The Instigator
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Post Nuclear War Survival

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Korashk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,439 times Debate No: 10381
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Korashk

Con

This is an assignment that I got as school yesterday that I thought would be a good subject for a debate. So here it is.

The Situation:
Three days ago, nuclear war broke out around the world with massive attacks in all heavily populated areas. For the first 24 hours, radio broadcasts reported tremendous damage and loss of life in all areas, including the total annihilation of most of the earth's population.
For the past 48 hours there have been no broadcasts. Fortunately, the people listed below were able to reach a fallout shelter in time to take cover and survived the initial devastation. You must assume that those in the shelter are the only survivors on Earth.
Here is the dilemma: there are 12 people in the fallout shelter, but there is not enough food, water, and other supplies to keep them alive until the atmosphere is safe. To survive, the people must stay inside the fallout shelter for at least three months. The problem is that if all of them stay in the shelter, all of them will starve to death or die of dehydration. There are supplies enough to only allow 7 of the 12 people to survive.
Your task is to decide, based only on the information given, which people will be allowed to remain, and which people will be required to leave. We will assume that those who are selected to leave will do so peacefully. At issue is the survival of humans. The bottom line is that if human beings are to repopulate the Earth, such re-population will begin with those survivors chosen by you.

The Choices:
James Stanley [M]
Age: 43
IQ: 112
Health: Good
Education/Training: 2 yrs college, 2 yrs military
Work Experience: 15 yrs farming

Gerald White [M]
Age: 35
IQ: 98
Health: Fair
Education/Training: High School Diploma
Work Experience: 4 yrs army infantry, 10 yrs construction laborer

Janie Stanley [F]
Age: 13
IQ: 120
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: 8th Grader
Work Experience: None

Martha Gray [F]
Age: 25
IQ: 142
Health: Good
Education/Training: PhD in Music Theory
Work Experience: 2 yrs teaching collage

Wanda Brice [F]
Age: 50
IQ: 140
Health: Fair
Education/Training: Master's Degree Psychology
Work Experience: 15 yrs mental health case-worker, 10 yrs director of mental health counseling services

William Gray [M]
Age: 8
IQ: 150
Health: Good
Education/Training: 3rd Grader
Work Experience: None

Bill Waters [M]
Age: 27
IQ: 104
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: Tech school graduate
Work Experience: 10 years heavy construction and welding

John Davis [M]
Age: 33
IQ: 125
Health: Fair
Education/Training: College degree - Chemistry
Work Experience: 12 years high school chemistry teacher

Michelle Patterson [F]
Age: 19
IQ: 105
Health: Fair
Education/Training: High School diploma
Work Experience: 3 yrs retail

Marjorie Blaylock [F]
Age: 39
IQ: 133
Health: Poor
Education/Training: Medical school graduate
Work Experience: 10 yrs general family medical practice

Ray Wilson [M]
Age: 69
IQ: 127
Health: Good
Education/Training: 4 yrs college, business major
Work Experience: 10 yrs bank teller, 20 yes bank president

Fred Frederick [M]
Age: 54
IQ: 132
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: Highly trained in electronics
Work Experience: 25 yrs U.S. Navy electronics technician, 10 yrs private electronics repair

Additional rules:
1.) The Contender must choose a team that differs from the Instigator's by at least three individuals.

2.) Both sides must give explanations as to why they chose their 7.

3.) In addition to choosing 7 individuals both sides mush state the individual that they would take over all others and the least able individual. Explain reasons for these choices and they must differ from the Instigator's.

4.) Round 1 will be for choosing your team only.

5.) Round 2 will be for explaining your 7 choices and explaining who you would choose over everyone and who you would never take. Do not post rebuttals in round 2.

6.) The rest of the rounds will be for refuting your opponent's choices and defending your own against rebuttal

To clarify, in the end there will be 8 people in the shelter, you and your 7 choices. You should not accept this debate if you do not agree to the above rules.

My Team:
1.) James Stanley
2.) Janie Stanley
3.) Martha Gray
4.) William Gray
5.) Bill Waters
6.) Marjorie Blaylock
7.) Fred Frederick
johngriswald

Pro

1. James Stanley - M - 43 - 112
2. Janie Stanley - F - 13 - 120
3. Martha Gray - F - 25 - 142
4. William Gray - M - 8 - 150
5. Michelle Patterson - F - 105
6. Wanda Brice - F - 140
7. Me - M - 21 - 138 - 2 years of college education
Debate Round No. 1
Korashk

Con

Thanks for accepting the debate John. I look forward to it.

1.) James Stanley
James is a good choice because of his military experience and life as a farmer. He may be 43 years old but that is young enough to sire children. He is also in good health. Most of the use that would come from this individual would be after the radiation from the fallout clears and we can find land able to bear crops.

2.) Janie Stanley
Janie was chosen because she is young enough to be taught how to survive in a post-apocalyptic
society. This is evidenced by her relatively high IQ. There is also the fact that at the age of 13 she is probably able to have children which helps to alleviate the population problem. Once the group is out of the shelter she will be the one of the most able people within 10 years.

3.) Martha Gray
From the information provided we do not see much that would make Martha useful but she is only 25 years old and a PhD. Being 25 there is no reason to suspect that she is unable to have children. Her degree also will be useful if this hypothetical group is prosperous enough to begin rebuilding society as music is one of the cornerstones of culture. She could also help the others with grunt work when doing nothing else, this point applies to all of my choices.

