Breathing should be Illegal

I will start off by thanking Jonbonbon for accepting, as well as reprimanding her for her highly inappropriate threats of beheading me. Voters, such conduct is unacceptable in any debate setting, and you should vote Pro based on that alone. More importantly, Jonbon's callous death threats have inflicted immense emotional trauma upon me -- vote Pro so that I will feel like I have people supporting me and overcome these horrible emotional scars. If you don't vote for me, I will feel unsupported and alone, and I will probably eventually be driven to commit suicide. Please do the right thing and vote Pro.Now onto my case.C1) DEATHSI make no attempt at hiding the fact that making breathing illegal will cause a large number of deaths worldwide. However, as I will explain, such an outcome is not necessarily all that bad. A mass-extinction would be beneficial for several reasons -- (1) it solves for overpopulation & related problems like world hunger, (2) there wouldn't be that many casualties if a nuclear war were to occur after the extinction, (3) the funeral industry will grow exponentially, (4) the government will get a huge boost in revenue from increased estate tax collection, (5) it would serve as a really good plot basis for a historical fiction movie in the distant future, and (6) most people are jerks, so the world is automatically better off without them. C2) WEEDING OUT THE WEAK There are plenty of viable alternatives to breathing. All it takes is some ingenuity to make use of them. For example, many species of frogs have developed ways to absorb oxygen straight through their skin [1], and there are particles in existence which can oxygenate the body independently of the lungs [2]. Adaptable individuals will figure things like this out and continue to survive, whereas everyone else will die out as a result of their incompetency, and rightfully so! Making breathing illegal facilitates the evolution of human beings into a super-race of intelligent survival artists. C3) ENVIRONMENTAL HARMSThe EPA has already formally declared Carbon Dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant [3], and breathing *by definition* involves the ejection of CO2 into the environment. Because breathing has been officially recognized as an exceptionally harmful form of pollution, it should obviously be made illegal. Moreover, this completely authentic, unaltered, reliable graph clearly demonstrates that breathing is a significant contributor to global warming: C4) SHUT UPIf people can't breathe, then they can't talk. This is a good thing because, as every person on the planet knows, everyone except them is a moron whose opinions don't matter. Illegalizing breathing gets rid of the world's excess noise.C5) THEFTWith each and every breath, people are *stealing* oxygen from Mother Nature's limited reserves of the precious gas. I contend that Mother Nature has rights too, and that the government should preserve those rights by making breathing illegal. It is a moral abomination that the entirety of the human race lives only by virtue of theft. C6) INCREASES SUFFERINGZaradi:"modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to PLEASURE and PAIN" are " naivetes, " that is not sympathy as you understand it: " OUR sympathy is a " further-sighted sympathy " You want, " TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and " WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, " is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of " GREAT suffering--know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in " enduring, " misfortune, and whatever " spirit, " has been bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through " great suffering? In man CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not only " clay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also the " the sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, " And that YOUR sympathy for the "creature in man" applies to that which has to be fashioned " to that which must necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer? " there are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and sympathy; and all systems of philosophy which deal only with these are naivetes." The ultimate result of this negative orientation toward life is the inability to live life to its fullest. Instead, the affirmative holds life in contempt for its pains, never understanding that life is suffering, starvation, and dying. The desire to seek redemption from life through the creation of a future moral order annihilates life in the present. This is the worst possible danger: our existence becomes a dreary perpetuation of biological life, devoid of meaning, waiting only for passive death" "the " humanitarian attempt to construct a world of universal friendship produces" by internal necessity, ever new enemies." humanity. By virtue of its universality " has " no clear distinction between " inside and " outside. Does humanity embrace all humans? " If not, against whom or what does it wage its wars? " Christianity distinguishes between believers and nonbelievers. Since nonbelievers can become believers, they must be of the same category of being. To be human " then, is the horizon within which the distinction between believers and nonbelievers is made. " humanity " is not part of the distinction, but " makes the distinction possible. However, once the term used to describe the " distinction also becomes that distinction's positive pole, it needs its negative opposite. " setting off the inhuman from the human is followed by an even deeper split, the one between the superhuman and the subhuman. In the same way that the human creates the inhuman, so in the history of humanity the superhuman brings about " the subhuman ... political opposition to liberalism is itself deemed illegitimate. " liberal pluralism, " reduces the political to the social " and " nullifies all truly political opposition by simply excommunicating its opponents " only an unregenerate barbarian could fail to recognize the irrefutable benefits of the liberal order." The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided." "the meaning of our suffering " has been the problem " The first possibility concerns a religious ethic that " views suffering as undesirable, but which " uses " deleterious means to provide a meaning for human suffering. The second possibility concerns " the idea of giving meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human enhancement and greatness. Since the religious ethic sees suffering as undesirable and thus something ultimately to be avoided " the means it uses to give suffering meaning are ultimately mendacious, " Nietzsche"s positive alternative -- one that embraces the necessary role suffering " we should modify so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided." [4]Therefore, suffering is good. Since making breathing illegal would obviously cause a lot of suffering, we can conclude, by extension, that the policy in question is good.C7) THE BIBLEThe Holy Bible itself explicitly tells us that breathing should be made illegal:"Breathing . . . should . . . be . . . illegal" (Acts 9:1, Job 6:11, Corinthians 13:11, Exodus 22:9) [5][6][7][8]Perhaps some of you aren't Christian fundamentalists and are thus not convinced by my argument. Here is a simple yet infallible syllogism to crush your delusions:P1: If the Bible is true, then God exists.P2: God wrote the BibleP3: God is incapable of being wrongC1: The Bible is trueC2: God existsC8) I AM ALWAYS RIGHT"I'm always right- I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken." -- Thett3Obviously, since Thett3 said it himself, it must be true. However I *beat* Thett3 in a debate [9], which proves that I am smarter than him. This means that I am right even more often than Thett3 is: I am right *more* than 100% of the time. Thus, simply asserting the resolution to be true is sufficient to affirm it. Breathing should be illegal. Vote Pro. == CONCLUSION ==I expect a full concession from my opponent next round.[1] http://animals.mom.me...[2] http://gizmodo.com...[3] http://dailysignal.com...[4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://biblehub.com...[6] http://biblehub.com...[7] http://biblehub.com...[8] http://biblehub.com...[9] http://www.debate.org...