Eastern Europeans Should be Purged
Debate Rounds (4)
- Full resolution: Eastern Europeans Should be Purged.
-72 Hour argument period.
-10,000 character max.
-Due to the nature of this debate, there is 3500 minimum ELO requirement for voters.
-Whoever takes the position of "Con", will be arguing that Eastern Europeans should not be purged.
-Round one acceptance.
-Round two opening argument[s]
-Round three rebuttals.
-Round four closing argument[s]
a. Remove (a group of people considered undesirable) from an organization or place in an abrupt or violent way.
-By "Eastern Europeans" I mean the general populace living in Eastern Europe--all countries within this geographical location will apply.
-Note that I will not be arguing for removal from the E.U or anything alike, but rather an actual purge as according to the definition above that I've provided.
Thanks to stargate for accepting this debate and good luck! I look forward to reading your opening arguments. As specified in round one, both Con and I will share the BoP. It's on me to *show* that Eastern Europeans [I.E, those situated in the region of Eastern Europe] and provide valid reasons for this. Likewise, Con is to show that there should not be such a purge and that there would be no viable justification[s] for it--as well as addressing and rebutting all of my points.
Also note that I do not personally advocate such a purge and this debate does not reflect my own individual views. Rather, I am arguing from a purely impartial perspective. Likewise I advise any potential voters to base their decision on arguments only--and select who outlined best case.
C1) Population Control
This is perhaps the primary benefit to a purge of those in Eastern Europe. The world population currently stands at seven billion and is expected to reach a massive eleven billion by 2100. Thus meaning that the planet has become wholly overpopulated. The full "effects" of overpopulation includes degradation of the in environment--which is primarily induced by overuse of oil, gas and other natural substances, as well as rise in unemployment and an increased high cost of living. With the population set to expand by another four billion in only eighty-five years, it's apparent that these issues are to become a significantly large problem for the planet. Essentially, the world can simply not harbor such vast numbers of people without having more rapid environmental damage or further increase in unemployment/higher cost of living, etc. As of yet there has been no clear plan put in place to control the planet's population or at least limit the numbers that are adding to it.
If there was to be a "purge", it would provide a solution in dealing with this huge growth and decreasing it.
C2) Poverty in Eastern Europe
Now I will highlight precisely how population control relates to Eastern Europe and why a purge of a general populace should take place there. It should come as no surprise that poverty in Eastern Europe has been an issue, both before and after communism. On the contrary to improving at the rate that it should do, poverty has a remained and in fact deepened in many parts of the region. Which is hence why people from Eastern Europe make up one of the largest immigrant groups and have migrated in large numbers to western Europe and other more economically advanced areas of the world. This large-scale migration has obviously prevented Eastern European countries actually developing financially, due to the fact that their inhabitants have found jobs elsewhere and are thus not paying into the economy. The corruption of Eastern Europe governments has also played a large part in why some countries within the region have shown such poor growth.
The top ten most poorest countries in Europe, are in fact all Eastern European. With Moldova being ranked number one, the Republic of Kosovo number two, and Ukraine number three. Other countries in the list include Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This amount of poverty without doubt leads to a lot of suffering in Eastern Europe, particularly in the very most poorest areas which are often rural. Homelessness and lack of food are primary concerns--and is again what has led to the mass increase of Eastern European migrants into western countries such as the U.K, a place that has struggled to support the amount coming in.
So, this provides just another reason why a purge could be beneficial. For starters it would decrease the amount of poverty in Eastern as well as the number of migrants that are so poor, they essentially have no where else to go and are forced into asylum. The population figures in countries such as the U.K and Germany [two places that attract the largest number of Eastern Europeans] would also become less; thus serving as another benefit in terms of money and housing.
The method this purge would involve the use of nuclear, thus making it a very quick and easy process. The Eastern European countries that would be hit are be the top 10 most poorest and Poland, and the specific target places would naturally be those in rural areas as again, this is where the poverty generally is. More well-developed areas like cities and capitals would not be a part of the purge--as again, one of the primary reasons for such a genocide is the poorness that exists within these region. At least 1 million would be killed.
Instead of prolonged suffering [which is usually the case with attacks on general populace and genocides] this purge would kill targeted civilians immediately--as well as being a very clean and easy way to orchestrate the attack.
Now over to Con.
First off let me say that I would not be completely against a purge. But going about it in this way, is just wrong on so many levels. If you really needed a purge it should only kill those who did something wrong. Such as Criminals, or corrupt goverment officals.