4.) William Gray
William is the future of this ragtag group. He will be taught everything about the fields of expertise known by the others and will likely absorb this information like a sponge. According to his IQ he should be able to learn easily. there is also the fact that he has the most opportunity to reproduce because of his youth.

5.) Bill Waters
Honestly, Bill is one of the best candidates for admittance to the shelter. He is fairly young, addressing the reproductive angle, he's in excellent health which means strength, and he knows a lot about construction and welding. If you couple this with his degree from a tech school he is arguably the most useful person on my list.

6.) Marjorie Blaylock
Marjorie is a doctor. This fact alone gets her a spot because she was the only one who has any extensive medical training. She's also only 39 and can quite possibly still bear children

7.) Fred Frederick
This is the man that could contend with Bill Waters for the Apocalyptic MVP. He is an expert in the field of electronics and has extensive experience with the military. He is in excellent health and it is not unheard of for a man in his 50s to be able to sire children.

If I could only choose one:
This person would be Janie Stanley. I consider myself fairly able in survival situations and the simple fact that the point of choosing members is to repopulate the earth makes her the best candidate. There is similar potential in a few other female choices, but this potential is greatest in her.

The one who is least able:
Ray Wilson mainly because of his age. A 69 year old man would likely be unable to produce children. There is also the fact that he lacks known skills that are essential for survival. All he has under his belt is a major in business and experience working at and running a bank. Both of these would eventually be useful skills, but that would most likely occur hundreds of years down the line.
johngriswald

Pro

This is an unusual and excellent debate, and thanks a lot for making it.

1. James Stanley - Pros - He's on good health, he knows a lot about modern agriculture which is very important, he can reproduce, He's of superior intelligence. As a bonus he has some college education. Furthermore he also has a child, so he would be best suited to raise that child. Furthermore sending the child to his death would cause problems with the father, sending the father to his death would cause problems with the son. Best to keep them together.

2. Janie Stanley - Janie has a good father, is of "very superior" intelligence, is in excellent condition, and will be able to produce for years to come. While she doesn't have the knowledge that some do, basic 8th grade knowledge is sometimes a lost art on many who haven't been in school for a number of years

3. Martha Gray - prime and ready for mating, has a genius IQ so children will be born with bearing higher intelligence. Has experience teaching which will come important as she can teach new children. Also has a cultural background in music that could be lost/forgotten. Also has a son that she can mother and take care of.

4. William Gray - he may only be 8 years old but he has good health, and is of a genius IQ, plus he knows how to read and write. Also he's only 8 years old but he has the education of a 11-12 year old. With this apparent appetite for knowledge he can easily excel in the new world and learn things faster than others. He is also young and will be able to reproduce for a much longer time than the others. Plus he has a smart mother.

5. Michelle Patterson, she's of average intelligence, in decent shape, and is able to reproduce for a very long time. Reproductive capabilities are extremely important starting out. She's also a female, and you can have one man for many females.

6. Wanda Brice, she's a genius, in good shape, has a track record of helping people with problems and always knows how to clear up any fight. A real key asset to any team. Also she can still reproduce for a year if she's average possibly more. Yeah we might only get one kid out of her, but he should be very intelligent and mirror some of the traits of his mother. The average age for menopause is age 51

7. Me - I'm a male, I'm of very superior intelligence, I obviously have the charisma skills to lead this group. I inspire hope in the group, and can reproduce for a long time.

MVP - If I had to choose one I would choose myself. There's obviously something about me that causes people to unite around me. I'm young and can lead for a very long time. I have great physical strength which will be very important as some tasks will require a lot of muscle.

The one who is least able: John Davis the last person I would want surviving a nuclear holocaust is someone who has knowledge of building a nuclear bomb. Perhaps he lost some family members in the fight and wants to build one to attack his enemies. Knowledge of how to build this weapon is something I cannot afford to have in the new world.
Debate Round No. 2
Korashk

Con

Due to a typo on my part johngriswald will be adding Ray Wilson to his list of survivors.

======
Rebuttals
======

Michelle Patterson:
Michelle is a bad choice for a few reasons, first of all she is only of fair health, of the levels of health listed, (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor), fair is hardly the best that a 19 year old could be. Her intelligence, while not below average, is not high as other potential members that actually have known skills that are useful for survival. She is also 19 years old with no college education which suggests that she takes little initiative which is not good in a survival situation. She also is too old to be easily taught while too young and skill-less to be of much overall use to the group for anything other than reproductive purposes.

Wanda Brice:
Wanda's health could be better; as stated above fair is the second lowest listed health level, couple that with the fact that she is fairly old for reproduction there is a high chance that without a doctor giving birth would kill her and/or her child. Also simply because a parent is of high intelligence does not mean that the child will be and the observation that her child will mirror her aptitudes is merely speculative. She may be a psychiatrist, but that is a title that is not respected by many members of society. My opponent mentions that she has a track record of helping people with problems, I do not see proof of this as mental health case workers work with the mentally handicapped.

Ray Wilson:
I cannot think of a reason in favor of Ray Wilson that would outweigh his many cons. First of all he is a 69 year old man and it is highly unlikely that he could produce children, if at all healthy, as after the age of 40 men typically have fertility problems and their offspring have a significantly higher chance of being born with birth defects. As a business major in college and only known to work at a bank his skill-set is less than desirable in a survival situation.

