The Instigator
Geekis_Khan
Pro (for)
Winning
80 Points
The Contender
HadenQuinlan
Con (against)
Losing
64 Points

People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,762 times Debate No: 3624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (40)

 

Geekis_Khan

Pro

First, I'd like to ask that people vote off of better argumentation, rather than what they personally believe think, even if the PRO seems a bit totalitarian.

AIDS is a big epidemic, yet we still have no cure. So, what is the best way to eliminate the disease? Complete eradication.

Contentions:
1.) By shooting people with AIDS into the space, we will almost completely get rid off the disease. Of course, it will still lurk in the dark corners and such, but for the most part, people will no longer have to live in fear. Of course, we'll have to figure out who has AIDS first, so we'll have to test everyone for AIDS. Those who turn up positive will be shot up straight into space. Then, they need to stay clean for five years, at which point everyone will be tested again. This method keeps the AIDS epidemic to a minimum, thsus keeping society much more efficient.

2.) Since any cure is a long way off, it is cost-effective to build a series of simple rocket ships to launch our infected into space, rather than suffer the long-term costs of trying to find a cure or trying to keep these people with AIDS alive. Building enough rockets to simply get these people into orbit wouldn't be that expensive in the long-term. We don't even have to make it so they have a living space inside. They're going to wind up being space debris anyway, so we can save even more money by simply strapping the infected to the outside of the rocket and hitting the launch button. My opponent may try to argue that we can't waste fuel like that, but we must remember that if we keep these people alive, they'll just keep driving until they die of natural causes, consuming more and more fuel. Imagine if we can put two hundred or more people on a one-time use rocket that only needs to reach space. The fuel that that would take compared to the fuel it would take to allow these people to keep driving for the rest of their lives is extremely small. The economic benefits clearly lie with the PRO.

3.) The world is overpopulated as it is. By performing this genocide, we greatly reduce this problem. My opponent might argue that AIDS actually helps people die, being a disease, and so it helps to reduce the problem of world population. But we must remember, AIDS doesn't kill anyone, it simply makes potential diseases worse. However, someone sitting around with AIDS might never get sick. By launching them into space, we are assuring their death. Furthermore, more diseases would have to be a real borderline between deadly and not deadly in order for AIDS to make enough of a difference to significantly decrease the world's population. For example, if I have AIDS and cancer, I will die. If I have just cancer, I will die. But, if I have AIDS and a sore throat, I probably won't die, as AIDS wouldn't be sufficient enough to make this more common illness fatal.

4.) This provides much more of an incentive for safe-sex. People obviously don't care as much about getting STDs as they should. By making getting AIDS punishable by death, people will have a much greater incentive to practice safe-sex, thus reducing the outbreak of other STDs and also further helping the overpopulation problem by resulting in fewer pregnancies.

5.) The PRO also helps to fight heroin addiction. You can also get AIDS through a dirty needle. A junky will think twice about shooting up if he knows that if he accidentally contracts AIDS, he will die as soon as the government finds out. This measure against AIDS is also a huge step in the War on Drugs.

Thank you.
HadenQuinlan

Con

Before I begin I'd like to thank my opponent, Geekis_Khan for starting this debate. Also, I agree entirely on the point he makes about better argumentation. It is necessary to judge not off of personal opinion, but on debating skills.

I'd like to point out that the resolution does not imply a single country, not does it give a specific demographic of AIDS infection persons to be launched in space - so I'll base my case around the fact that the AIDS epidemic is a world-wide issue, and therefore when the resolution says, "people" it means people internationally.

Formalities out of the way, I'll simply refute my opponent's points points before outlining my own.

