Global Nuclear war is good

Overview Look This debate is a simple one, In the world of the Con we are all dead by 2020 from biosphere collapse. The Con tries to claim that we would just leave earth or "get off the rock" but as we will get to in moment on the biosphere collapse debate this is a problem for them. The only thing that can stop the biosphere from collapsing is a minimal regret strategy nuclear war. When this happens it solves for resource depletion and over population this is a very easy win for the Pro Global warming The Con claims that nuclear war is bad and that elon musk will solve for global warming but spark solves warming Even NASA agrees " a nuclear war solves warming best Rosenberg writes http://www.digitaltrends.com... big thinkers at NASA have worked out that even a small-scale nuclear conflict could serve to reverse the effects of global warming even a small "regional" conflict could have a dramatic impact on rising temperatures around the globe. that the fires left in its wake would release five million metric tons of black carbon into Earth"s atmosphere. It would first settle in at the upper part of the troposphere, which means a longer period of global coolings. A more grand-scale nuclear engagement would have similar results, With a smaller regional conflict the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research scientist Luke Oman said in a Friday press conference. Average global temperatures could drop as much as 2.25 degrees for two to three years after. Adam, reporter for digital trends "Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA Says" Racism Spark also solves racism No spark = Slavery and dehumanization Caldwell writes The agricultural revolution led naturally to human slavery. In a hunter-gatherer mode, it is not practical to keep slaves. Slavery did not exist because our forefathers were less ethical or religious than we. On the contrary, they were far more religious than we are. Slavery existed because of a strong demand for energy, Take away today"s access to energy, and human slavery will return as quickly as it left. (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) Biosphere collapse Next on the biosphere Collapse debate the Con makes a claim that we could simply get off the rock and go to mars. This would have been kind of damming for me if the con had done any work on the time frame debate. The Con Concedes Meadows that says the biosphere will collapse in 2020, means we would have to colonize mars in less than two years. So if we had longer, getting off the rock might be a better solution but the Con doesn"t do any work on the time frame debate, don"t let the con now make timeframe arguments it"s too late, they should have been made earlier. Next extend all of my biosphere collapse inevitable claims and warrants. The Con conceded the reasons for biosphere collapse in the last round, they never brought any evidence that was assumptive of what I said in the last round, the Con Just made general claims with no warrants. Solvency This is pretty easy here the Con concedes that a nuclear war would solve the collapse. Extend my arguments here. I have done enough to be sufficient here especially when this is conceded. Survivability They say that you cannot simply wash away black carbon but 1.Cross apply the Nasa card here. It is only in the troposphere for two years doesn"t cause extinction 2.Read the cons article it talks about what a nuclear winter might look like by using a condition 200 year ago and humans survived that. The Cons evidence says nothing about extinction My Three pieces of evidence are good enough on this point I"m winning that we survive Then the Con says that I want to Blow up the earth. 1.Not true just have a minimal regret strategy nuclear war 2.If you read Chalko evidence saying that it will I have answers The con Says radiation would kill us but 1.The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors Dallas, writes http://www.newsweek.com... long-term investigations have concluded there are no statistically significant increases in birth defects resulting in atomic bomb survivors. A WHO study concluded that there were no differences in rates of mental retardation and emotional problems in Chernobyl radiation-exposed children compared to children in control groups. A Harvard review concluded that there was no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced effects on embryos or fetuses from the accident. [Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War" Next the Con says that the universe will collapse and kills us if the spark doesn"t but Zey Writes HUMANS ARE CRITICAL TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE FROM THE BIG CHILL OR BIG CRUNCH "BIG BANG REBOUNDS OR SUN EXPLOSION, MEANS WE OUTWEIGH ALL YOUR SCENARIOS Our species is guided by a sense of higher purpose, a destiny, as it were, of which we are only now becoming aware. This new vision synthesizes a century of scientific and theoretic research into the nature of the human species and our ultimate place and role in the evolving universe. the human race"s capacity to vitalize, bring life, order, creativity, and novelty to everything it touches, sets the world on a completely new evolutionary trajectory. Moreover, the world now possesses an entity, the human species, that could develop tools to save the universe from the Big Chill or the Big Crunch, the demise argued by the Big Bang theory. (executive director of the expansionary institute) [Michael, The Futurist n3 v35 p28, This means that if there is a .0000000000001% chance humans survive the spark you vote Pro to save the universe and solve biosphere collapse They also say that there is no reason to push humans into bunkers but 1.Don"t put them in bunkers solves overpopulation and inequality since most first and second world countries would take the most of the nukes Mindset shift Again they do no work here so give me 100% chance of a mindset change post spark. Underview Look they make very few warranted arguments and a lot of claims keep that in mind when evaluation the debate. I will impact calc and address morality concerns in my last speech