Most Able:
Due to my opponent choosing himself I cannot really argue against his choice. I have no idea what his areas of expertise are or what he is good at. I will instead offer alternatives that would be better. For instance Fred Frederick knows a great deal about electronics and would be able to repair an abundance of items left after the devastation, if you couple that with his military experience and health he could potentially be of much greater use than you. Another alternative would be Bill Waters as he is at a prime age to reproduce, has a degree from a tech school, and likely knows how to build shelter based upon his 10 years of experience in the construction and welding fields. I also submit my own choice for this category as argument against his choice.

Least Able:
My opponent chose John Davis for this category for reasons unknown to me. The reasons that he gave were also completely absurd. Having a degree in chemistry and working as a high school chemistry teacher hardly qualify a person for the fabrication of nuclear weapons. Even if we were to assume that he had the ability to build a nuclear weapon where would he find the means to make one. Also the situation forces the survivors to assume that they are the only people left on the planet, unless some of the other people in this shelter are his enemies, his enemies are all dead and there are easier ways to kill a small group than with a nuke.

As a closing statement I take issue with some of my opponent's justifications for his #1-4 choices. Nowhere does it say that these people are related and if my opponent is operating on the assumption that they are this severely limits the reproductive gene pool.

I look forward to my opponent's responses and belatedly thank him for accepting the open debate challenge.
johngriswald

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response and wish him luck in the last round.

I will also be adding Bill Waters to my team. Now I know what many of you readers are thinking, but there are only enough supplies for 7 people and yourself? Why is this fool suggesting that a 9th team member stay when there are only enough supplies for 8? Well ladies and gentlemen let explain my resourcefulness.

My opponent came up with the idiotic idea to "which people will be required to leave. We will assume that those who are selected to leave will do so peacefully. At issue is the survival of humans."

However, I have no intention of having anyone leave. Therefore my team will kill and eat the following people:
1. Fred Frederick
2. Majorie Blaylock
3. Gerald White

To adequately feed Bill Waters for three months.

Thus my team will consist of 9 people with a confident leader while my opponent's team will consist of only 8 people and will be a team picked by someone who has no confidence in himself to lead the group.

The Differences between his team and mine:

1. My opponent has one less person
2. My opponent has Fred Frederick, and Majorie Blaylock, and Himself
While I have Wanda Brice, Michael Patterson and Me.
3. My leader is a 20 year old man, his leader is a 13 year old girl
4. My teammates aren't stupid enough to waste meat.

-----Why I am better and more capable than both Fred Frederick, Majorie Blaylock and My Opponent -----

1. I am stronger than all three of them put together. (Fred Frederick a man past his prime, Majorie Blaylock a weak woman in poor health, and my opponent who is so weak that he actually believes a 13 year old girl (Janie Stanley) to be more capable of leading this band.

2. I am more confident and better looking than all three of them. Fred (an old man no way beats a 20 year old man in the prime of his life), Majorie (a fat middle aged woman) and my opponent (who is so under-confident in himself that he fails to give any description of himself which is obviously indicative of bad looks and a lack of confidence)

3. I am more healthy than all of them my health is above excellent. Fred's is only excellent, Majorie's is poor, and my opponent's health obviously can't be too good if he doesn't have the energy to type a description of himself.

4. I am more intelligent then all of them. My IQ is 138 (as stated in R1). Fred's is only 132, Majorie's is only 133, and my opponent's cannot be much higher than 110 if he chose a 13 year old child to lead the group instead of himself.

5. I am younger and can procreate more than both Majorie and Fred, and since I have more confidence than my opponent I can easily mate with more females than my opponent making my reproductive capacity the most superior

6. I have more/superior education than all of them. Fred never specifies a college education neither does my opponent and that just leaves Majorie. Now seemingly Majorie is very educated having gone through Med school. However I object. Look at Majorie's health for a measure of her abilities as a healer. Having poor health but supposedly having lots of education in the medical field. It doesn't add up. Thus I am labeling Majorie's education as being an inferior one. After all, if you can't heal yourself who can you heal?

------Why Wanda Brice is better and more capable than both Fred Frederick, Majorie Blaylock and My Opponent -----

1. Wanda Brice is more intelligent than all of the three differences. She has an IQ of 140. Fred's is only 132, Majorie's is only 133, and my opponent's cannot be much higher than 110 if he chose a 13 year old child to lead the group instead of himself.

2. Wanda is more healthy than Majorie
Wanda is fair, while Majorie's is poor.

3. Wanda is more caring and is a better Peace maker
In desperate times fights occur, people need mental healing. Who can do that job? Not someone who experience only in electronics (which consequentially won't be utilized for quite some time) (Fred) Not someone who thinks a 13 year old girl is a better leader than him (my opponent) and not some quack of a doctor who can't even heal herself (Majorie). Wanda is far superior

I have clearly shown both myself and Wanda to be far superior to my opponent's choices, while I don't have room for Michael Patterson, she is a female in decent shape and has great reproductive capabilities.

Having shown both myself and Wanda to be superior choices than any of the three of my opponents choices, plus the fact that I have an extra player clearly gives my team a solid advantage. Not to mention we are led by an intelligent and confident leader.

