5) Prevention of Carrying Capacity 6) Elimination of Disease I look forward to a response from my opponent!