1R. My opponent says that we will nearly eradicate the AIDS virus by sending everyone off into space. This is simple-minded thinking, but not necessarily wrong. However, because this solution is not a complete one (as he has agreed) we must examine the negative effects of it before we make any other judgement. Keep in mind that because this is not a complete solution, the negative effects tend to weigh more than if it was a complete and total solution. Also, my opponent points out that we would need to test everyone for aids. According to, http://www.census.gov..., there are "6,661,364,777" people currently alive. http://www.census.gov... details the fact that there are "4.2 births every second". So keep in in mind that's 4 infants that need to be tested every second, and 6.7 billion that need to be tested right away. A plan on this magnitude is simply not manageable. The economic drain of testing every single person in the world will require such a massive collaborative effort it would channel millions of dollars that are already being spent searching for a cure for AIDS. Now the money sent searching for a cure is simply being spent looking for the virus. That's hardly an efficient use of resources. There's also the fact that many citizens who have contracted the AIDS virus would be unwilling to be strapped to rockets, causing violent political and social revolutions in order to ensure their safety, thus destabilizing the governmental authority in almost, if not every area this plan is implemented in. As you can see, this plan is ludicrous because of the magnitude it requires, as well as the fact that it would be met with such a hostile response.

2R. "it is cost-effective to build a series of simple rocket ships to launch our infected into space" Let's examine the cost of a rocket in depth, to see if it really is cost effective. According to, "http://www.nasa.gov...; a space shuttle: "cost approximately $1.7 billion". Besides this staggering number, there is also the fact that each launch costs, "about $450 million per mission." The only way this plan could be implemented is if the shuttles held a large amount of people. The amount of people being able to be held within the actual orbiter (the passenger section) is around 20, whereas there's a much larger amount that are able to be strapped to the outside. http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov... gives specific measurements of these aircraft, giving around 1,000 feet^2 to allocate for human usage. Assuming the average man is 5.5 feet, that's approximately 182 people able to be carried on one spaceship. Add the 20 inside and you get 202 persons per 2bil+ launch. That's hardly cost efficient! Besides this, there are currently 32.8 million people in Africa alone infected with the AIDS virus. Just to ship the AIDS victims in Africa it would take 162,376 space ship launches. Ignore the cost of buying the ship, and just add up the cost of launching the ship. That cost comes to around, "73,069,306,930,693" dollars. As you can clearly see, "cost effective" is not the right word to use in this situation. Also, remember that that's just the cost for Africa alone. There are also over a million HIV patients in the United States itself. http://money.howstuffworks.com... lists the total US currency value at around 6trillion, which would bring the cost of liberating Africa of it's AIDS victims to: 73068706930693. Hardly a change. As you can see, this plan is so economically detrimental that it would cripple the entire world economy if it were to be implimented for just one continent, regardless of all the other 6 continents.

3R. My opponent argues that AIDS helps to fight overpopulation - however the countries most severely inflicted by the AIDS epidemic are not facing overpopulation. In fact, Africa, the continent hit the hardest by AIDS would be facing underpopulation. The result of this would be a clusterf*** of small factions, moreso than there is now, warring amongst each other for the control of small territories. In a society so ravaged by ethnic conflict, instituting a plan of this magnitude would reduce Africa beyond 3rd world and backwards through all the progress being made by the Red Cross, UN and other peace organizations to end up in larger ethnic and tribal conflict than now. This lull in population would allow rebel-factions to grasp even more control than they have now, and it would truly disrupt any peaceful negotiation that has taken place.

4R. Getting AIDS is not a crime, sleeping with someone who is infected without your knowing is not your fault. It is simply ludicrous to assume that punishing a disease by death (when it's already highly likely to cause death within the next few years) is ridiculous and should not even be considered. AIDS could instead be prevented by instituting a higher tax for those with AIDS. There are many other ways to prevent the spread of AIDS without blasting all AIDS infected people into space.

5R. My opponent's 5th contention is much like the 4th. The fact is, a junkie already knows that heroin is illegal and he is likely to contract AIDS. He still shoots up. The death penalty for this is no incentive to a junkie anymore than jail is.

Now that I have addressed my opponent's points, I'd like to briefly move on to my own:

1) Shooting AIDS victims into space is not economically efficient. As I addressed above, the cost for launching JUST AFRICA into space would be around: 73,069,306,930,693. This is ridiculous to consider, as the United States only has around 6trillion in the federal reserve. The fact is, the only way to possibly accomodate this would be to cripple the world economy, disrupt
the value of money, it simply cannot be done with the current economic balance.

