Breathing should be banned

Observation 1: The pro's burden
1) The burden of proof lies on the pro
- This means
A. The pro must provide empirical evidence that undeniably proves the benefit of banning breathing to all.
B. The pro must provide evidence saying the empirical evidence existed in conditions similar to current conditions.
C. The pro must provide evidence saying that the evidence provided that illustrated the conditions are the same as the conditions of the empirical evidence are unbiased.

Observation 2: My definitions

Breathing: Sucking in air to your lungs then releasing the air back into the environment; taken as a whole
Should: Will lead to better lives of humans on the planet
Be: Passed in international legislation
Banned: Will not be allowed to be done and is punishable by death if one breaths

Observation 3: Remember
A. The aff has to prove with evidence this will lead to a good thing for everyone and not one bad thing can come from it.

Observation 4: What I have to do to win
A. Provide a doubt that maybe something bad can come from this
B. I can use logic and reason because I am on the con side and evidence is unnecessary
C. Prove that the pro's points are untrue

Observation 5: Go ahead
A. I will now let you try and prove your point.
B. I don't have to make any arguments of my own, all I have to do is give a doubt in the truth of yours.
C. I'm not going to make any arguments. I'm not going to give an opening statement because I'm afraid you will beat my arguments with logic and then I will look bad. So all I'm going to do is set up the debate with a resolution I am fully ready to debate and give the pro an unfair burden of proof that leaves the judges no choice but to vote for the con side, even though I didn't make a single argument in the round.

Observation 6: Stupid online debaters

This situation is all too common when looking at the debates that are up to be taken. This type of "challenge" destroys what debate is actually meant to be. The con side debater sets up the debate on a topic that he is fully researched on, words the resolution so that you can only vote for the con side, and expects respect from the debate community. No one wants to see a challenge debate that says "i am con, prove your point" ever. Lazy debaters out there that have done this have stirred annoyance in anyone that actually wants to debate on this website for more than a good win/loss record.

My case serves as a sarcastic example of how ridiculous these challenges are becoming.

the resolution here states that "breathing should be banned"
first of all, I would like to say that the definitions my opponent provide are clearly flawed. especially in the case of "should" where he states the betterment of human lives, now do you think that the affirmative looks for the betterment of lives? Or "be" passed in international law? you could have just put that into the resolution, but you didn't.

I provide the following definitions for the affirmative.
Breathing: same as the negatives

Should: aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Be:
a. To occupy a specified position:

Banned: To prohibit, especially by official decree:

The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

against his Observation 1: He doesn't state anything here except that the affirmative must prove.
against his Observation 2: You should only look towards my definitions as for his are biased towards the debate and that mines have a legitimate source
against his Observation 3:"breathing should be banned" doesn't mean that i must support humanity, this observation states absolutely nothing
against his Observation 4: You can't state what you need to win, this depends on the voters
against his Observation 5: Yes i will prove, and that i will use logic, and reasoning therefore some arguments provided are unable to have evidence.
(Ps. it's just many of these people don't know how to or are debating things that they seem to already have proved)

First: Now going by my definitions, I do not have to prove that breathing is bad for humanity. But what I stand is that Humanity in general is bad.
a)All life is equal simply by Life = Life
b)Humans disregard Life by destruction. Where Humans are destroying life by multiple means. In some cases killing each other.

Second: In the overall scale, Breathing creates CO2.
"Breathing takes oxygen in and carbon dioxide out of the body." http://en.wikipedia.org...
a) By breathing not only are we providing for Global Warming which is caused by CO2, but we are taking away Oxygen where deforestation and Breathing lead to an overall decrease of Oxygen in the Atmosphere, and also Increases CO2 Levels. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
b) All Animal life including human life needs oxygen to survive, since plants provide oxygen and that people are cutting them down, Reducing oxygen levels tie into my first point in that Humans disregard life and that People are going in a self-destined mass extinction at this rate anyways. http://www.sciencemag.org...

Conclusion: Being that Life is Life. Humans are on the negative side of life and that by prohibiting breathing we are saving more life than we would be losing. "It is the lesser of two evils"

Alright.

