The Instigator
Ozzyhead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Mass graves are efficient in times of genocide

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...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 54571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Ozzyhead

Pro

I will argue that mass graves are efficient
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I accept.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Ozzyhead

Pro

Time's of genocide is defined as any ruler, most likely a dictator, committing acts of genocide. Genocide being a killing of a large sum of people for some reason or another having something in common with each other. Mass graves is defined as putting dead bodies inside the same burial ground after their execution. Efficient meaning it is both cost, labor, and space effective. It is not impossible to win this debate. Simply try to say and defend another kind of disposal of bodies that is more efficient than simply burying all the dead people.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

2C1. Size: Cremation takes effectively no space, other than the machinery, because the disintegrated parts are merely a pile of dust. Whereas with mass graves you need to have the whole body

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?
Debate Round No. 2
Ozzyhead

Pro

With improved technology, removing ground and refilling it is not as expensive or labor intensive. 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, 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. 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. 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.
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.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
Whether genocide is right or wrong is not the resolution. Ozzyhead may have even chose to word the title that way so that an opponent spends most his time debating about genocide instead of mass grave efficiency.

Don't let your anger of genocide blind you to being noob sniped.
Posted by papadoi1 3 years ago
papadoi1
Do you take genocide for granted and then looking for the best ways to expose the bodies?

Crimes at the scale of genocide can hardly be accepted by any rational human being. Why worry what they do with the dead? I mean, these people shouldn't be dead in the first place.
Posted by papadoi1 3 years ago
papadoi1
Do you take genocide for granted and then looking for the best ways to expose the bodies?

Crimes at the scale of genocide can hardly be accepted by any rational human being. Why worry what they do with the dead? I mean, these people shouldn't be dead in the first place.
Posted by Bandhu 3 years ago
Bandhu
Can you give more perimeters? For instance:
1) Mass graves are the most efficient way to dispose of dead bodies during genocide.
or
2) Mass graves are more efficient than xyz method.
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
Mass Graves are efficient. Why else would they be used? It's even more efficient then trying to cremate that many people.
Posted by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
Don't hold back. I will not report you. I will in fact encourage profane and personal attacks. I won't be profane toward anyone, even if someone is profane to me.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I would love to take this, but I think it might invite severely negative judgement if I did.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
OzzyheadFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
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.