Most Capable: My opponent didn't pick himself and instead picked a 13 year old girl. Obviously I am superior to Janie in terms of health, IQ, leadership, physical strength etc. There is no argument or doubt. Not to mention I was picked by someone as confident as I am, myself. My opponent doesn't even have confidence in himself. How plausible is it that we should have confidence in one of his choices?

Least Capable:
John Davis - He's only in fair health, he has knowledge of how to make an atomic bomb, and he's older. Furthermore he's a male and will only provide competition with the true leader of the group, myself. One thing I don't want in my new world is even the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon. My opponent tells me to assume that we are the only survivors on earth. However my group is smart. We know that if you assume, you only make an AS_S out of U and ME. We will take no chances that the knowledge of how to make an atom bomb will survive.

"Nowhere does it say that these people are related and if my opponent is operating on the assumption that they are this severely limits the reproductive gene pool."

Of course it does not explicitly say the two groups are related but seriously it stands only to basic reason and logic, a trait which my opponent clearly does not possess which is another reason my group is superior. The situation assumes that 12 people "were able to reach a fallout shelter in time" meaning that there was a rush and the people in the shelter live right next to each other. Furthermore the IQ's of the children and their parents are closely related for reason. It only stands to basic logic that those who have the same last name live in the same house and thus are related/ father/daughter mother/son relationships.

Yes this limits the gene pool, however as you can see, which is why it is important that I have an extra player and only enhances my standing.

To conclude: I have proven my choices to be vastly superior, my group has more people, My leader (person who picked the group) is superior, intelligent, confident, strong, healthy, and young. My opponent (who picked the group) is not confident in himself, and shows a lack of basic logic and reasoning skills when looked in conjunction with the fact that he picked a 13 year old his leader suggests that his mental state might not be particularly well-put together. Thus my group was picked by someone far more capable.
Debate Round No. 3
Korashk

Con

Rebuttals and Defense:

"I will also be adding Bill Waters to my team. Now I know what many of you readers are thinking, but there are only enough supplies for 7 people and yourself? Why is this fool suggesting that a 9th team member stay when there are only enough supplies for 8? Well ladies and gentlemen let explain my resourcefulness."

[Another Issue that I take with this is the entire allowance of Bill Waters to the group. In the original post it states: "To clarify, in the end there will be 8 people in the shelter, you and your 7 choices. You should not accept this debate if you do not agree to the above rules." 9 people is more than 8 people and a violation of the agreed upon rules.]

~~~

"My opponent came up with the idiotic idea to "which people will be required to leave. We will assume that those who are selected to leave will do so peacefully. At issue is the survival of humans."
However, I have no intention of having anyone leave. Therefore my team will kill and eat the following people:
1. Fred Frederick
2. Majorie Blaylock
3. Gerald White
To adequately feed Bill Waters for three months."

[I take issue with a few things in this statement. First, I did not come up with this argument, it was a school assignment that I thought would make a good debate. Second, because a person will leave peacefully does not mean that they will consent to being cannibalized. Let's take Gerald White as an example, this man served in an army infantry for 4 years, this would make him one of the most difficult people of the 12 to kill against his will. There may not be a fight when the issue is leaving the shelter, but there will be a fight when a person suggests that the group eats you. My opponent also makes the assumption that the rest of his chosen group will stoop to cannibalism which is a very, very illogical assumption even in a survival situation.]

~~~

"1. I am stronger than all three of them put together. (Fred Frederick a man past his prime, Majorie Blaylock a weak woman in poor health, and my opponent who is so weak that he actually believes a 13 year old girl (Janie Stanley) to be more capable of leading this band.

2. I am more confident and better looking than all three of them. Fred (an old man no way beats a 20 year old man in the prime of his life), Majorie (a fat middle aged woman) and my opponent (who is so under-confident in himself that he fails to give any description of himself which is obviously indicative of bad looks and a lack of confidence)

3. I am more healthy than all of them my health is above excellent. Fred's is only excellent, Majorie's is poor, and my opponent's health obviously can't be too good if he doesn't have the energy to type a description of himself.

4. I am more intelligent then all of them. My IQ is 138 (as stated in R1). Fred's is only 132, Majorie's is only 133, and my opponent's cannot be much higher than 110 if he chose a 13 year old child to lead the group instead of himself.

5. I am younger and can procreate more than both Majorie and Fred, and since I have more confidence than my opponent I can easily mate with more females than my opponent making my reproductive capacity the most superior

6. I have more/superior education than all of them. Fred never specifies a college education neither does my opponent and that just leaves Majorie. Now seemingly Majorie is very educated having gone through Med school. However I object. Look at Majorie's health for a measure of her abilities as a healer. Having poor health but supposedly having lots of education in the medical field. It doesn't add up. Thus I am labeling Majorie's education as being an inferior one. After all, if you can't heal yourself who can you heal?"

