One could logically follow a majority of these guidelines

== @ "Illogical Arguments" == Pro again makes a mistake interpreting my arguments. We are debating, as he said, whether "one could logically justify adhering to a majority of these with the intent of preserving health and safety. " The last clause is key - we aren't looking just to logic, but also health and safety. It stands to reason if one of these guidelines does not logically promote health and safety it should be abandoned. This is where my next argument steps in. If I am presented with competing choices, and I want to logically ensure my safety, I pick the best one! If a tornado strikes, I only have a short amount of time to keep myself safe. I need to take the best steps possible - picking a lesser option is not the most logical way to ensure my safety. This is obvious, as we have seen in my Orlando, Florida example. == Contradictions == A (competing choices). I actually rebutted this overview by introducing the limited time argument. Tornados necessitate people to make quick decisions, and one cannot therefore follow all the guidelines. B (staying calm v. not). Remember, we agree that "the most important thing is to stay calm", as per the guidelines. This means that one should prefer staying calm to venting one's anger, and that rules 4 and 8 should not be followed. In all situations, staying calm is the best thing to do. If I want to ensure my safety, I logically pick the best option. C. If the only safe place, literally or metaphorically, is in "loving arms" then none of the other guidelines that involve going places (pretty much all of them, except #2 - staying calm) are unsafe. While Pro may have conceded this statement, I have not. This is going to be one of the biggest issues in this debate - none of the other guidelines can really be followed if this one is true. == Arguments == You can skip to the bottom to get a really brief summary. 1. Ditch I showed that ditches, and by extension culverts, are dangerous because flash floods fill ditches with water. I provided a picture of this. In fact, ditches are MEANT to collect water. As my source pointed out, tornados usually bring with them storms and rain, making ditches unsafe. Pro is only mitigating Tetanus - it remains a risk. 2. Calm Remember that this applies to #4 and #8. 3. Guns Tornado sirens are government maintained. Pro shows no reason to believe they would be broken, apart from the weak "they may be broken" argument. Remember, sirens are DESIGNED to protect people, and would provide far better warning than gunshots. One or two gunshots are likely to fade into the hubbub that tornados cause, whereas sirens are penetrating. Sirens alert far more people without endangering anyone and should be preferred. Pro also concedes the fact that the time spent firing shots could be better used hiding. If there is a better option, one must logically take it, and #3 falls. 4. Rage on the Roof We have both conceded that "the most important thing to do is to stay calm". Therefore, rule #2 takes precedence over this rule, and one should prefer staying calm on all days. Staying calm is more important than venting, and one cannot therefore prefer the less important rule. The rule is a normative statement about being calm, and Pro's interpretation that one can follow the rules on "some days" is faulty. 5. Prevention The means to prevent tornados does not exist. Attempting to do so is not possible, and every single person except the one who succeeded would fail repeatedly. There is no doubt that this would result in frustration and guilt at failing to save lives. Stress and depression would be a sure result, with suicide remaining extremely likely. The athlete example is irrelevant, as "110% effort" is not a literal phrase - just one that means "try your hardest". Such a thing is possible and therefore results in no anger or stress. Telling athletes to do the humanly impossible, like running a two-minute mile, would result in anger and frustration, especially if lives were at stake. The chain of events is actually: attempts to do the impossible --> frustration and anger --> stress --> depression --> suicide Even if we stop at stress and depression, the guideline is still inadvisable. 6. Loving arms. @ Suicide All Pro says is that my arguments are 'unwarranted'. He tosses around the word so much it has no meaning. I provide a clear warrant. Read the rule - it says "during a tornado, the only safe place is in my loving arms. Come here baby. " It gives an explicit command to "come" to "loving arms". Anyone who takes this literally under the Christianity interpretation will end up committing suicide to literally be in the loving arms of God. @ Divine Protection Pro again misinterprets my arguments. They aren't about divine protection of the living, because that does not occur. People die anyway. They are about purported afterlives. If we all convert to Christianity, then we all go to Hell or its analogues if Islam, Judaism, or any other are true. His argument against this is a complete strawman. Again, whatever 'health benefits' one may gain by converting to Christianity would be far outweighed by an ETERNITY in a negative afterlife. 7. Basements Again, "during a tornado, the only safe place is in my loving arms". Pro says this is false, and that we have agreed. Again, he's putting words in my mouth. If one takes this statement at face value, then it invalidates the rest of the guidelines. Ditches, basements and roofs are all bad places to be. Also note that Pro didn't extend his arguments here. He just dropped all of the benefits of storm shelters. This point falls. Finally, we must note that this guideline just tells people to construct shelters, not seek them. "In the event of a tornado, [they must] lie down in a ditch. ", not their basement. 8. Running I have clearly shown that tornados will catch up with people who just 'run like hell'. While a small number may find some safe place (loving arms), most will just be consumed by the funnel cloud or struck by its debris. I have shown that tornado sirens would be far more effective. They are designed to notify people of tornados. Shouting is not nearly as effective, and is a waste of time. Pro concedes that tornado sirens are loud and blanket areas in safety. == Conclusion == As an aid, here are the most salient arguments. 1 (ditch). Ditches flood and fill with water. They are designed to do this, and are therefore unsafe. Culverts are unsafe for the exact same reason. Furthermore, culverts are IN ditches, and will only fill with water if the ditch fills with water. It follows that unsafe culverts mean unsafe ditches. 3 (warning shots). Warning shots don't notify any more people than tornado sirens. Because sirens go off before tornados, the population already knows of the impending disaster. As I have stated, this makes warning shots redundant and a waste of time. Pro gives no evidence that a warning shot would actually be more effective than a tornado siren DESIGNED to warn large areas. Gunshots have no unique benefits. 4 (roof rage). First, roofs are unsafe in tornados. Second, rule 2 (calm) is a normative statement, and the "most important thing" - we have agreed on this. Raging on the roof is less important, and should not be done. 7 (basements). Pro dropped all of the benefits of basements. In addition, they are unsafe, as per rule 6. Rule 1 also provides contradictory orders. 8. (running). Remember, staying calm is "the most important thing" according to the rules. If we are logically looking to safety, we logically look to the best options. Running and shouting have no unique benefits, and as the saying goes, if you're not helping, you're hurting. Finally, there are many contradictions in the guidelines. I'm out of space here, but please do consider them.