The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Doomday Prepping

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 796 times Debate No: 73094
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance
Second is for opening
Third is for rebuttal and cross-examton
Fourth any last remarks
Topic is open for any one. I will be arguing why it is good to prepare for an end of the world scenario. The con will be arguing why it is not a good idea to prepare. Let's have fun.


I will be taking the con side of this debate, arguing why it is not a good idea to prepare for doomsday scenarios. Thanks for the opportunity!
Debate Round No. 1


Given a scenario that cripples the society as we know it, then it is good idea to prepare such event.

Opening argument:
It is a good idea in my opinion to prepare for an end of the world scenario even if it dose not come. Firstly if a person wants to spend their money for preps then they should because this can stimulate the economy. (Which helps in the short run and the long run)Secondly even if the end of the world does not happen the knowledge they learn can help them in their lIfe, such as first aid, self defense, and how to tend a gardan, only a few examples. Thirdly, it can be fun for yourself and your family.


Thanks Pro! I can argue against your point, but I see more benefit in making my own positive remarks. That way we both share BoP for our sides.

It is a bad idea to prep for disasters as a habitual lifestyle. I will examine several types of disasters that one might prep for and show why doomsday prepping is not the proper behavior:

1) natural disasters with terrible consequences, such as the destruction of power/electricity sources and homes.

Doomsday prepping is non-specific, as it implies that you are preparing for a disaster about which you do not know. However, this is not the job of citizens in the case of natural disasters. We have divisions of government whose job it is to predict disasters, build resources to protect against them, and to operate smoothly and rebuild areas if they occur. Natural disasters are the most likely of all the "doomsday" scenarios to occur, and it follows that we have high-ranking teams of individuals working on this problem. Everyone from first responders to FEMA is ready to help people in the event of these cases, and those who prep for doomsday, unless they join in the ranks of these forces, are not going to be able to prep for every scenario that might occur as a result of natural disasters. Proper behavior would prep the community and infrastructure for disaster, not the individual or home.

2) war/invasion

The US military is incredibly powerful, and yet it is spread out across the world in large part. This is because there has not been a land invasion of US soil for over a century. Both Germany and Japan, arguably two of the largest standing armies at the height of WW2, both decided against attacks on US land. []
For this reason, US citizens have not had to worry about land battles drastically afflicting their living spaces since the Civil War. So the chances of a hostile land invasion are so small as to be virtually impossible, especially with intelligence committees working against them. Threats on US soil have been largely domestic in nature, or terrorism, both of which have little bearing on the doomsday argument.

3) nuclear war

The hot topic to panic over is the potential for nuclear strikes. Much literature exists on this issue, and this article argues that non-global or terroristic nuclear war is highly unlikely, while nuclear war on a large scale is more likely. []
So, what would nuclear war look like? Most likely the deaths of most humans right off the bat, with the harmful effects of radiation and the environmental concerns finishing off the rest. I can see why a doomsday prepper might expect a slight advantage in this situation, however the threat of nuclear war carries with it damages that no amount of preserved food, guns, or survivalist training can match.

4) cosmic interference/mass impact

There is always the possibility, however unlikely, that a meteor will hit you, killing you instantly. This possibility holds for the entire Earth as well, and, while we have teams to address this concern, it is not clear that we would be able to deal with an event like this in a way that would save the human population. My argument with this point is that if doomsday prepping is good for you even if the doom is not likely, how would you prep for situations like this? There is no way to, or at least not in the conventional, survivalist tactic. Since this threat is real and would require an enormous amount of teamwork and study to combat, I see it as detrimental to prepare for the end of the world by working on your survivalist skills, whereas you could devote that energy towards endeavors that could lead to the increased chance of survival for humans in general, including yourself.