2) Killing off over 40 million people worldwide would be considered genocide. The moral implications that arise are gigantic at the very least. The United States, a country which is helping to stop genocide amongst African communites would be supporting a far larger genocide by funding such an immoral plan. The AIDS epidemic is a large problem, but it is not endangering the survival of the human race. The lack of this risk shows that there can be no justification for committing genocide.

As you can see - my opponent is trying to advocate the launching of over 40 million AIDS infected humans into space. We must run a full cost-benefit analysis, and we see that the only benefits can be achieved by this solution are non-unique almost nonexistant benefits that can be achieved cheaper and more easily. The costs though, are tremendous and are unique only to this problem. This is the only AIDS solution that involves genocide and cripples the entire world economy entirely. Such a solution cannot logically be passed, and it is your job as logical judges, at this point in the debate, to vote Con.

Thanks,

~HQ
Debate Round No. 1
Geekis_Khan

Pro

My opponent has missed the point entirely.

First, I'll refute his two contentions before rebuilding my five contentions.

1R.) First of all, he's doing this math based on surface area of the rocket and common cargo hold. We must remember that this ship will have no return mission, so we can obviously forgo some of the inside machinery for that for more cargo space. Moreover, it is entirely possible that people can be stacked on top of one another on the rocket, perhaps even four layers deep, thus dramatically increasing efficiency and decreasing costs. And remember, we don't have to make it safe: we don't expect them to survive. So, we could make this mound of humans even deeper by disregarding safety precautions. Furthermore, it is possible to erect a huge pole on the end of the rocket on which to put even more people on. All of this would dramatically cut costs! Of course, I am unable to actually predict on these costs, as we no tests of this nature have occurred. Also, this money spent on the rocket simply goes right back into the economy. Think about the huge economic boom to the steel industry! I will get to the costs that it saves the world when I rebuild my own case.

2R.) This entire contention is about morality. He has given no reason why genocide is morally wrong. In order to win this point, my opponent must prove that morality objectively exists. This is an impossible thing to prove, so the PRO should automatically win this point.

Back into my case:

1.) In his refutation he's talking about a scenario in which we are constantly screening everyone for AIDS. This is not what I proposed. I proposed doing an initial test with everyone that we can (obviously, no plan is perfect, and some people will fall through the cracks), and then sending the first launch into space. Then doing a repeat in five years. Surely, the AIDS rate will have dropped by then, and will probably be so low that we only need to do one repeat of this plan. Also, in his brith rate, he's also ignoring the death rate of 1.8 per second(http://www.census.gov...), which brings the world growth rate to 2.4 per second. Since his attack is based on false assumptions, you must disregard it. Also, he makes the argument that this will undermine the authority of governments. But we're only killing 40 million people. There are 6.7 billion people in the world. This not a big enough percentage to possibly be able to destabilize the governments of the world! Furthermore, rebellion will obviously be put down with some good old fashion Stalinism. After this plan is put in place, the stability will be even greater than it was before. We are simply protecting the vast majority at the cost of the small minority. It's simple Utilitarianism.

2.) I already told you how we can cut costs with the whole rocket scheme. Now, look at the costs we'll save. First, an average person consumes 1835 kilograms of oil per year (http://www.worldmapper.org...). multiply this by the 40 million people that my parent says are affected infected with AIDS, and we have 73,400,000,000 kilograms of fuel used by the infected per year. Right there, we have a good reason to do this plan, as the world supply of oil is running out quickly, and this will provide us with more than seventy billion kilograms of extra oil per year. Now, looking at money. There are about 8.5 kilograms of oil in a barrel, meaning we'd be saving about 8,635,294,117.65 barrels per year. Multiply this by the current world price for oil per barrel of about $112.21 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...), and we save an amazing $968,966,352,941.18 per year. Now, multiply this number by five, since this plan will be introduced roughly every five years (as I stated in my opening argument), and we get $4,844,831,764,705.88 We're saving four trillion dollars on average JUST IN OIL. And this isn't even talking about the huge reduction in pollution that would result from that much less fuel being used. Furthermore, this is without even touching on the amount of money that the AIDS epidemic is costing us. This is an ongoing cost that just keeps piling up more and more debt. Isn't it better to a smaller price now that to let this epidemic get any worse for our economy? We're also disregarding the amount of money it just takes to keep these people alive. Think about all that with the economic side of this debate. There are clearly more economic PROs than CONs, especially when you consider the solution I gave to cut costs on implementing this program.

