Global Nuclear War is good

Biosphere Collapse They just say that my time frame is off because its 2018 and we haven"t seen any impacts that are going to happen in 2020, but don"t read any evidence on the time frame of the collapse which means meadows still stands as the time frame for the collapse. They also say that this is an impossible burden because the world will end sometime. But the Con just had to win that the world wouldn"t end because of resource depletion over population or inequality. They didn"t so don"t let them now NW solvency They Say Nuclear war doesn"t solve for the collapse but Only a minimal regret strategy nuclear war solves Caldwell writes 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)//EM The very serious drawback of the optimal-population-size approach is that it does not address the issue of how much stress the environment can sustain without collapsing From the viewpoint of long-term survival of the human race, this is an incredibly absurd approach.The approach of determining optimal population size is an attempt to maximize the number of human beings on the planet, while completely ignoring the possibility that mankind"s economic activity may destroy all life on the planet. . In contrast, the minimal-regret approach addresses the issue of planetary destruction head on, and takes it fully into account. Survivability Extend their Survivability answers Extend Philips in 2000 Your right we (the humans) would all die. All of their we won"t survive cards talk about human life. Again look at my overview of last round I said I had to win some form of life post spark not human life , This is not abusive I as said that is what I would have to win Again the con is very specific to who goes extinct because of the spark. Fine grant them humans go extinct doesn"t matter im still winning the spark debate . In the world of The Con , there is always a risk of biodiversity loss that would take out ALL LIFE FORMS at the expense of keeping some humans alive. In the world of a Pro, humans are all dead due to the spark, however, other life on the planet would still be alive. 1. Oceans life would survive. Dotto in 86 writes [Lydia, study commissioned by the scientific committee on the problems of the environment and the INT"L scientific communions] The open oceans are well buffered against extreme temperature changes. It is unlikely that even the most severe nuclear war scenario would result in acute-phase reductions of the sea-surface tempurature by more than a degree of two, and the temperature would not be expected to change in the deep oceans. Thus, little direct impact on ocean species is expected by temperature effects, Mere human extinction claims are anthropocentric and morally wrong. Rights of non-humans would exist post human extinction. Fox writes in "87 [Dep of Philosophy,l Queens U Ontorio.] deep ecologists argue for a radical shift from anthropocentric to a biocentric or ecocentric one. non-human life forms have independent, intrinsic, or inherent value, they possess value in and of themselves and without reference to human experience, interests, or needsit follows that annihilating or decimating them is morally abhorrent. In short, the extinction, or massive slaughter of homosapiens is not the greatest tragedy that the earth could suffer other things have a right to continue existing even if we insist on obliterating ourselves in whole or in part. Impact framing, There is no inherent reason to vote to prefer human life over the life of other organisms. 3. No intrinsic value to human existence Bayles writes in "85 [U of Florida philosopher] Nonetheless, one should ask both why it is and how bad it would be. Would a nuclear war be bad because it would mean the end of the human species? I the continuation of the human species is not intrinsically desirable. In fact the opposite is more true. Humans are innately bad. 4. If there"s anything unique about humans it"s our capacity and drive to destroy and inflict cruelty and suffering. Branch writes in "92 [Professor and distinguished professor @ USC] Humans are unique in their willingness to deliberately murder another member of their own species without defensive or evolutionary reason. With and without justification, humans harbor hate, absent in other animals. we almost always seek a scape goat to blame, or hate, or to destroy Throughout history, humans have been capable of deliberate cruelty, unknown in other species: torture; disfigurement, and dismemberment; crucifixion; burning at the stake, within a flaming "tire necklace," or dowsed with gasoline; and other violent acts calculated to terrorize. Except for several insect societies, only humans enslave members of their own species, and they are the only animals that provide a low level of existence and security for a substantial portion of the population. Only humans fouled their environment to the extent it causes sickness and death. 5. Even human existence does not end ethical obligation to other species and alien life. Bayles writes in "80 [U of Florida philosopher] the existence of human beings may not be necessary for duty, obligations, or values. Should other rational creatures capable of duties and obligations exist in the universe, then the extinction of the human species And Other life outweighs human life 6. Other species just outweigh human extinction Slack writes in "82 [Surplus Species need Prevail] After all, this earth is theirs as much as it is ours. Perhaps, their claim is even superior to our own, since they outnumber us and they have done far less damage to our common habitation. Means you vote Pro to keep some life on Earth at the expense of humans, in the face of the risk of losing all life forms due to humans. Mindset shift Kick this part of the debate, I don"t need to win it because human are dead post spark Now to the frame work in which they said they only have to win one thing. Not true my framework was in my over view as long as I am winning now three things I win the debate 1.Bioshere will collapse ( I am they conceded) 2.NW solves ( I did prove and I have a lot of evidence if I need it) 3.Some life would survive ( I am they conceded when they read only humans go extinct". Shoulda read some Chalko )