People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

My opponent stated, "First of all, I'd like to point out that the cost of my plan that he is giving you is not taking into account all the budget cuts I gave you in Round 2." In fact, I did. Your plan would cost over 73 trillion, but save 4 trillion. Whereas my plan would save the 4trillion, and not spend the 73 trillion. Clearly a better plan. " HE CANNOT MAKE CHANGES TO HIS INITIAL PLAN." If by initial you mean "furnaces" that's fine. "First off, he's telling you that we're saving the money of getting people to launch sites. But we're still transporting people to the burn sites! We're using just as much resources in travel in both plans, so you can drop this point. " No, we aren't. As I stated in my A) contention, any burn site can be used. The fact is there are limited launch centers in the world, however a ditch can be found almost, if not anywhere on the planet. This point is clearly won for the CON. "Furthermore, it's going to take a lot more than one gallon of gasoline to maintain this fire. It is unfeasible that we can keep this fire going with just more AIDS victims. It will inevitably take more fuel, whether it be gasoline or wood, both of which are resources that we shouldn't be wasting." It isn't a single fire, it is not unfeasible because human fuel will be maintained provided that there are victims to keep constant supply. However, I agree it may sometimes be necessary to refuel. So let's say the average fire, which can be done anywhere so most of them will take several planks of wood. This is irrelevant, because the people who are being burnt will have their clothes are tinder. This is enough to sustain the burn till the next group can be burned. So there's only a gallon of gasoline and several planks of wood. As m opponent will agree, if we're saving millions of gallons of gasoline by instituting htis plan, we can sacrifice several gallons. If this plan is saving gasoline, it's not wasting it. This point is foolish, as he discounts the information he gave of the gasoline benefit. "Moreover, his plan of simply burning people in fields does not take into account wheather. If it is raining or snowing or windy, this plan obviously won't work. We would have to build facilities for this plan, which would bring the economic costs up much higher." Is it so unrealistic to simply wait a day or two for the weather to clear? Obviously not, the counterpoint my opponent presents is unfounded and ridiculous, as he completely skips the most logical assumption to go to a far-fetched one. He is skewing my words to try and add ridiculous notions to my case in order to make his seem more plausible. See through this trickery, my case is still better. "Furthermore, this is not a fool-proof plan. This creates a lot of burned debris that isn't good for anything, so ultimately it's just taking up space in this overpopulated world. My plan outsources all waste products to space. " I wasn't aware ashes were contributing to overpopulation. Oh wait, they aren't. This point is unfounded, especially because nobody wants to live in a ditch, so there's no excess space being taken up. "Also, his plan does not take into account people escaping from the fire. If someone manages to escape from this field, then they'll have a vendetta against society, and spend all of their time spreading AIDS to everyone else. This will of course mean that the majority of society will wind up with AIDS, meaning we'll have to constantly burn more an dmore people, leading to more waste, more economic problems, and severe underpopulation." My opponent gives a far-fetched scenario, but this scenario isn't singular to my plan. A person escaping from a launch site is just as probable. Because my plan institutes smaller groups being burned at a time, it's easier to control. With 400+ people raging to escape, the chances of a rebellion are high. You can clearly see that by my plan enacting smaller sites to execute the victims, it eliminates this escape from accuring. As you can see, this point is a wash because there are equal escape harms on both sides. "Moreover, even if you want to argue that CON won the economic point (which he didn't), it's still worth the cost. Why? Fun. It's a lot more fun to launch people into space than to light a match. Furthermore,t he people strapped to the outside of the rocket will obviously burn up in the atmosphere, giving us the fun of both plans. All we need to do is to design a camera to attach to the outside of the roket that will transmit the signal back to earth in order to view people burning. So, since the PRO plan is way more fun than the CON plan, you can disregard any minor economic differences." The camera would burn up also. We must also take practicality into account - people burning do not burn at extremely high rates of movement. We get to enjoy all of them writhing in pain and agony clearly, in front of our own eyes. So if it is possible to design a camera that is intense heat resistant, we must also take into account that this camera will be traveling at extremely high speeds, causing us to only be able to view the victims in a frame-by-frame video. This poor quality removes the fun, and would inspire anger in weak technology. Let's say that we create the improbable heat resistant camera, and excel past the frame-by-frame problem. There's also the fact that the burnings are easy to observe IN PERSON. As anyone can agree, it is clearly more fun to watch something in person than to view it in crappy frames from a television. You can clearly see, CON has won the fun point. Let's summarize the round, shall we? We have both given 5 points supporting our cases. These points are agreed upon by both debaters, however one of these points clearly supports the CON side of the argument. Therefore, there are now 5 points for CON, 4 for PRO. I have also given one point which clearly supports my own side, while it refutes my opponents. My opponent failed to address the bulk of this point, so I'd like to extend it. This gives me 6 points, and PRO 4. So if the above point, the one about fun is won by PRO, this still gives me 6 to his 5. However, the above point was NOT won by PRO. This gives CON 7 points and PRO 4. Also, keep in mind the weight of the arguments. The 4 points PRO has won are universal arguments we have both won, while the other 3 I have won are only CON points. With the round over, I urge the judges to make the best decision. As you can clearly see, I offer a distinct reason why you should vote CON: My plan logically makes more sense, it offers better economic benefits, better convenience, and overall is more fun. I urge you, the good frequenters of www.debate.org, to vote CON. Thank you for an exciting round, ~HQ