The Instigator
ZivWonders
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Is nuclear war the right solution for overpopulation?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,261 times Debate No: 55362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

ZivWonders

Pro

Nuclear war can be a solution for overpopulation. The earth can be very similar to the human body, wherein each human is a cell. If cells increase in number abnormally, it leads to cancer. If there is overpopulation, economic crisis can occur. So if radiation therapy is considered to be a cure, then nuclear war can be considered too, as a corresponding solution for overpopulation.
Zarroette

Con

I’d like to thank ZivWonders for the opportunity to debate this topic.

Part of this debate involves presuming that overpopulation is happening, and that it is something undesirable. My opponent has failed to provide any evidence for either, and thus continues to hold the burden of the proof on both fronts.

Murder is not morally permissible

In Kantian deontology, according to the categorical imperative, murder is wrong. I’m no P.H.D on the subject, but I think this basic explanation of Kant’s reasoning is sufficient for public debate.

To begin with, murder does not have universality. What this means is that if everyone were to murder all the time, the world would be in serious trouble. A somewhat irony of this is that this debate has reducing the world’s population, and so all these killings would not seem to be a problem. However, I’m sure the unease of looming death and bloodshed would make this undesirable, especially if there are other methods available to reach the goal of depopulation, which I will get to later. Therefore, due to murder being undesirable, it is morally wrong to commit murder.

Secondly, humans are being treated as a means to an end, in this circumstance (the ‘end’ being depopulation). To treat someone as a subjective end is to steal freedom from them. However, there is a contradiction in this, as to deny someone of freedom is to deny his/her ability to act morally; it is only when we are free to choose between what is right and wrong that we can choose morally. You are preventing someone from acting morally, which is immoral.

Lastly, a truly autonomous individual would not lower the importance of moral duty below any subjective desire.

If you are unpersuaded by my interpretation of Kant’s moral framework (not that murder is permissible in other moral frameworks, it’s just that I think Kant’s is one of the best), then let’s now assume murder is acceptable, so long as the consequences are beneficial (i.e. overpopulation is worse than murdering many people).

Nuclear radiation is horrific

Nuclear radiation is exceedingly taxing on human life. In terms of ending human life, if that can be excused, there are better courses of action. The non-death results of nuclear radiation are: hair loss, seizures, destruction of the thyroid, increase susceptibility to infection (for up to 10 years), and increase the long-term risk for leukaemia, lymphoma and sterility (although, the latter might not be a bad thing, considering the context) [1].

Alternative methods of depopulation are vastly superior

In Japan, the country’s overall population in declining [2]. This is due to a culture of not wanting to romantically associate with the opposite gender. Whilst encouraging such a culture may be harmful, if overpopulation will lead to seriously catastrophic results (my opponent has yet to show probably cause), then perhaps breeding this culture is more desirable than the devastating effects of nuclear war.

China’s One Child Policy is even more humane, in that the country simply allows a family to have only one child [3]. There are no horrific effects from radiation, no suppression of the human’s spirit for involvement with the opposite gender. Rather than put a human through the misery of a painful end, why not prevent them from existing in the first place? Would that not be good?

Counter-argument: In response to radiation therapy

Firstly, humans are not individual “cell[s]”. Humans have the capacity to think and feel, whilst the individual cell lack this capacity. Radiation therapy decimates cells, and has to be performed very carefully, so as to minimise damage [4]. Notice the word ‘minimise’, meaning that even under ideal circumstances, there is still undesired damaged. To allow this kind of damage occur to a human, as my opponent's analogy suggests, would be inhumane. Also, the chaos of a nuclear war does not quite harbour the same level of controlled result that radiation therapy usually has.

Counter-argument: “Economic crisis can occur”

So can great happiness and prosperity. Excuse me whilst I ignore my burden of proof.

References/sources

[1] http://www.atomicarchive.com...

[2] http://www.japantimes.co.jp...

[3]http://www.americanthinker.com...

[4] http://www.cancer.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
ZivWonders

Pro

ZivWonders forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Pro has completely failed to address my counter-arguments. Hence, they are to be extended.
Debate Round No. 2
ZivWonders

Pro

ZivWonders forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Cassie wonders what happened to ZivWonders.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
ZivWonders has betrayed the cause of the Nuclear Illuminati by failing to respond to this debate. Shame!
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
You could have kept your condescending thoughts to yourself, instead of writing them out.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You, could have just typed in extended, instead of writing basically a paragraph.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Zarroette, are you insinuating you're my fiance?
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Is that how you talk to your fianc"?
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Excuse me?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Seeing as how you know what redtube is. I know what you do when you're not on DDO.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I prefer youjizz to redtube
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Keep your Redtube material off of my debates, thanks.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I imagine it would involve a leather cat suit, a whip, and some sort of medieval torture device ;)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
ZivWondersZarroetteTied
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
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ZivWondersZarroetteTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
ZivWondersZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
ZivWondersZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture