It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak.

Introduction: Pro has ignored my request to keep the debate organized so I once again have to pick through this stream of consciousness to find his arguments. Pro’s case is absolutely painful to read and sort through. What’s worse, he accuses me of dropping arguments because I couldn’t find his responses to them. Well, I looked again and I still can’t find a response to some of my arguments. It’s not my fault that the Pro case had no discernable organization. Because Pro has ignored the format of the debate so thoroughly, I’m going to have to adopt an entirely new format to address it. Here is a list of points responding to Pro’s claims prior to the “voting issues” section. The Ebola example was used to show that significant progress has been made toward immunizing humans against dangerous biohazards. Ebola has not been eradicate to the extent smallpox has and my case does not hinge on this. I am only stressing the fact that infectious diseases are no longer as dangerous as commonly believed. His claim that I dropped his argument that diseases can spread even if quarantined is pretty ridiculous. Pro made a bare assertion that the disease would escape quarantine (by magic, presumably) which I addressed as without warrant. If human movement can be stopped, and a military force is certainly capable of this, the disease CANNOT spread. Obviously if the quarantine is successful and cheaper than alternatives, it isn’t a waste of money so that argument isn’t dropped. Finally, Pro’s claim that “these mentioned diseases are very flexible in their ways of travel” is just more appeal to magic. Ebola will not just teleport from city to city unless millions of people are murdered. Pro claims the Black Plague argument isn’t dropped because he talked about the Spanish Flu. That’s not the Black Plague, and he didn’t address any of my explanations of why neither outbreak could happen today. The natural rights argument absolutely has been completely dropped. Pro’s response is not even related to natural rights. We should ignore all of Pro’s accusations that I have dropped arguments because it’s necessary to pick through his rant with a fine toothed comb just to figure out what his arguments are. I’ll stop here because trying to read this and pick it apart is incredibly frustrating. I’m going to address each of Pro’s “voting issues” and then bring up a few of my own. Drops: Pro’s response to the natural rights argument has nothing to do with natural rights, so it is actually dropped. I didn’t drop the argument that the quarantine is a waste of money if it fails because I argued that it would not fail, rendering this point moot. I will let voters decide how the eradication of a US city by the military would probably be taken by the public. I would say that open rebellion is not an outrageous prediction. Overall, Pro is just claiming I dropped points because his arguments were long streams of dribble and I did not individually address each and every sentence. It’s painful to read and I have to prioritize what is important enough to respond to. I don’t see how Pro can criticize me for dropping arguments when he didn’t organize them in any discernable fashion. On the other hand, Pro has virtually no response to points I made under bold, underlined heading. 2. “Fallacious” Claims Pro criticizes me for not knowing everything in his long stream of ungrammatical sentences with no discernable organization and vague references. That’s too bad; he didn’t respond to me in a way that remotely followed the format of the debate. I looked through his case, but due to the make of headings it is up to interpretation what his statements are referring to and I could not find a response to many of my arguments. 3. Assumptions Pro’s arguments assume that the diseases in question behave differently than the sources we have both presented indicate. He just asserts that all my methods for combatting them will fail because the diseases with escape (presumably by magic, as there is no scientific evidence to explain how diseases spread when we eliminate all vectors). Maybe if he had read the sources he plagiarized he would have known, to make one example, that a waterborne disease will not spread if everyone drinks and uses distilled water distributed by the government (as I recommended). Instead he just keeps on asserting that diseases cannot be stopped by anything but firebombing. If Ebola is so unstoppable, why will firebombing even kill it? Presumably because of more special magic that is never explained. We could have had a serious debate about ethics if we fiated that the pathogens were otherwise unstoppable, but Pro chose to talk about real diseases. He then went on assuming we were talking about a magic fiated disease and ignored all my scientific arguments about how infectious diseases actually are. 4. Conduct Pro’s case actually is a mess. It is such a mess that it has seriously interfered with my ability to do this debate. My criticisms of his presentation are totally warranted. If you see no difference between the readability of my second round and Pro’s second round, feel free to vote for him on this point. 5. Impact Calculus I’ve been over this ad nauseam. Pro assures the death of the entire city. My method reduces the number of deaths in the city dramatically. The disease will almost certainly not spread if quarantined and if it does it will be contained rapidly once identified due to heightened security. My voting points, since this seems to be necessary: 1. Spelling and Grammar Pro doesn’t even capitalize the word ‘I’ and generally writes his debate like a text message. The heinous errors in his grammar go above and beyond simple typos and make his already unreadable arguments even harder to decipher. 2. Drops and Weighing Issues The discourse ethics argument is truly totally dropped. Pro has no justification whatsoever for teleological ethics. I chose to debate on teleological grounds anyway because I wanted to debate epidemiology, but when it became apparent that Pro was just going to ignore science I switched to debating ethics. He did not challenge my alternative to teleology, which means the debate automatically weighs in my favor. 3. Sources Please give me some time to correct the problem with my sources in the previous round. There was a problem with closing the debate my sources were posted in and someone accepted it, so they don’t have a home for a while. I have far more and better sources than Pro in just Round Two anyway, and Pro PLAGIARIZED information in Round One, so I don’t even see this as an issue for me. Conclusion: Pro’s entire debate has consisted of unsourced assertion, complete failure to understand concepts, unorganized and ungrammatical rambling, and criticism of my inability to easily decipher that kind of response. I don’t see how he could be remotely construed as having won a single voting criterion. Clearly he is lost on spelling and grammar, arguments, and sources. If voters think he deserves the conduct point because I find his awful presentation annoying, then fine. All of my complaints have been warranted. Pro’s case is so poorly presented it’s difficult to actually debate against it. He has not engaged me on any of the topics this debate was about (ethics, epidemiology) and has forced me to waste my time sorting through long, rambling exposition that shows no understanding of the concepts relevant to the topics.