Informing People of the End

All hell breaks looseMy argument stems from the fact that I believe in the right to choose, I believe in free-will for all. If people are truly free to make their own choices then I think that they should be free to choose how to live out their last days on Earth. No one has the right to deny someone the right to live the way that they want to, especially in the face of death.a) 61% of people, according to one poll, believe that people are inherently good. [1] If given the choice I think most people would rather spend time with their family, right old wrongs and reconnect with past friends than rob a bank or punch their boss in the face. Will everyone behave well in the face of crisis? No, and I'm not even going to pretend that they will but the good would outweigh the bad in this situation. The law is not the only thing keeping order in the world, for some it is, for a small portion but I think that there is an underlying fabric of human decency that really keeps the world in order. Not laws. Logic: You say that a good host of people, if given the chance, would rape, murder and steal without a care in the world. This goes to say that there is a large portion of the population that is sane, stable and knowingly obeys the laws out of fear only but this is not the case. In order to murder and rape and commit other violent crimes a person's brain has to be fundamentally different than that of a regular person's brain. "You see, I truly believe that murderers are mentally ill," she explains. "Their brains don't work like the rest of ours do. To deliberately kill someone requires crossing a profound boundary. Most of us couldn't do it. We couldn't even think about it. But they can. They do. Why? Because they're mentally ill." - Elaine Sharp, defense attorney [2] Would you murder, steal, rape if you knew you could get away with it? Would your parents? Your teacher? Your best friend? I have a hard time believing that they would. There will be those few broken or damaged individuals who would yes but I think that compared to the good that will come out of telling people it will be a trivial and manageable few. As a whole people will not act in this manner, people are inherently good and people with normal thought processes will not commit violent crimes because they can't. Empiric: Hurricane Katrina was an isolated incident where people were thrust into a position of survival. They looted to survive, they were pushed to the edge of desperation by losing everything. In our situation people will be given warning, they will retain all of their belongings, their families etc until the time of simultaneous death. The two situations are completely different and can hardly be compared. Nasa ConflictYour argument, in the form it is currently in, is purely illogical. You would rather condemn the entire human race to extinction rather than deal with a little crowding in the NASA control room? Either way, this argument doesn't really pertain to the argument at hand. If this news was broken tomorrow do you think NASA could build an interplanetary colony ship in three months? I don't. We haven't been to the moon in over 25 years, we've never been to Mars. What makes you think they would be able to put something together so quickly? I don't think they would be able to. Therefore this project would not exist and your argument is thus void. Nuclear StrikeWhat would be the incentive for nations to blow each other up in this situation. I fail to see the reason. If your enemy is going to die in three months anyways, why would you risk retaliation when you can just wait and let it happen naturally? It would be like murdering a cancer patient. What would be the point? Why would India and Pakistan care who owns Kashmir in the face of crisis? They wouldn't. The reason countries fight for land and power and weapons is so that they can secure themselves for years to come, to set themselves up to be in a position of power for a long term future. People don't fight for land so they can rent it, or hold it for a short period of time.Truly there would be no incentive to go to war unless it was for destruction's sake alone and if countries would be so bold as to go to war just for the sake of killing on another then there would be war in Taiwan, Korea and Iran today but there isn't because people don't fight for no reason. Instead of inflaming tensions a crisis would do well to erase them. The future would mean nothing so why fight? Nations and groups would be concerned about their own problems, their own families to worry about people of distant or no relation to them. EqualityFirstly your source is indeed from a movie which means it has 0% credibility (sorry but it's true). However, I did find a few polls, mostly on forums, about this and most fall more on the lines of 40-60 [3] in favor of not knowing but it is much closer to half and half than the 96% you threw at me. Also these numbers are a little skewed for a big reason: they are based off a question that, in most people's minds, cannot be answered. If I really had a way to tell you when you were exactly going to die you would be curious at least and ravenous at the most. It's easy to nonchalantly answer a question that lies in the realm of fantasy but it would be much harder to turn down this information if it was really presented to you. Also, you say you would be giving people information they DON'T want to know. However, you can't justify denying the people who would want to know the right of knowing in favor of the group who doesn't want to know. People are entitled to certain knowledge but people do not have a right to ignorance. Could you with hold the cancer patients diagnosis on the behalf of the wishes of a friend? Of a stranger? No of course not, so why do you have the right to deprive the people who would want to know that knowledge in favor of a group who doesn't want to know? Knowledge is power and with knowledge people can do good things, make their own decisions and will be free to live and make choices on their own merits. Last MealSince my opponent has challenged the validity of a last meal and last rites I will present a different position. Should we eliminate such organizations as Dreams Come True, the ones who give children their dream before they die? No. In our society, stemming from the compassion and good people feel, those close to death have a right or a privilege to live their last days out in a way they want to. Also your argument about the world being torn apart in the extent you describe is pure speculation. Depriving The GoodTragedy brings people together. After Pearl Harbor we stood together as a nation in the face of evil. Was the naval base in Hawaii looted? No. On 9/11, Americans flooded to New York to help and give support not loot the abandoned area around Ground Zero. By not telling people of their end many will die with regrets. Telling people about the end gives them the chance to: reconnect with people, make amends, find God if they so choose, seek forgiveness, come to peace with who they are, come to terms with their life, come to terms with the end, say things that they've always wanted to. Most people would take advantage of these things if given the chance. Isn't there something you'd want to tell somebody before you die? Perhaps you want to apologize to someone, ask forgiveness. Under your plan you would never get that right and millions could needlessly die with regret. I think the government would have the responsibility to tell the people so that they could fully pursue their rights to partake in these things. People have a right to have a chance to make amends. Given the situation it is only fair.[1] http://www.helium.com...[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...[3] http://www.mmo-champion.com...