3.) My opponent talks about Africa. First, since we are both Americans, and since Americans have never actually cared about Africa, this is irrelevant to the debate. But I'll refute this point anyway. First, I don't see how less people can possibly lead to more factionalism, as factions are made up of people. This argument is, first and foremost, a nonsequitur. Yes, Africa would face under population. AT FIRST. The reason that Africa is so under populated is because it is so heavily infected with AIDS. It discourages immigration and investment. Think about the huge influx of people into Africa when they learn about all of the new job opportunities and utter lack of AIDS! The continent will prosper! This new immigration will increase more capitlist investment, furthering Africa's economy, and ultimately bringing it into the first world. Now, you might say this is speculation, by my opponent's refutation of my original contention is entirely specualtion. Seeing as how my speculation is more logically-founded, I should win this point. My opponent's argument about Africa degrading in such a way is simply flawed.

4.) Of course having AIDS isn't a crime. NOW. That's the entire point of this debate. We're talking about making it a crime. Now, looking at the positives of punishing AIDS with death, we can clearly see a huge incentive to practice safe-sex. This is also a much greater incentive than that provided by the fines proposed by my opponent. Death is a bigger incentive than taxes.

5.) He says that the death penalty is no more of an incentive for a junky than jail is. But it is more of an incentive. Dying is a much hevaier loss than doing some time in prsion. And my opponent ignroes that now the junky will be risking BOTH. The bottom line is, people will do everything in their power to avoid getting AIDS if they know that the government will kill them.

I'd like to clsoe by pointing out that I have offered you five independent reasons to vote PRO. My opponent has only offered you two reasons to vote CON, one of which he cannot possibly prove. If I can uphold a greater number of contentions than he can, I should win this debate based off of a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Thank you.
HadenQuinlan

Con

Now - I'd like to take a switch here, so I'll point out what his been going on throughout the round for the clarification of the judges. My first argument was an argument revolving around why launching AIDS victims into space is, well, detrimental. However, it wasn't a strong argument, and there is a good reason for that. My 2nd contention, the one about morality, is one my opponent has refuted, however there's also a reason for that. You see, I agree that morality does not objectively exist, therefore killing off AIDS victims is fine. What does this lead me to?

We should not launch people with AIDS into space, because burning them in furnaces is economically better.

I gave the first speech in the manner I did, in order to get my opponent to essentially write a case for me. His case does not advocate specifically launching AIDS victims into space, only the benefits of killing off those AIDS victims. What I will do now, is show how my opponent's contentions support my own argument.

1) We're protecting the majority by killing the minority, as my opponent agrees. His first point is in full support of killing AIDS victims in a furnace.

2) This point is the one that there's the biggest discrepancy on. It's all about the economic benefits of slaying AIDS victims so let's look at the cost of launching AIDS victims into space:

73,069,306,930,693

Let's look at the cost of burning AIDS victims...

$3.389

All that is necessary in order to mass-kill AIDS victims is a single gallon of Gasoline to start the fire, and then perhaps more (if needed) to keep the fire going. With 40 million people to kill, there's a steady supply of kindling to be had, therefore there is no need for anything other than the materials required to start the fire. Matches and Gasoline. In fact, the gasoline is just added for fun. As my opponent has said, killing AIDS victims would save:

$4,844,831,764,705.88

We would also save the 73,069,306,930,693 from the alternate plan, as well as the thousands of gallons of gasoline required to launch space shuttles. This plan is clearly economically better.

