CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

1) Nuclear War A) He agrees that they could not prevent the bomb from landing. There really was no argument here anyway, it was just me pointing out that a missile defense system is decades away from a successful protection system. These bombs WILL go off. B) As far as the "ability to retaliate" goes, it is unlikely that any such action would be taken. Not because they wouldn't want to, but simply because they couldn't. The very first part of my Implementation method specifically cited detonating EMP's (or Electromagnetic Pulses) over nuclear facilities. This shuts down ALL electronic devices. --- . http://www.heritage.org... --- "A nuclear weapon has detonated high over North America, an explosion so far up that neither the flash nor bang disturbed anyone slumbering in darkened bedrooms across the United States. Electrical systems and computers from New York City to San Francisco cease to function. City streets turn into chaos. Fires break out, and no communications are available to send trucks to fight them. The sick and injured perish in overwhelmed, energy-sapped hospitals. Survivors, unable to fill their gas tanks, slowly walk away from the dead zone, unsure where to go or what they will find. . . This scenario may sound like the plot of a science-fiction movie, but Bill Graham, former science adviser to President Reagan, says it's a realistic portrayal of what would happen to the United States after a massive electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear explosion. " The ability to knock out power to the United States from only one EMP, shows how easy it is to knock it out for everyone. Furthermore, even if they had the ability to retaliate, how is such an order going to be carried out if no devices can be operational. No phones to confirm the order, and no possibility to launch even if they wanted to. This point falls. 2) Slavery A) There is no chance that every slave would be killed. Let's say, for example, that 20% initially rebelled (and that is more than I would ever expect to rebel against trained military (especially since the people being enslaved have no weapons whatsoever)). Once the slaves saw the other people being shot down, do you really think that they would continue to rebel? B) Even if 50% of the slaves are killed, there are still 35 million slaves for Sparta. That is likely to be plenty to support the economy thoroughly. C) My Implementation Method clearly gives authority to go into other militarily weak nations to retrieve more slaves if necessary. This point goes unaddressed by my opponent. D) The negative effect of slavery, that my opponent cited, does not mention the countries that I am advocating enslavement for. These countries are not educated, in fact, they probably don't even know about the slave trade of the 16th century. Not to mention, when they stare down the barrel of a gun, I doubt they will be noble. Especially if they have seen the men of Sparta willingly kill others. It is really a choice of ‘dying' or ‘not dying'. Good luck convincing the judges that any more than 50% (which is generous) would choose death over enslavement. Human's first instinct is always survival. E) These Goodwill slaves do not outweigh the benefits of the free slaves whatsoever. --- In his world, there is a massive spike in job loss. Why would Sparta then give the jobs to these good will workers in which they still have to pay? The more you accept the economic instability of CON's position, the more you must accept my slavery stance to be the superior of the two, especially considering these "other jobs" that he talked about Sparta leaving the country to fill. This is a major contradiction of my opponent. 3) World Peace and Spartan's Army/Economy A) Self-Rule could be put into effect but only to a certain degree. Things like taxation would be run by Spara, but things like the military would not be (The U. N. already has those types of powers even in today's world, but it would be even more true under any form of world peace). Therefore, by joining the U. N. as CON supposes, we would be submitting at least 43% of our jobs and the welfare of our economy altogether. B) Let's look at the likelihood of troop usage of Sparta. I: Quotes from my opponent From Resolutional Analysis --- "The more realistic understanding that I shall use is that the UN's ideal is this world peace, and that by creating a world government, tensions may be reduced and conflicts be diminished. " From Round 4 --- "In a situation where millions of people disagree with the very existence of a world government, riots and rebellions will ensue. " II. These are slightly contradictory to one another. III. My main argumentative goal is to show that it is unlikely that very many troops will be needed. I completely disagree that countries will want their citizens to be out of harms way (It is first and foremost an economic question. Not to mention that the citizens are on a voluntary basis). Warfare is just in people's nature. IV. This therefore clearly gives the U. N. the 2 options from my last round: 1) Split up the troop usage among the countries (more likely to be voted in than option 2) Or 2) Strictly use Spartan troops (Remember, Sparta would only have one vote among hundreds of countries. Not to mention that 30 million troops wouldn't (probably) be all used) Economic Impact is inevitable on the CON side, whereas the economy on my side would be stronger than any country has ever achieved. How hard of a choice is it really? 4) Spartan Unemployment A) Cross Apply HIS analysis against HIS argument of good will slaves. Obviously both can not stand. We can't have unemployment and paid workers imported at the same time. B) A lot of military jobs would be lost world wide making those countries job markets shrink. C) At the VERY least, research facilities on new weapons would seize. D) What country wants to split up when they have a viable option of becoming the strongest nation in the world? ====== 1) Economy --- Having fewer jobs and more workers does not equal an increase in the Spartan economy. 2) Loss of International Power --- CON misses the core meaning to this point. Even if we had self-rule, this point is VERY important. All nations need something to contribute in order to get a meaningful return of products and services (a fundamental economic idea). The ONLY thing that Sparta has to offer is its army. . . something that literally every nation also has. The fact that CON is willing to put his countries economic stability to a vote just goes to show how little benefit his case presents to Sparta as a whole. 3) Continuous Conflict and Death 4) PRO achieving World Peace --- This is simple. On CON more death would pursue with disease and multiple conflicts until the end of the world. With PRO, however, World Peace would immediately follow the completion of my Implementation Method. Not only the weaker version of World Peace that CON is promoting, but a 100% of World Peace that substantially outweighs my opponents version. 5) Carrying Capacity --- Although his third implementation method is only a suggestion, I agree that carrying capacity will probably not be reached. Instead, I'm only going to use this as an argument to back up the lack of control that we have. 6) Diseases --- This is just another example of how CON sort of achieves benefit, whereas I completely achieve a cure of all diseases. Not to mention that this isn't mentioned in his implementation method, and even if it was it changes nothing from the system we have now. I urge the judges to find a single benefit that I don't get better. Not to mention the benefits he does get are a maybe verses a guarantee on my side. Thanks!