[Since I find it hard to separate these statement into separate rebuttals I will lump them all together in a large one:
*First: All of the statements that my opponent makes about himself are unproven and should therefore be disregarded until proof is presented.
*Second: My opponent calls me weak, ugly, and states that I lack confidence which are all baseless personal attacks that I take offense to and have no bearing on the debate at hand. I am an Eagle Scout, a senior in high school with a GPA of 3.8, and according to the last IQ test that I took my IQ is 143. All of these statements are true and I know that, but without providing proof that they are true there is no reason for anyone to believe me. Which is why I did not state anything about myself.
*Third: Fred Frederick is in excellent health, and here is an example of a man who is in better health than I am [1]. Marjorie Blaylock's health could be caused by some sort of physical disability that is beyond her control such as a missing leg and it is incorrect to assume that she is weak (statement 1), fat (statement 2), or bad at her job (statement 6). I also say that if my opponent really is 21 with 2 years of college education then there is no credence to say that this is superior to a medical degree.]

~~~

"2. Wanda is more healthy than Majorie. Wanda is fair, while Majorie's is poor."

[I can't disagree with that but in Marjorie's case her known pros outweigh her potential cons.]

~~~

"3. Wanda is more caring and is a better Peace maker
In desperate times fights occur, people need mental healing. Who can do that job? Not someone who experience only in electronics (which consequentially won't be utilized for quite some time) (Fred) Not someone who thinks a 13 year old girl is a better leader than him (my opponent) and not some quack of a doctor who can't even heal herself (Majorie). Wanda is far superior."

[This is simply a restatement of my opponent's original claims and does nothing to refute my points against. Extend my argument against her from Round 3.]

~~~

"Having shown both myself and Wanda to be superior choices than any of the three of my opponents choices, plus the fact that I have an extra player clearly gives my team a solid advantage. Not to mention we are led by an intelligent and confident leader."

[My opponent has done nothing here but reuse an argument, and use absurd assumptions to try and prove his point.]

~~~

Due to a lack of remaining characters my argument continues where it left off here:

http://docs.google.com...

Sources:
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[2] http://www.facebook.com... (unfortunately you need to create a Facebook page to view the photos, for some reason my computer wouldn't upload pictures to a file-sharing server.)
johngriswald

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his excellent rebuttals and wish him luck.

"I take issue with a few things in this statement. First, I did not come up with this argument, it was a school assignment that I thought would make a good debate. Second, because a person will leave peacefully does not mean that they will consent to being cannibalized. Let's take Gerald White as an example, this man served in an army infantry for 4 years, this would make him one of the most difficult people of the 12 to kill against his will. There may not be a fight when the issue is leaving the shelter, but there will be a fight when a person suggests that the group eats you. My opponent also makes the assumption that the rest of his chosen group will stoop to cannibalism which is a very, very illogical assumption even in a survival situation"

It does not matter of who made up the argument, the point is that you agree with it and are allowing them to leave peacefully as you did not say otherwise in any of your rounds. My opponent also goes off the assumption that we would be killing these three people all at once. Definitely not. My opponent assumes that I have no cunning. Since I obviously have the charisma and leadership to decide who lives and who dies, it is easy to assume that the group will take things a step further and make use of all our resources instead of wasting them as my opponent suggests. First I would convince all 11 members to kill f Majorie Blaylock a weak and vulnerable woman in poor health. We would then kill Fred Frederick. Finally all of the members 9v1 could easily kill man who is only in fair condition and past his prime.

And to suggest that our group would stoop to canablism, if they are already stooping to sacrificing people for the common good of survival what makes you think they wouldn't take it a step further and not waste the resources available in order to save one more person. Its obvious that I control the group. Whatever I dictate would easily be followed. This debate operates under the assumption that I have the charisma to decide who lives and who dies. I am only taking the next logical step of using the most available resources while my opponent advocates killing them.

There is nothing in the rules against it, nor has my opponent brought up any reason why three people couldn't feed one man for a month. It also operates under the false assumption that everyone would eat the three dead humans. Only Bill would as it's his life that is being saved for it. Any human would eat anything to survive.

Numerous Examples in real life:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com...
http://www.foxnews.com...

The Donner Party
http://www.donnerpartydiary.com...

Numerous other examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Including even our founding fathers
http://www.history.org...
Now if Our Founding fathers resorted to cannibalism it is only right that we do it to.

"All of the statements that my opponent makes about himself are unproven and should therefore be disregarded until proof is presented."
*First

Points 2, 5, 6, were all deduced by simple logic and need no factual backing.

Point 1: I am stronger

Proof: http://i45.tinypic.com...
http://i45.tinypic.com...

Clearly I am built to overcome even the most capable to overcome a man who works mainly in electronics and is far past his physical prime.
"Blaylock's health could be caused by some sort of physical disability that is beyond her control such as a missing leg and it is incorrect to assume that she is weak"
Which lends only further credence to my claim that I could physically take her in a fight. I would simply kick out her fake leg and easily ghetto stomp her to death.

Furthermore my opponent hasn't even contended that he is stronger than me. Thus Point 1 stands.

Point 3: I am more healthy
Obvious by the picture

Point 4: I am more intelligent. Dropping even the IQ argument, it is obvious that I am most intelligent as I was chosen to pick the group thus implying I'm more intelligent than both Majorie and Fred. It also stands to reason that I am logically more intelligent than my opponent because I picked a capable man to lead the group instead of a weak and vulnerable 13 year old girl.