From these four examples of disaster situations, I believe I have made some points about the negative aspects of doomsday prepping in general. To state them explicitly, however, is helpful:

-Doomsday prepping requires that extensive time, effort, money, etc. be put into preparing for situations that are unlikely to occur, to the detriment of potential for these resources to be used more effectively
-Doomsday preppers may be interested in saving only themselves, possibly to the detriment of others, and for these individuals the prepping would actually be more harmful to any humans that survive in a disaster
-Doomsday prepping often requires its followers to stash away extensive supplies of food and water, resources that could be used to help those worldwide who are hungry and dying, a real problem that we don't have to assume a hypothetical to address
-Doomsday prepping as a culture has the potential to contribute to mass hysteria and create a "demand" for evidence showing the likelihood of such disasters, which can very easily take away efforts and time from researchers who would otherwise be addressing more crucial concerns

I have summoned my arguments against doomsday prepping. I thank Pro for bringing this topic to light, as I think it is relevant and there is a lot to learn! Pro, message me in the comments section about access to my sources. If you have any trouble seeing them, let me know and I'll find a way to make them accessible for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Jacob60rt forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited this round, and so I will not be able to see the rebuttals to my arguments unless they appear in Round 4. However, my opponent has designated this round for rebuttal and cross-examination, and so I will work with the opening argument.

Pro states that it can stimulate the economy if doomsday preppers spend their money on survival gear. This may be true, but simply because a business increases the inflow of cash to the economy does not mean that it is good. Doomsday preppers are prone to hoarding resources for an impossible scenario, rather than using their funds to invest in the infrastructure of their town. Is it better to boost the economy in this way, and then hoard the resources, or is it better to put that money towards the community through purchases at small businesses or donations to local law enforcement agencies? This is all assuming that doomsday preppers attain all their goods legally, which, for the most part, I assume they do. However, there is an overlap between the survivalist movement and those who purchase fully-automatic weapons. While these are not completely illegal, it is illegal to modify weapons for this purpose, and it is highly expensive to purchase a legal automatic weapon. For any doomsday preppers who fall into this category, there is a good chance that they have not boosted the economy, but instead have broken the law and funded an illegal source.

I completely agree with Pro that survival skills can have major benefits that have nothing to do with end-of-the-world scenarios. However, this does not support the argument that it is good to prep for the end of the world. Working on first aid and self-defense have long been part of organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, but these skills are not taught for use in the apocalypse. By all means, practice gardening and first aid. This does not mean that you have to hoard goods or purchase extensive weaponry. For those individuals who practice these skills and have them at the ready at all times, I would say that this is not preparing for the end of the world, but rather for the safety of those in our world right now.

I agree that it can be fun. However, again I will argue that the skills associated with survivalism are fine, but that the mindset of preparing for doomsday is not a benefit. I will renew my point about the culture of doomsday prepping, in that it creates a demand for evidence showing the likelihood of doomsday events, which detracts from the ability for scientists to focus on real issues. I agree that it is fun for families to go camping, have a garden at home, or practice first aid together, but this is why we have the Boy Scouts.

I hope these rebuttals serve to address some contentions I have with Pro's argument. I will save any final comments for the next round, as I don't think it is fair to criticize the opening statements too harshly at this point. I'm looking forward to Pro's arguments in the last round, and any rebuttals Pro would like to offer.
Debate Round No. 3


Jacob60rt forfeited this round.


This round was already just for finishing remarks, and since my opponent has not brought forth any arguments to his case, I encourage you to vote Con. I have demonstrated why it is not wise to prep for doomsday and my arguments remain without refutation.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 1 year ago
I agree. I see no point in debating the merits of prepping for total catastrophe. I also think zombies, as they are represented in pop culture, are irrelevant, and I think most preppers would agree. Zombies have symbolic purpose but were applied to realism in a strange and disingenuous way. Some think it cool but I don't think it's worth it for the walking dead.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Sounds like this will be a good debate. Zombies were just a pop culture example of something that doesn't kill everyone, but ends society as we know in in a type of doomsday; yet the wrong contender would argue if the world ends instantly in a true doomsday, nothing matters at all...
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 1 year ago
No worries pro, looking forward to it! To clarify for Ragnar, I'm assuming this debate will be over preparing for the hypothetical case, although most likely within the boundaries of reality. "Zombie survival" may or may not be on the minds of many when they prepare, although it might be a part of it. I'm preparing to defend against arguments for preparing in general, aside from what would be considered normal food stocking, weapons training, and first aid and outdoorsmanship. Hope that clears it up a bit!
Posted by Jacob60rt 1 year ago
Sorry con I have little battery power and I will have to reconvene in the morning
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
To avoid semantics, please clarify your meaning; like that it would include zombies, as opposed to asteroid hits and we're all dead anyway.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro: conduct to Con. Of the arguments presented, Con's were stronger and better supported. Con cited the only sources.