Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide
Debate Rounds (3)
First off, please define "times of genocide".
Second off, please define "mass graves". Note: If you define it as ANY form of disposing of the bodies, then the debate will be effectively impossible for me to win, and is basically pointless to win.
Third off, please define "efficient". What type(s) of efficiecy are we looking for here? Monetary? Sanitary? Spatial?
Fourth off, am I correct in that we're assuming that genocide exists, and are merely trying to deal with its effects (namely, the bodies of thousands-milions-billions of mostly-innocents) in the best way? Because arguing against genocide versus for a different kind of disposal are very different things, one of which is rather easier than the other.
stored somewhere, which is significantly larger and will only increase as the number of people increases.
2C2. Labor: Cremation requires only putting the bodies in, turning on, and taking the ash out. Mass graves require digging a massive hole, getting each body there, pushing each body in, and
filling over the whole site.
2C3. Cost: The cost of one one-person cremation machine and one, say, backhoe are relatively equivalent, at anywhere from $10,000-100,000. No real ground either way. But with cremation, you only need one machine (preferable scaled upwards, perhaps 1052 or however many the local train can carry in 1 car) that can be reused, while in mass graves you need many machines and a way to transport the bodies, while you are also taking land out of agricultural use for quite awhile.
2C4. Energy: It's probably more energy efficient to dig holes than cremate in the short run. But as the size of the trench increases, the energy necessary gets increasingly larger, as you need to dig deeper and take land out of potential agricultural use. Besides, instead of needing to shoot/gas/kill the innocents, you can just soundproof the chamber and burn them inside it, saving on time and labor.
2C5. Secrecy: A gigantic mass grave is going to attract attention. Another smokestack? No. Do you really want the populace/UN to know about your war crimes?
This debate did not have enough time to grow. I take blame for not setting up this debate properly, and I wish I could restart this debate and have a full blown debate. Thank you for accepting the debate regardless.
"It is also less time consuming than taking one body at a time and putting it inside a cremating unit. Even if there were multiple cremating units, you would will still need to put one body at a time and put them in the units[.]"
Again: Upsize the cremating units, and you can get much more efficiency. It does not need to be on an individual basis any more than a bulldozer does. Because neither of us has really quantified this debate, it's impossile to vote on this issue either way.
"... keeping in mind that each unit is expensive. Is a bulldozer expensive? Sure, but for one huge, or even two or three big holes, it is less expensive because you are only going to have a couple machines for the digging. You will have multiple machines with cremation. Multiple cremation units themselves, and you will need transportation for the bodies as well."
First off, reapply upsizing.
Second off, reapply the cost of removing land from use.
Third off, reapply the cost-saving of being able to just burn them alive, saving on bullets.
Fourth off, apply the cost of needing security to keep the site secret, while cremation saves.
"You will also need to consider that if we have cremation units, you will need someone to operate it, so there is a labor cost."
Roughly comparable, I think. No real way to weigh between them.
"You will also need to consider a maintenance cost, because every machine that anyone has ever owned has broken down or needed new parts. This also includes cleaning the cremation units after a while. You need a proper cleaning to keep a proper temperature and an even cremation, and a quick one, and I can personally testify that they need to be clean for proper use."
Yes. Heavy equipment also needs maintenence and repair.
"This debate did not have enough time to grow. I take blame for not setting up this debate properly, and I wish I could restart this debate and have a full blown debate. Thank you for accepting the debate regardless."
It's fine, I guess, but why did you bring up this debate topic in the first place? Genocide is just a bit of an interesting topic to talk about.
You're going to vote Neg/Con/Against on this issue, because I am winning on the Size issue, on the Energy issue, and on the Secrecy issue, while my opponent has only contested the Cost and Labor issues, which don't flow either way in a major way. As such, I am winning on some issues while my opponent is winning on none, and we will not support mass graves in times of genocide.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitions were pretty bad, but con didn't contest, instead con just outplayed pro at his own game. I am convinced by con's logic, and impressed that con could pull it off despite pro's attempts to create a biased debate.
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.