*Second - Nowhere did I make the attacks personal, they are clearly pertaining to the debate on which the intelligence, strength, confidence, and all qualities both me and my opponent play a very strong role (determine 1/3 of the victory). If you choose to take offense to any of them this is no fault of mine. Next, none of them are baseless and all of them have logical reasoning and backing from the limited evidence available. Unattractive and not confident because my opponent did not appoint himself the leader of the group nor gave a physical description of himself. Weak because he did not have the energy to type a description of himself.

Do not be swayed by baseless and false accusation. My opponent is clearly twisting my words to gain any advantage he can.

*Third - My opponent this statement confirms that his health is below excellent and gives us another reason that my t is superior

Furthermore my opponent makes a baseless assumption that health is determined upon physical disabilities instead of your actual health (freedom from illness or disease, eating habits and weight, mental health, injuries etc.). There are plenty of people who have physical disabilities and are considered to be in excellent health. Furthermore there is no evidence to lead us to believe that health is determined by physical disability.

"use absurd assumptions to try and prove his point."
What my opponent calls "absurd assumptions" I call making full use of the facts on hand and using reasonable logic to come to a conclusion.

"I interpreted it as meaning if you could only take one person who would you take."
Either interpretation only yields one logical answer, yourself. If you can only choose one person and everyone else is dead why on earth would you sacrifice yourself for someone else. Even if you assume you could impregnate someone before choosing them, it still would hinge on whether that person would have a child and whether that person could morally have incest a million times to repopulate the planet. Furthermore the gene pool would be so messed up that it would be virtually impossible.

I either situation of only choosing one person, I would choose myself. Why on earth would I sacrifice myself for someone else? Either interpretation only yields poor logic and reasoning on the part of my opponent.

"At least I have the objectiveness to realize that other people could possibly be better suited for leadership "
Clearly my opponent mistakes objectiveness for foolishness as he has no logical reason why a thirteen year old girl should be either the leader or the only one to live. Both interpretations use no reasoning or logic.

"The parameters of the debate do not ask you to make that assumption, it tells you that the assumption has been made."

And I'm saying that I'm not buying that assumption and preparing for a case where others survived as its most probable.

"In the phone book for my area there are 23 people with the last name Gray"

In this statement my opponent sticks by his earlier argument that they are not related. However he is foolish in doing so. Adding to my earlier argument: Does he seriously believe that an 8 and 13 year old both happened to reach the a nuclear bomb-shelter quickly without any parents or guidance? And that their IQ's both correlate to their suggested parents?

It is obvious that my opponent hasn't clearly thought out this situation, which again, points to his poor reasoning skills which proves that my team is picked by a more reasonable a
Debate Round No. 4
Korashk

Con

Rebuttals

"Now if Our Founding fathers resorted to cannibalism it is only right that we do it to." and everything above about cannibalism.

[It may be easy to assume that your proposed situation will come to pass, but to quote your round 3, "We know that if you assume, you only make an AS_S out of U and ME." People eating the dead described in first example, not killing for food. In the second example cannibalism was merely considered. The third example is also of eating the dead. The fourth is Wikipedia which is not a source, even if the information in the article is true find it somewhere else. The fifth example is also about eating the already dead. Eating those that are already dead is entirely different than killing for food. I would've acknowledged a source that described the murdering of a live individual for the purpose of eating for survival as evidence; none of my opponent's examples are depictive of what he describes doing. (My opponent also states that it is right to resort to cannibalism in this situation which is a claim entirely up to debate. I actually wouldn't mind having it.)]

~~~

"There is nothing in the rules against it, nor has my opponent brought up any reason why three people couldn't feed one man for a month. It also operates under the false assumption that everyone would eat the three dead humans. Only Bill would as it's his life that is being saved for it. Any human would eat anything to survive."

[The possibility for catching disease would be coupled with the fact that a person cannot survive on only meat for _3_ months [1]. There are other nutritional concerns that need to be taken into account such as the need for water. Drinking the drained blood of the bodies is also not an option because it takes an average of 42 days for blood to go bad [2], less if stored improperly. The storage of these bodies is also an issue as bodies take up a lot of space and fresh meat rots very fast. So in effect having a 9th member is not only against the rules but within the context of this debate impossible.]

~~~

"Clearly I am built to overcome even the most capable to overcome a man who works mainly in electronics and is far past his physical prime...Which lends only further credence to my claim that I could physically take her in a fight. I would simply kick out her fake leg and easily ghetto stomp her to death."

[In this statement my opponent describes the method that he would use to murder a person with a disability. In a survival situation one does not really want someone with murderous tendencies to be around them. If a situation like this occurred then I would believe that a group would band together to kill this person before I would believe that they would fall in line behind him.]

~~~

"Furthermore my opponent hasn't even contended that he is stronger than me. Thus Point 1 stands... Point 3: I am more healthy. Obvious by the picture"

[My opponent's contention there was that he is stronger than all three of us put together which is highly unlikely in almost any situation. It does not matter whether or not I am stronger than you, in this context you get to stay in the shelter. Also, a picture of you cleaning your kitchen counter while fully clothed hardly gives example to how you are "built" or strong. Serving in the military, on the other hand, is great evidence to show strength.]

~~~

" Nowhere did I make the attacks personal, they are clearly pertaining to the debate on which the intelligence, strength, confidence, and all qualities both me and my opponent play a very strong role (determine 1/3 of the victory)...Next, none of them are baseless and all of them have logical reasoning and backing from the limited evidence available. Unattractive and not confident because my opponent did not appoint himself the leader of the group nor gave a physical description of himself. Weak because he did not have the energy to type a description of himself."