3) As my opponent said, by helping cut overpopulation we'd only be beneficial - therefore you must examine the plan with the best economic values... burning AIDS victims.

4) Yes, burning AIDS victims would increase safe-sex practices.

5) Yes, burning AIDS victims would decrease use of heroin.

Now - I give you more reasons to vote Con.

A) It is more convenient to burn victims than to launch them into space. Simply look around you! Drive down the street and watch the side of the road. I'm sure there's a valley, a ditch, or even a deserted field which could easily be used as a burn site. As these burn sites require very little clearing work in order to operate, they could be mandated in a much larger range - cutting out the high expenses of shipping all of the AIDS victims to rocket launching facilities. With the launching of AIDS victims into space, we see a much larger amount of construction. The "furnace plan", as I will now address it as, requires little to no effort. The furnace plan can be enacted anywhere around the world, all it requires is a small area which can be constantly supplied, until the supply dries up, with AIDS victims. We see that launching the AIDS victims into space would be much more inconvenient because of the amount of travel and preparation required to undergo this plan. The furnace plan, however, is much more logical.

B) The furnace plan is logically better. This point is a summary of all previous points, all them add into this. Basically, the resolution implies by use of "should" that the Pro must have a larger benefit than the Con and Pro wins. Essentially, the winner of this debate will be decided as whichever plan has the most beneficial effect on society. As you can clearly see, my opponent has given 5 points which work for my own case, and 0 that work for solely his own, whereas I've given 5 points which work for both cases, and 1 that works for my own. So at this point in the debate, we see that as I have more contentions than He, because of the fact that my side employs a much more beneficial and realistic solution, and because the logic used by my side of the case is clearly superior, you must vote Con.

Thank you,

~HQ
Debate Round No. 2
Geekis_Khan

Pro

First of all, I'd like to point out that the cost of my plan that he is giving you is not taking into account all the budget cuts I gave you in Round 2.

I'd also like to clarify that since I'll have no opportunity to refute his Round 3 arugment, he should focus solely on showing why my arguments against his plan don't matter. HE CANNOT MAKE CHANGES TO HIS INITIAL PLAN.

First off, he's telling you that we're saving the money of getting people to launch sites. But we're still transporting people to the burn sites! We're using just as much resources in travel in both plans, so you can drop this point.

Furthermore, it's going to take a lot more than one gallon of gasoline to maintain this fire. It is unfeasible that we can keep this fire going with just more AIDS victims. It will inevitably take more fuel, whether it be gasoline or wood, both of which are resources that we shouldn't be wasting.

Moreover, his plan of simply burning people in fields does not take into account wheather. If it is raining or snowing or windy, this plan obviously won't work. We would have to build facilities for this plan, which would bring the economic costs up much higher.

Furthermore, this is not a fool-proof plan. This creates a lot of burned debris that isn't good for anything, so ultimately it's just taking up space in this overpopulated world. My plan outsources all waste products to space. Also, his plan does not take into account people escaping from the fire. If someone manages to escape from this field, then they'll have a vendetta against society, and spend all of their time spreading AIDS to everyone else. This will of course mean that the majority of society will wind up with AIDS, meaning we'll have to constantly burn more an dmore people, leading to more waste, more economic problems, and severe underpopulation.

My plan does not risk people escaping, as you can't escape from a spaceship. (NOTE: Possible escapes during the in-between period when people are being transported to the launch/burn sites have equal probability in both plans. Since my plan has the advantage at the actual site, PRO clearly wins this point.)

Moreover, even if you want to argue that CON won the economic point (which he didn't), it's still worth the cost. Why? Fun. It's a lot more fun to launch people into space than to light a match. Furthermore,t he people strapped to the outside of the rocket will obviously burn up in the atmosphere, giving us the fun of both plans. All we need to do is to design a camera to attach to the outside of the roket that will transmit the signal back to earth in order to view people burning. So, since the PRO plan is way more fun than the CON plan, you can disregard any minor economic differences.

