The Instigator
surpy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
I_Troll_You_So
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,382 times Debate No: 23792
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

surpy

Pro

1st round acceptance.

Clarification:
Pro: must say why it is NOT possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

Con: must say why it is possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
surpy

Pro

Let's get this party started then.

1) Definitions
Possible: "that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc."[1]
Human race: "all of the living human inhabitants of the earth"[2]
Extinct: "no longer in existence; that has ended or died out"[3]
After: "later in time than"[4]
Nuclear war: "A war in which nuclear weapons are used by both sides"[5]

These definitions help by stating that the resolution means, all living humans can not die out following a war with nuclear weapons.

2) Main points

A) Not enough nuclear weapons in the world
Here are some numbers for you.
Biggest nuclear bomb that we know of is the Tsar Bomba[6], which has a blast radius of 35km.[7] So now lets find the area which can be found by A=(pi)*R^2[8] and we find that the area is 3,848.451km^2. Now lets take the surface area of the earth which is 510,072,000 km^2[9], now lets find out how many it takes by dividing the surface area of the earth by the area of the bomb which is 132,539.5594 nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth in one attack. But does the world have enough well according to FAS.org or Federation of American Scientists, they say that there are only 19,000 roughly[10] Well you can do the math here and say that we don't have 132,539.5594 Tsar Bombas in the world. By this it is possible to survive a nuclear war due to not enough nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth all in one attack to guarantee extinction.

B) Space provides shelters human race chance to survive
Now, I can just throw old policy cards at you of people saying things about surviving in space, or I can just say common sense which is a lot easier, but if you argue no sources then I will bring them out for round 2. When Europeans discovered America they provided more room for humans to grow, space has a lot of room for colonization. Although Americas space program is not growing other corporations are developing their space programs, such as Space X. Humans can start to colonize space and reduce the chance of extinction.

3) Conclusion
Because there are not enough nuclear bombs to cover the entire earth there is still a chance for humans to survive a nuclear war, sure it will be bad but there will still be humans alive. If something bad does happen then humans can always go out into space. For these reasons I ask you to vote for Pro. Thank you for reading and good luck to my opponent.

Sites:
[1] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] = http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[6] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] = http://www.mathgoodies.com...
[9] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] = http://www.fas.org...
I_Troll_You_So

Con

No.

Your first argument is silly. You calculate how many Tsar Bombas would need to be detonated in order to cover the Earth. You are using the total surface area of the Earth, which includes oceans, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water in which human life does not exist. Therefore, your calculations are about 70% too high. Furthermore, the knowledge many nations have concerning nuclear weapons is speculative and not concrete; I feel there is no need to cite anything here...

You define the human race as "all of the living human inhabitants of the earth". If humans were to be sent into space, (you do not say where in space humans will be sent; taking into account your argument regarding colonization, I will assume that you mean human life will continue on another planet), they would no longer be considered a part of the "human race", as they will no longer be living on Earth.

Lastly, your argument is that it is impossible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war. From my discernment, you are arguing that it is improbable for human life to continue it's existence after a nuclear war, and personally, I agree with you; you fail, however, to argue why it is totally impossible.

This is my first post on this cite, so please forgive me if I improperly followed appropriate formatting of any kind. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
surpy

Pro

The reasoning I used the entire earth surface area, is because humans can be in a plane or on a boat out in the ocean. To prove total extinction the entire earth must be covered with nuclear weapons. If all the nuclear bombs hit land then humans can be out in the ocean and still survive and prove that the human race can not become extinct. Just to help everyone, I will do the same math but with the surface area of the land for earth which is 148,940,000km^2 so now we divide it by 3,848.451 and I get about 38,705 tsar bombas which is still more nuclear bombs that the world has according to the federation of American scientists. The number of nuclear bombs a country has is kept secret, but you also have to keep in mind that not every country is making tsar bombas, a lot of them are much smaller so if there is more than 19,000 than the majority of those bombs are much smaller than the Tsar Bomba. Although this if your first argument on this website, the voting for the winner is split into different categories each worth an amount of points and one is for having facts or so, which is why I cited so many things.

I shall withdraw my space argument because I agree with my opponent that I contradicted myself with the definition of human race. There is no need to beat a dead horse.

By me saying there is a chance for the human race to live after a nuclear war is saying that it is not possible. For it to be possible is for nuclear weapons to cover the entire earth and to make a yes, the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war. But I am saying that no, because there are not enough nuclear bombs in the world the human race can survive by going somewhere that is not being hit by a nuclear bomb. So I still prove that the human race can not go extinct after a nuclear war.

My opponent has not stated that the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war. My opponent did not state any facts to say, "yes the human race will go extinct after a nuclear war." Because I have defended my biggest argument which was that there is not enough nuclear bombs to assure total human extinction therefore it is not possible for the human race to become extinct after a nuclear war. I ask you to vote Pro.

Try looking up some other debates to understand how things work, it might help.
I_Troll_You_So

Con

I_Troll_You_So forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
surpy

Pro

I am sad to say that my opponent's account has been closed and can no longer debate this round. I have a feeling that someone in policy might take what I said about the number of nuclear bombs and use it and I would be okay with that.
I_Troll_You_So

Con

I_Troll_You_So forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
I_Troll_You_So

Con

I_Troll_You_So forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by martianshark 5 years ago
martianshark
Con's first post was impressive. I think he's got this.
Posted by SuperiorArsenal 5 years ago
SuperiorArsenal
Approaches for Pro:
We will go extinct before we have a nuclear war
We will go extinct during a nuclear war
Humanity will reach immortality before we face extinction

Approaches for Con:
We could go extinct from the aftermath of a nuclear war
We could go extinct from an event unrelated to the war, but after it nonetheless

"You do realize that humanity has, collectively, enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth multiple times over, right?"

Define "destroy the Earth"
Destroy humanity? Maybe once.
Literally destroy the Earth? Hell no.

We barely have the combined nuclear arsenal of hundreds of megatons, maybe 1 gigaton. It takes ZETTATONS (Yes, it is real) of energy to destroy a planet.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Pro run abunch of policy cards - humans survive nuke war!! but those cards suck lol
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I feel like pro is going to play semantics with his/her own resolution...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I feel like Pro has some trick up his sleeve...
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
You do realize that humanity has, collectively, enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth multiple times over, right?
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
why does this need a 5 round debate?
Posted by caveat 5 years ago
caveat
Semantically, Pro should have to prove that it is impossible for the human race to become extinct due to >anything< after a nuclear war :P
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Nuclear war then earth destroying meteor equals extinction.
No votes have been placed for this debate.