[My personal attributes have no bearing on the outcome of the debate since one of the rules of the debate is that you stay in the shelter. Period. You cannot leave yourself out to die in the fallout. The debate also did not include a section that required us to choose a leader for our group, this is simply something that my opponent chose to do and many of his arguments are based upon this choice. These are the reasons that my opponents statements that I am ugly unintelligent, weak, and meek are in fact personal attacks. He states that based upon the limited evidence these are the only assumptions that can be made about me when the only type of evidence to suggest this is evidence of omission. He is basically saying that because I did not say that I am handsome I am ugly, the same logic applies to all of his attacks. It is for these remarks alone that I should get the conduct vote.]

~~~

"I am more intelligent. Dropping even the IQ argument, it is obvious that I am most intelligent as I was chosen to pick the group thus implying I'm more intelligent than both Majorie and Fred. It also stands to reason that I am logically more intelligent than my opponent because I picked a capable man to lead the group instead of a weak and vulnerable 13 year old girl."

[In the context of this debate the person debating picks the group. If it were any other way this would be a bad debate, but that applies to anyone who participates in this hypothetical situation. If a person who was mentally retarded accepted the challenge then would you argue that this person is the most capable leader? Nowhere in my arguments do I state that Janie Stanley would make a good leader and I have no idea why my opponent is implying that I did. She would make a bad leader.]

~~~

"Either interpretation only yields one logical answer, yourself... Furthermore the gene pool would be so messed up that it would be virtually impossible."

[I did not state that only one could go in the shelter. Taking one person means that both you and them get to go inside. Therefore, my reasoning stands as per the objective of this debate which is to try and repopulate the earth.]

~~~

" Clearly my opponent mistakes objectiveness for foolishness as he has no logical reason why a thirteen year old girl should be either the leader or the only one to live. Both interpretations use no reasoning or logic."

[Again with the false statement that I chose a 13 year old girl to lead, and the incorrect assumption that she would be the only one to live.]

~~~

"And I'm saying that I'm not buying that assumption and preparing for a case where others survived as its most probable."

[If you did not accept the rules then why did you accept the debate challenge?]

~~~

" In this statement my opponent sticks by his earlier argument that they are not related. However he is foolish in doing so. Adding to my earlier argument: Does he seriously believe that an 8 and 13 year old both happened to reach the a nuclear bomb-shelter quickly without any parents or guidance? And that their IQ's both correlate to their suggested parents?"

[Let's say that this nuclear attack happened when these children were at school. This is one example that adds to the evidence that they could have reached the said shelter without their parents. I never said that I believed it likely, only entirely possible and all of my evidence supports my claim.]

~~~

In conclusion my opponent's arguments are based upon assumptions made using extremely liberal interpretations of evidence and providing unverified evidence based upon personal experience. Also, I urge a Pro vote for spelling and grammar as my opponent misspelled Marjorie's name on multiple occurrences and cut off his argument in round 4 without any explanation. I believe wholeheartedly that I have trounced my opponent in this debate.

[1] Page 184-185, http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://www.delmarvablood.org...
johngriswald

Pro

Excerpt of the founding fathers source: "Percy, in his capacity as interim president of the colony, tells us how he dealt with a man accused of killing, salting, and eating his pregnant wife. "

My opponent is already sentencing people to death by making them walk outside to die. I am simply saving a life by utilizing the dead. My opponent however does make a very valid point about the nutrional value of eating human flesh. And I agree. Upon realization of this evidence I propose that the three humans be mixed in with the regular fare and that the blood would be drunk during the first 42 days by everyone, which would thus enable an extra person to survive.

Either way, an extra person can be salvaged by resorting to cannibalism. Having an extra person will make a ton of difference in terms of foraging, knowledge, and reproductive capabilities.

Thus having logically asserted that an extra person could be gained, that there is historical backing from our founding fathers, and shown the benefits of another person. I rest my case that my team would be better at repopulating the earth because we have a leader who knows how to exercise every option.

"In a survival situation one does not really want someone with murderous tendencies to be around them."
My opponent fails to realize what a survival situation is. It is a situation in which you are forced to survive (complex definition I know). However if such a situation calls on me to provide for my team, I will gladly do it. My opponent on the other hand is hoping that 3 people will sacrifice themselves willingly and thus will be unprepared for when a brawl breaks out. One of the people being asked to sacrifice themselves can easily turn on the group and murder the leader of it, my opponent. While I am prepared for such a situation my opponent will completely be caught unawares and will be the person being ghetto-stomped instead of the person ghetto-stomping.

Should we put a leader in charge who can't or will not defend his group from danger? Do we want an unprepared leader? No, vote Johngriswald for world leader.

"It does not matter whether or not I am stronger than you, in this context you get to stay in the shelter."
It completely matters. It is my team vs your team. If the difference between our teams is 3 people and you and I are one of those, then if I am better than you and the other two people and another of those 3 on my team is better than anyone of the three on your team, then my team is better and more capable.
"Also, a picture of you cleaning your kitchen counter while fully clothed hardly gives example to how you are "built" or strong."

My opponent doesn't show a picture of himself for obvious reasons. He can see my muscular physique and is fearful of how he will appear in comparison. I am obviously the victor in terms of strength.