The PRO has clearly won this debate.

(And to anwer the comment about bullets: this would create a huge excess of disease-ridden corpses that we don't want to deal with. Besides, shooting someone when they're helpless isn't that fun. Launching them into space when they're strapped to the outside of a rocket sure as Hell is.)
HadenQuinlan

Con

My opponent stated, "First of all, I'd like to point out that the cost of my plan that he is giving you is not taking into account all the budget cuts I gave you in Round 2." In fact, I did. Your plan would cost over 73 trillion, but save 4 trillion. Whereas my plan would save the 4trillion, and not spend the 73 trillion. Clearly a better plan.

" HE CANNOT MAKE CHANGES TO HIS INITIAL PLAN." If by initial you mean "furnaces" that's fine.

"First off, he's telling you that we're saving the money of getting people to launch sites. But we're still transporting people to the burn sites! We're using just as much resources in travel in both plans, so you can drop this point. "

No, we aren't. As I stated in my A) contention, any burn site can be used. The fact is there are limited launch centers in the world, however a ditch can be found almost, if not anywhere on the planet. This point is clearly won for the CON.

"Furthermore, it's going to take a lot more than one gallon of gasoline to maintain this fire. It is unfeasible that we can keep this fire going with just more AIDS victims. It will inevitably take more fuel, whether it be gasoline or wood, both of which are resources that we shouldn't be wasting."

It isn't a single fire, it is not unfeasible because human fuel will be maintained provided that there are victims to keep constant supply. However, I agree it may sometimes be necessary to refuel. So let's say the average fire, which can be done anywhere so most of them will take several planks of wood. This is irrelevant, because the people who are being burnt will have their clothes are tinder. This is enough to sustain the burn till the next group can be burned. So there's only a gallon of gasoline and several planks of wood. As m opponent will agree, if we're saving millions of gallons of gasoline by instituting htis plan, we can sacrifice several gallons. If this plan is saving gasoline, it's not wasting it. This point is foolish, as he discounts the information he gave of the gasoline benefit.

"Moreover, his plan of simply burning people in fields does not take into account wheather. If it is raining or snowing or windy, this plan obviously won't work. We would have to build facilities for this plan, which would bring the economic costs up much higher."

Is it so unrealistic to simply wait a day or two for the weather to clear? Obviously not, the counterpoint my opponent presents is unfounded and ridiculous, as he completely skips the most logical assumption to go to a far-fetched one. He is skewing my words to try and add ridiculous notions to my case in order to make his seem more plausible. See through this trickery, my case is still better.

"Furthermore, this is not a fool-proof plan. This creates a lot of burned debris that isn't good for anything, so ultimately it's just taking up space in this overpopulated world. My plan outsources all waste products to space. "

I wasn't aware ashes were contributing to overpopulation. Oh wait, they aren't. This point is unfounded, especially because nobody wants to live in a ditch, so there's no excess space being taken up.

"Also, his plan does not take into account people escaping from the fire. If someone manages to escape from this field, then they'll have a vendetta against society, and spend all of their time spreading AIDS to everyone else. This will of course mean that the majority of society will wind up with AIDS, meaning we'll have to constantly burn more an dmore people, leading to more waste, more economic problems, and severe underpopulation."

My opponent gives a far-fetched scenario, but this scenario isn't singular to my plan. A person escaping from a launch site is just as probable. Because my plan institutes smaller groups being burned at a time, it's easier to control. With 400+ people raging to escape, the chances of a rebellion are high. You can clearly see that by my plan enacting smaller sites to execute the victims, it eliminates this escape from accuring. As you can see, this point is a wash because there are equal escape harms on both sides.

"Moreover, even if you want to argue that CON won the economic point (which he didn't), it's still worth the cost. Why? Fun. It's a lot more fun to launch people into space than to light a match. Furthermore,t he people strapped to the outside of the rocket will obviously burn up in the atmosphere, giving us the fun of both plans. All we need to do is to design a camera to attach to the outside of the roket that will transmit the signal back to earth in order to view people burning. So, since the PRO plan is way more fun than the CON plan, you can disregard any minor economic differences."

