People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

Now - I'd like to take a switch here, so I'll point out what his been going on throughout the round for the clarification of the judges. My first argument was an argument revolving around why launching AIDS victims into space is, well, detrimental. However, it wasn't a strong argument, and there is a good reason for that. My 2nd contention, the one about morality, is one my opponent has refuted, however there's also a reason for that. You see, I agree that morality does not objectively exist, therefore killing off AIDS victims is fine. What does this lead me to? We should not launch people with AIDS into space, because burning them in furnaces is economically better. I gave the first speech in the manner I did, in order to get my opponent to essentially write a case for me. His case does not advocate specifically launching AIDS victims into space, only the benefits of killing off those AIDS victims. What I will do now, is show how my opponent's contentions support my own argument. 1) We're protecting the majority by killing the minority, as my opponent agrees. His first point is in full support of killing AIDS victims in a furnace. 2) This point is the one that there's the biggest discrepancy on. It's all about the economic benefits of slaying AIDS victims so let's look at the cost of launching AIDS victims into space: 73,069,306,930,693 Let's look at the cost of burning AIDS victims... $3.389 All that is necessary in order to mass-kill AIDS victims is a single gallon of Gasoline to start the fire, and then perhaps more (if needed) to keep the fire going. With 40 million people to kill, there's a steady supply of kindling to be had, therefore there is no need for anything other than the materials required to start the fire. Matches and Gasoline. In fact, the gasoline is just added for fun. As my opponent has said, killing AIDS victims would save: $4,844,831,764,705.88 We would also save the 73,069,306,930,693 from the alternate plan, as well as the thousands of gallons of gasoline required to launch space shuttles. This plan is clearly economically better. 3) As my opponent said, by helping cut overpopulation we'd only be beneficial - therefore you must examine the plan with the best economic values... burning AIDS victims. 4) Yes, burning AIDS victims would increase safe-sex practices. 5) Yes, burning AIDS victims would decrease use of heroin. Now - I give you more reasons to vote Con. A) It is more convenient to burn victims than to launch them into space. Simply look around you! Drive down the street and watch the side of the road. I'm sure there's a valley, a ditch, or even a deserted field which could easily be used as a burn site. As these burn sites require very little clearing work in order to operate, they could be mandated in a much larger range - cutting out the high expenses of shipping all of the AIDS victims to rocket launching facilities. With the launching of AIDS victims into space, we see a much larger amount of construction. The "furnace plan", as I will now address it as, requires little to no effort. The furnace plan can be enacted anywhere around the world, all it requires is a small area which can be constantly supplied, until the supply dries up, with AIDS victims. We see that launching the AIDS victims into space would be much more inconvenient because of the amount of travel and preparation required to undergo this plan. The furnace plan, however, is much more logical. B) The furnace plan is logically better. This point is a summary of all previous points, all them add into this. Basically, the resolution implies by use of "should" that the Pro must have a larger benefit than the Con and Pro wins. Essentially, the winner of this debate will be decided as whichever plan has the most beneficial effect on society. As you can clearly see, my opponent has given 5 points which work for my own case, and 0 that work for solely his own, whereas I've given 5 points which work for both cases, and 1 that works for my own. So at this point in the debate, we see that as I have more contentions than He, because of the fact that my side employs a much more beneficial and realistic solution, and because the logic used by my side of the case is clearly superior, you must vote Con. Thank you, ~HQ