"than all three of us put together"
No my contention is that I was stronger than each of you individually. Stronger than a 13 year old girl, obvious. Strong enough for someone who puts up no defense upon seeing my picture than I am stronger than him. Obvious.

And stronger than a middle-aged man who is past his prime and just happened to have minimal army experience.

"My personal attributes have no bearing on the outcome of the debate since one of the rules of the debate is that you stay in the shelter. Period. You cannot leave yourself out to die in the fallout."

It completely matters. It is my team vs your team. If the difference between our teams is 3 people and you and I are one of those, then if I am better than you and the other two people and another of those 3 on my team is better than anyone of the three on your team, then my team is better and more capable.

"The debate also did not include a section that required us to choose a leader for our group"
My opponent stated in R1: "mush state the individual that they would take over all others " Which is a definition for the word leader. On either my interpretation or my opponent's interpretation of this statement, my opponent's choice's holds absolutely no logic, while my choice does.

"are in fact personal attacks. He states that based upon the limited evidence these are the only assumptions that can be made about me when the only type of evidence to suggest this is evidence of omission. He is basically saying that because I did not say that I am handsome I am ugly,"

They are not personal attacks if they apply to the debate, which they obviously do. By not choosing yourself as leader of the group, or attempting to contend that I am stronger, in better health, leads me to believe that I have the advantage in these aspects. I am obviously more confident wheras you aren't because you do not talk your own abilities up at all.

"If a person who was mentally retarded accepted the challenge then would you argue that this person is the most capable leader?"

Obviously a mentally retarded person would not be selected to choose the group to repopulate earth unless the people that choose him to select were even more mentally handicapped. As that is not the case (judging by the IQ's) I am far more intelligent since I happened to be selected. Hypothetically.

"Nowhere in my arguments do I state that Janie Stanley would make a good leader and I have no idea why my opponent is implying that I did. She would make a bad leader."
My opponent shoots himself in the foot by stating that who he would choose a bad leader over all others when he choose the person who he " would take over all others ". He gives us no logical reason why he would not choose himself over a 13 year old girl who would make a bad leader. Leading me to believe from his decision making that he is either illogical or mentally ill.

"Taking one person means that both you and them get to go inside. "
No where does this state this anywhere in R1. It says "the person who you would choose over all the others"

It does not say "The person you would choose to go with you inside the shelter above all of the others"
I have already endured one typo, but my opponent in the last round is attempting to rework his R1 resolution. This is bad conduct and I suggest the audience fault him for it.

"incorrect assumption that she would be the only one to live"
An assumption that occurred because you failed anywhere in this debate except for the final round to clarify the meaning of "the person who you would choose over all the others"

"If you did not accept the rules then why did you accept the debate challenge?"
I accept the rules and have played by them. I however choose not to follow a faulty assumption which in no way involves the rules.

"l. This is one example that adds to the evidence that they could have reached the said shelter without their parents."

Then wouldn't there be a much higher proportion of children in the shelter than adults? Your reasoning fails and logically it stands to reason that my argument is the most probable outcome.

In conclusion my opponent failed to clearly clarify what "the person who you would choose above all other is"
He has failed to refute that I am the more capable than any of the three different people (including himself) on our teams. Furthermore he has failed to refute that Wanda is a superior choice to Marjorie. He has claimed that I have used liberal interpretations of the evidence, but honestly if this debate is not about liberally interpreting limited evidence then what is it about? My opponent has offered little reason why his team is superior and instead has spent the debate accusing my arguments of having "limited evidence" when I am using the entirity of the proof available to me. He also notes that I fell short on my conclusion last round. However I'm sure if you observe the actual amount of typing done by me vs my opponent. I have far more information despite that my opponent carried his argument onto another page.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Frodobaggins 7 years ago
Frodobaggins
Way to vote for yourself and clench the win at the end, cheater.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Very cool idea. +1 for sure.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
I find it hilarious how suddenly this debate was voted on right before the voting period expires when no one else decided to vote or to read this debate. Hmm...

Similar to my last debate with Con where all RFD's pointed to me winning yet mysteriously my opponent ended up winning with some last minute votes.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Seems a little to funny to me how Cherymenthol has suddenly taken an interest in all of my debates after we just got out of a debate.

Hmmm?
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
It was a hypothetical situation in my Global Current issues class to try and teach the underclassmen how to disagree in a civil manner.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
RFD:
Condcut: Pro had some subtle and not so subtle jibes at the CON.

Arguements:Pro was in violation of rules so prima facie I vote against, but also CON had better arguments.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Korashk, what class was this assignment for?
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Dang, I only had 13 characters left in my Round 5.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
You'll be pleasantly surprised in R2 Maikuru.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting idea, although I'm not crazy about Con being able to pick his entire team first. Seeing as he provided the survivor summaries, Pro must differ in his team by 3 individuals, and there are only 12 options, that is seriously stacking the deck. Something like Con picking the first few, Pro picking his entire team, and Con picking his final few seems fairer.

Also, I think Pro's team is one member short. Anyway, looks fun =)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
KorashkjohngriswaldTied
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 Chief-Examiner 7 years ago
Chief-Examiner
KorashkjohngriswaldTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
KorashkjohngriswaldTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
KorashkjohngriswaldTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
KorashkjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40