The camera would burn up also. We must also take practicality into account - people burning do not burn at extremely high rates of movement. We get to enjoy all of them writhing in pain and agony clearly, in front of our own eyes. So if it is possible to design a camera that is intense heat resistant, we must also take into account that this camera will be traveling at extremely high speeds, causing us to only be able to view the victims in a frame-by-frame video. This poor quality removes the fun, and would inspire anger in weak technology. Let's say that we create the improbable heat resistant camera, and excel past the frame-by-frame problem. There's also the fact that the burnings are easy to observe IN PERSON. As anyone can agree, it is clearly more fun to watch something in person than to view it in crappy frames from a television. You can clearly see, CON has won the fun point.

Let's summarize the round, shall we?

We have both given 5 points supporting our cases. These points are agreed upon by both debaters, however one of these points clearly supports the CON side of the argument. Therefore, there are now 5 points for CON, 4 for PRO. I have also given one point which clearly supports my own side, while it refutes my opponents. My opponent failed to address the bulk of this point, so I'd like to extend it. This gives me 6 points, and PRO 4. So if the above point, the one about fun is won by PRO, this still gives me 6 to his 5. However, the above point was NOT won by PRO. This gives CON 7 points and PRO 4. Also, keep in mind the weight of the arguments. The 4 points PRO has won are universal arguments we have both won, while the other 3 I have won are only CON points.

With the round over, I urge the judges to make the best decision. As you can clearly see, I offer a distinct reason why you should vote CON: My plan logically makes more sense, it offers better economic benefits, better convenience, and overall is more fun. I urge you, the good frequenters of www.debate.org, to vote CON.

Thank you for an exciting round,

~HQ
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
GWRAAAAAAA

WHAT THE F*CK?
Posted by jackleripper 9 years ago
jackleripper
I did it for the sake of keeping it a tie, not cuz he asked. I also liked his economic logic, using presentable facts.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Please tell me you tied it because you thought he made a better case, not because he wanted you to. :)

Actually, I think we both agreed that these joke ones should be tied, since we neither of us want a loss from a stupid thing like this on our records.
Posted by jackleripper 9 years ago
jackleripper
yay, i tied it again. and i apparently need to make my comment longer too post. let's try it again.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
I love you Haden.

Let's do another fun topic soon. K?
Posted by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
WHY

ARE

YOU

WINNING

GAHHHH

someone vote for me
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
I was. If you read the comments, we admitted that this was satire. We were just friends that wanted to do a joke debate.

Still, you can't prove that it's morally wrong. :)
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
Am I the only one who finds it funny thatt he person with a Netzsche Icon is the one arguing against this concept.

Still, wow, I hope the pro was joking.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
A well-reasoned and intelligent debate, if I may say so. However, weighing up the arguments pro and con, I have come to the conclusion that I can vote for neither shooting victims into space or burning them, as the carbon emissions from either scheme would be very damaging to the environment.

I am very concerned about climate change and strongly believe we should be working with nature, not against it. Therefore, I would suggest a more varied solution, taking advantage of locally available natural resources.

For example, victims in Hawaii could be thrown into the craters of active volcanoes, victims in California could be thrown into the cracks in the Earth's crust created by the San Andreas fault, victims in New Orleans should be made to stay indoors and wait for the next hurricane to arrive, etc.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
But I still want to shoot stuff into space!
40 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 really lost it with the economics argument. Con had clearly calculated the economic viability of finding all the people with AIDS, putting them on the Space Shuttle and launching them. Pro's response was to put poles on the Shuttle (like that is going to work) and have some sort of a magic rocket that can take anyone into space. Pro's proposal while mildly humorous at first did not stand up to Con's rebuttals.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by marin24 8 years ago
marin24
Geekis_KhanHadenQuinlanTied
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