First of for one it is just moraly wrong. If you did this then it would kill millions, if not billions for no good reason. Think about it if you did this, then people would start to turn on you. They would think that they would be the next ones on your hit list. That in it's self would start a major war. On top of all of that you would be killing everyone in East Europe, that means the woman, the men, and the kids.
Second many of those countries are in allances. So if you did do that then, they would be a war world 3 afterwords. Some of those counties that you would kil off are in a allance with the USA. That allance is called NATO, so after you killed those people you would be faceing off aginst the USA, and western euopean powers. On top of that China would enter the war due to you attackin Russia. So if you did this the world, might be trown into a nuclear war. So if that happened then there would be no winners.
Third it would cuase major distrust within you own people. Many would see you as the next hitler. So they would try to stop you in every way possable. So you would be killing your own people to future your own agenda. Now yes you might have a ok reason, but doing that would make you no better then mass murders, or dictators. The world would also fall into choas, people would be schoked and they would want reveage on the one who did this.
So yes it my be a good or great reason, but it would not save the world. In fact I think it would be the cuase of our downfall.
Rather ironically Con begins his argument by stating that he would not actually be "completely" against a purge, which clearly contradicts his position. It's on Con in this debate to argue exclusively against what I'm proposing--not perhaps support it a little or acknowledge that it could be beneficial for society; which affirms my argument.
Additionally, saying that an all-out purge would "be wrong on so many levels" isn't providing an objective reason as to why it should not take place. Whether the purge is morally right or wrong is irrelevant to the debate, and Con is required to argue from an impartial standpoint and outline valid reasons for against.
In my opening argument, for example, I listed population control--and the positive impacts a decrease in population would have on the environment, as well as poverty in Eastern Europe and the prevalence it has in certain countries/areas. Which [as stated] would be the ones "purged" and hit by nuclear bombing. Instead of actually presenting an opening argument of his own, Con has pretty much moved straight to rebuttals, which are specifically meant for round two and clarified as so in the debate premise. Anyway, I'll continue with my own rebuttals.
Con further states that in deploying nuclear bombs in the eleven countries I've listed [the top ten most poorest and Poland] that I'll somehow "be killing everyone in Eastern Europe", which of course wouldn't be the case. Eastern Europe is an extremely large region with millions of people living within its borders, so the entire Eastern European populace would not be killed. Especially those from countries which aren't included the eleven that I've specified. It is primarily the poorest areas of the region, and mainly those in rural parts, that would receive the nuclear bombing. More well-developed Eastern European countries such as Russia are not in the list. Admittedly men, women and children would be killed, but this is again *only* in the places that would be directly hit.
Cons best point so far is that these countries [though he originally misunderstood exactly what countries I meant] are in alliances with certain nations, and that their nuclear bombing would essentially warrant an all out war between NATO. However, because these particular countries would not be directly threatened themselves it's unlikely that they would proceed to take any real action in the wake of such bombings. After the attacks would be committed, it would be made explicitly known that no other countries would be faced with nuclear and the bombings themselves were a one-off, made not to invite any war or conflict between nations. The price of using more nuclear and then it escalating into a full-scale conflict [in which billions could be killed] would be a good enough deterrent for most nations in not taking any severe action. Once more, the places targeted would not be important or key economic areas but merely populated parts of the countryside and exclusively poor areas. Con mistakenly states that that Russia would be attacked with this nuclear, though as I've demonstrated in this argument, they would be formally excluded.
Now regarding Cons third point about causing major distrust among the people, this is again invalid--as is the comparison with Hitler. Mainly because the attacks would be an an extremely quick process, and not something that is gradually built up over time through dictatorship and propaganda. No other bombings, whether nuclear or otherwise, would be proposed either before or after these specific attacks and this would absolutely not be part of an organized plan to oppress people and/or minorities. Rather, we are merely talking about a purge of a population that is deepened in poverty.
Con concludes his argument by saying that it [my contention] may be "a good or great reason", which as I've argued in the beginning of this round, more or less affirms my case.
One of her aguements is about population control. Now what she is saying is that the population of the world is becomeing to large. Now yes that is somewhat true, but humanity always finds a way to live, and thrive. We are not going to die out due to population increases, it is only natural. The world has become a bigger place in a sense. We have started to reach out around the world, we buy and sell different products. Humanity haa been expanding across the world, and it has to happen. The population increase is due just natural. Also killing people in eastern europe may help things in the short term, but the world population would still increase. Humans can easily reproduce, and that is a fact. There is no way to stop us reproduceing, it is just a way of life.
