A debate on a provocative topic.

Thank you very much for this wonderful debate. There are going to be a couple things that I attempt to prove in this round. The first is the shift in advocacy that my opponent gives from the beginning of the round to now. The second is that in no way is Cannibalism superior to cremation or burial. With no further explanations, I shall begin. Let us begin by showing the shift in advocacy. Look back to my opponents response to my first argument. He says..."Secondly, I could only take someone's leg. i don't have to eat the whole body. I would imagine that the head, chest, neck, and pelvic area would not be appetizing. I could theoretically just eat a leg." From the beginning, my opponent is not advocating the entire person die. He says that we would just eat someone's leg. But in his last argument, he is advocating the death of the entire person. This is a problem. The reason this is bad is because it creates what is called a shifting target. My opponent begins by arguing one thing, and then changing it. Let's take a look at the example of archery. Imagine that I am aiming at my opponents arguments with an arrow. I shoot my arrow to hit it, and then he moves it. This isn't a fair tactic, and should not be allowed to happen in this debate. Now let's talk about my opponents arguments. He says that there would be a lot of pain and suffering involved in the process of overpopulation solving itself. My first argument is that there is always going to be pain and suffering. To assume that eating people is going to solve for all pain and suffering is absurd. He then goes on to talk about population growth. There are some huge misunderstandings in this argument. The first is that it doesn't take into account the amount of people dying. To assume that over two generations the population will grow to over 25 billion people is ludicrous and extremely false. We must take into account multiple factors that play into the population of the world. One is war. People are dying due to fighting all over the world. Take into account our "Global War on Terror" (which just so happens to be only in the middle east conveniently where a large amount of oil is...) People are dying every day in Iraq, and moreso in Afghanistan. In the Democratic Repulic of Congo, more people have died in that one country than in any other country combined since world war two. All of these decrease the population. Second, take into account disease. People are dying every day due to curable and non curable diseases all over the world. Thirdly, people die due to natural causes. All of these factors play into the population decreasing. My opponents statistics just take into account how many people are going to be born. Not into who is going to be dying. He is assuming that all six and a half billion people are going to have three children. This doesn't take into account men, who have never been able to have children. And people who aren't going to have children, or women too old to have children. All of these factors will decrease the amount of people in two generations. He also talks about decreasing the population by ninety billion...this is more than even the wrong statistics my opponent presented. So now he's advocating extinction? Probably not, but this is another example of how this math is apparently flawed. Another problem with my opponent's overpopulation argument is that it is already happening. This argument goes dropped in my opponents last speech. If overpopulation is happening, then why aren't we seeing these devastating effects killing everybody right now? The answer is...that it isn't going to be like my opponent would have you believe. Natural selection is going to take place once again. Only the strong survive. This is empirical throughout history. Nothing can change that. He says that yak is not going to solve overpopulation. I have easily disproven this idea of overpopulation, and yak would be a great alternative to the argument about nourishment that my opponent brought up and then dropped. So that argument goes to my side as well. Now let's discuss how I know that cremation and burial are better than cannibalism. 1. Burial or cremation doesn't kill someone, or cause any sort of harm to someone as they are already dead when it happens. 2. My opponent has said that eating someone is morally wrong. Burial or cremation are neither one morally wrong. It is widely accepted to do either one of these. 3. Cannibalism takes away the basic human right to life INTENTIONALLY!!! Even if you believe in my opponent's argument about overpopulation, the intentional taking of a human life is worse than natural selection taking the life of humans. If a human isn't strong enough to survive, then basic nature determines that they should die. All of these are reasons to prefer burial and cremation both to cannibalism. Now let's talk about why I should win this round. 1. My opponent hasn't given me the same target to argue during this debate. This makes it a lot harder to debate. 2. Even the arguments that my opponent shifted on I won. 3. All of my opponent's arguments hinge on overpopulation which has clearly been defeated. 4. There is absolutely no reason that my opponent gives as to why one shouldn't prefer burial or cremation over cannibalism. All he has done is argue why cannibalism is good. There is no reason to believe that it is better than the others. 5. I have told you why burial and cremation are better than cannibalism. Vote Con. Thanks for this wonderful debate, and good luck in future debates. All of my opponents arguments have to do with overpopulation. Once I disprove overpopulation, he has nothing to rely on.