Global Nuclear War is Good

JUDGES and Con : If you are in anyway confused by this debate read this overview and then go back and read the debate Overview: This argument is a simple one that I will break down into four parts that I have called 1. The Biosphere Collapse debate 2. The solvency Debate 3. The survivability debate 4. The Mindset Shift debate So first the Biosphere Collapse debate is simple I am just making the claim that the Biosphere will collapse and every living thing will be extinct in 2020 unless we rapidly deindustrialize. You may personally think that this idea is crazy or I am crazy but that doesn"t matter because the Con doesn"t make those arguments so please don"t make them for the Con and don"t listen to any new arguments they make here in the last round because I do not have another round to respond to them. The second part is the Solvency Debate. All that is happening here is that I am making the Claim that a global nuclear war is the fairest and quickest way to rapidly deindustrialize. Again you can think I am crazy but that doesn"t matter when the Con never makes any arguments here that says a nuclear war will not solve the collapse. Again please don"t listen to any new arguments the Con makes here either, I don"t get another round to respond to them. The Third part of the debate is the Survivability debate. Here I make the claim that as long as there is some form of life after the spark then the nukes where good because we did not all die in the collapse that we were going too without the nukes. You can think im crazy but the Con doesn"t make anymore arguments that says we wont survive so don"t make them for the Con. Again please do not let the Con make any new arguments here as I do not get another round to respond to them. The fourth part of the debate is the simplest and it"s the mindset shift debate. When I was learning this argument it was described to me as this. We know drinking and driving is bad. But we do it anyway just as we know that hurting the biosphere is bad but we do it anyway. Some people may stop when they learn how bad it is but others don"t we still drink and drive and until we get the slap in the face of the kid we just hit die in arms we dong get the message to stop. Will the nukes are just that. A slap in the face that says lets never get to the point where we have to do this again. The Con doesn"t make any arguments here so don"t let them make new when I don"t get another round to do so. The Con says that nuclear radiation will kill us all but forgets that I already answered this in the second round, that was Dallas in 15. Next they just claim that there will be no life left because of the destruction brought by the nukes however, these are just that claims with no evidence to support it. Now lets break the debate down. Lets start with the Biosphere collapse debate 1. The Biosphere is going to collapse in 2 years this argument has been all but conceded by the Con meaning you must weigh it as such when judging this debate. You judge may not think it will but that does not matter when the Con does not make that argument. 2. So with the impending collapse of the Biosphere we must do something to curb this or we are all dead. With that lets move to the Solvency debate 1. This spark or nuclear war will stop the Biosphere from collapsing even if you judge think that is a crazy idea or will not happen it does not matter because the Con never claims that and it is far to late for them to claim it now when I do not get another speech to defend myself. 2. Since this nuclear saves some for of life from the impending collapse that is why nuclear war is good and the Con in their last round did not argue this back so here judges is your easy way out. You should be voting Pro right here The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations, outweighs the Con Caldwell 2014 (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. Can America Survive Published 2014) Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and the extinction of all other species on the planet If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today? Next if we go to the Survivability 1. Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments 2. Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead Lastly if we go the mindset shift debate 1. The Con did no work here and drops that there will be a mindset shift post nukes 2. Since there is some form of a mindset shift post nukes that means I have proven that nuclear war is good. You are voting pro because of four reasons 1. I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win 2. The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020 3. The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is just that radiation might kill us but again I have already answered this in my second speech. The Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won.