Now he brings up a point about the proverty levels in eastern europe. He says that they are way to high, hurts all of europe. Yes proverty is a major problem in some nations, but it is also in many other nations. We should not kill them off just because we can. It might help us in the the short term, but in the long term people would look down on us for mass killings. Also some of those nations are in the EU or other Organisations. Those people in those countries would hate us afterwards. Also aren't we better then that? Has humanity fallen to a new low, would you kill other humans without a second thought just for your own personal gain. Yes economies might go up, but the better option would be to stop given them money, or kick them out of the EU. Also there are tons of other poor nations, most nations are third would countries not major developed nations. So if that happened then say by to most of Aficia, most of Asia, and parts of Central, and South America. This would just be one more step to the mass killing of millions. If that happened what could happen to the poor in your country, who knows maybe the next step is puting them in front of a execution squad. How would you feel if that was your country.
Now the method she said is just plain evil. She would want to use nucks to kill them nice and fast. She also said that it would only be in the rural areas. Now you know nucks kills everyone there, but there is a catch, nucks give off radiation. This raditation would spread, now usually that should not be to big of a problem. But you are saying to nuck large areas of land, and that is in the rural areas. For one most rivers and other bodies of water are in such rural areas. So if that happened, then you cou'd no longer drink water from that water supply. Also any wildelife in those areas would contain radiation. This would make it so you can not eat them. Also again sense your plan would need a large amount of nucks to go off, the radiation would spread in the country to cities due to air currents. Also it could spread to other countries. Also it would cost a lot more to do this, then you would have gained from doing it.
Now I will try to defend what I said.
When I said it would start a war I did not mean the countries you attacked. By then those countries would be long gone. I ment the radiation could spread into other nations, such as Russia. So they might declare war just on that. But if you did that then I am amount prostive you would be at war with Russia soon. For one Russia has been more aggressive as of late. They would not take it to kindly if you landed a bunch of nucks in Ukraine, or Serbia. Russians also help Serbia, and they back up Ukrainian rebles, Russia has been helping those rebles. So attacking Ukraine would mean war with Russia, and if Russia attacks you then most likely Chinia will join Russia. Also there would be the public backlash if you did such a action. They would worry about their kids future, and they would fear for their well been. Many all ready stand strongly against nucks being used. If you used it in that way then you would be at war with many different countries. Also you people would start to fear you, now yes you would do that for a good reason, but they might not look to kindly with a sudden million people dieing just like that.
I said you would be at war with Nato, now maybe not Nato but you would be attacked by someone, and now a days everyone has some sort of ally. Also with Russia most likely they would attack. Also I ask how international organisations would reposd to this. People have not seen nucks lanch like that sence ww 2, and some what the cold war. The world has changed and that simply would not be allowed to happen. Someone somewhere would stand against you, and once you did that they would respond in kind.
Now I hope you understand, and I shall stand by what I said. No matter how good your reasoning is, someone somewhere will attack you in kind. Also the stress between the poor, and the middle class, and the rich would worsen. Once that happens there would be no turning back form that one point. History would see that as a mass killing of the poor.
Now back to you pro
Emilrose forfeited this round.
Ok there would also be another major promblem is you nuck eastern Europe. The people who are poor, are the ones who are the backbone of every nations economey. If you kill of the poor then those nations economeies would fall, into even more choas then it allready was. Plus if you use nucks to kill them more then just the poor would die. For one radiation would spread to the cities. Once thay happenes most humans would in those countries would die. Plus once that happened every can not eat avything made in that country for years. Those countries would be wiped off of the map if you nucked them the way you want to. If you nuck them it would hurt every country that used to trade with them.
Now this was a great debate, I wonder who won.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Pro because Con had noticeable spelling errors such as "morality", "allances", and "nucks". Sources go to Pro for providing sources. Con even conceded in the comments that he got ideas from another user without citing. Pro loses in conduct for forfeiting the last round, thus breaking the rules that she made in round 1. Arguments go to Pro because she effectively refuted Con's round 2 rebuttal, which wasn't a good rebuttal because most of Con's points in round 2 were irrelevant. Con even conceded to Pro's points at the end of round 2. Although Con finally picks himself up in round 3, making a good point about the harms of radiation on the environment, he ended up getting off track. He said: "The world has changed and that simply would not be allowed to happen. Someone somewhere would stand against you, and once you did that they would respond in kind", which is irrelevant to the resolution. Overall, his comeback wasn't strong enough to win him the arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.