The point of the case was to demonstrate the idiocy seen all too often in debate challenges on this website. You do make some logical arguments, however, most con debaters that set up a challenge like this would respond something like this:

You have to take my definitions because the pro took the debate knowing these were the definitions I picked. If I wanted to debate with the other definitions, I wouldn't have posted mine.
You have to vote of the fact that the pro does not prove that this will not cause anything bad to happen. He clearly drops my observations that talk about this.

And all too often, the con will win. This is a ridiculous way to debate, and the point of me posting this was to send a message to debaters that post debates saying "im con, prove your point"; so that they know not to do that anymore.

Not only that, I wanted to point out how ridiculous debate is becoming. Your case illustrates this completely. All too often who wins comes down to a single definition and debates go around the actual issue to argue semantics. Of course, we are all guilty of doing this because it is what debate has become. But it shouldn't be this way, the new way to debate doesn't enhance either party's knowledge on a given topic.

But it looks like you actually want to debate this.. So let's go for it.

For the purpose of not arguing semantics, i'll let the pro fiat international implementation so that we can argue the actual issue.

So he has 2 arguments
1) Humanity bad..
2) Breathing causes for global warming

1) Humanity bad

He only justifies this with a two part argument "All life is equal/Humans disregard life by destruction".

It is ignorant to believe that if it wasn't for humans, the world would be a happy peaceful place, because this is not true. Anyone who has ever even watch Animal Planet understands that our world is a crazy place that inherently destroys one another. It's a dog eat dog world out there and when the pro justifies his argument that "humans are bad" by only saying that its because they cause destruction, his argument holds no weight. We see that whether humans were alive or not, a species will cause harm to another. Causing for this mass suicide of humans is all for nothing if the same injustices are going to be committed in the world. His definition of shall is "to express obligation or duty". It's clear to see that we have no obligation or duty to kill every human on earth to stop and injustice that will happen even in the world post plan.

The essence of human life outweighs any impact in todays round. To believe that if we all killed ourselves with a ban on breathing, a better world would result, is a flawed belief. The only difference is that humans are no longer in existence but the same bad stuff is happening.

Evaluate the round in a real world sense. If this argument was taken up to congress they would laugh him out of the room and tell him to never come back. A vote for the pro is a vote for the belief that you are causing harm on the world. So adamant a belief that you should kill yourself to "make the world a better place", so vote pro then go ahead and kill yourself as a symbol of your belief.

on the side note, i completely agree with what my opponent says that many of these debates are becoming illogical, and an explanation for that is because people dont know how to debate. Perhaps if we or someone proposed something that would teach people how to do a proper debate before actually debating may help. This is not a reason to vote.

My opponent takes two main points against my cause, that Nature is inherently bad therefore my point one does not really apply. Well yes that on animal planet animals DO kill each other but that they kill for there survival. Where as a human.. what do we kill, yes we kill for food, but we also kill for 1) entertainment (hunting) (2) Revenge (murder). I'd like to point out that HUMANS are the only species on this planet that create deadly weapons, A fact that we cannot deny, designed specifically to KILL other human beings. Humans are the only species that KILL each other by the hundreds in the case of wars. Such as WW2 where there were millions upon millions of civilian, and military casualties.http://www.historyonthenet.com... Truly the world would be a much better place without humans, and that I am providing an why we should obligation or duty to mass extinction.

Second The fact that I'm arguing against human life, you cannot take human life as reason why you should vote, in fact you should be looking at whether human life benefits the overall status of the world. And that is no. In a real world sense, think about everything the human race has done.. from what history has shown, because of the human race the condition of Earth is declining and losing its grasp on being able to support life. All because of modern technology, strip mines, global warming, and chemical agents. So please do kill yourself and me while your at it to save this world. As mark twain has stated (http://skeptically.org...) its the truth.

haha i love it. voting will happen as papa buddah sees fit..

To signify your vote pro. Kill yourself before voting
To signify your rejection of self hatred, vote con

I'm not going to kill myself until i win this debate.
Everything points that mankind is killing the world. Vote Pro