Should Curing Cancer, AIDS, etc. Be Outlawed and Genocide Encouraged
Debate Rounds (4)
For purposes of this debate, when referring to "we should" it shall be known that that is in context to what would be best for humanity as a whole, rather than any particular country, religious goal, etc. Also, when using "etc." it is to be assumed that the debater has further examples, and that if asked by the other to present such an example, they must or face public humiliation.
(1) Debater must have typing experience and Internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.
(2) Opening Statement
(1) 72 hours to argue;
(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
http://rt.com...) that we should outlaw certain life threatening diseases, including cancer, AIDS and polio, just to name the top few. As well as we should repeal the article in the Geneva Convention which bans genocide (Source: http://www.hrweb.org...). The direction of all of this being to lessen the currently exploding global population (Source: http://www.worldometers.info...) to a more reasonable standpoint, so as to be able to use less of the worlds resources and distribute food and wealth more evenly. It has been assumed that the earth should only have about 2 billion persons living upon its surface, as this would allow for the earth's resources to be used and regenerated in a normal fashion (Source: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org...). So as I see it, finding a way to lessen the population, by any means necessary, decreases the chance of a global collapse, as well as the preservation of humanity as a whole for many years to come.
I do understand that certain issues come to hand when dealing with a topic as controversial as genocide, because the use of that word insinuates the death of a certain race, or religious group, or other such party, and thus is an attack on human and civil rights. I feel that if this is necessary for the preservation of humanity as a whole, then we cannot focus on the short term struggles. I do not exclude myself from having to die from cancer, any other such disease, or from any war or genocide caused to my race/religion/etc.
As I understand it, many humans of today would rather preserve themselves, rather than their species as a whole and this needs to change if we are to survive on a long term basis, past all of the death that should be allowed now, in order for a brighter and more concise future. It could also be stated, (though there is no concise study/proof) that due to the higher population, those who make intelligent achievements in science, political, or any other such world matters, have a decreased chance of being recognized on a worldwide basis for a long period of time, due to that just as one advancement is made, another soon follows that surpasses the first and the name is forgotten. Where as, in the past, when there was less of a population, the intelligence found around the earth stood out much more than it now does, because not as many geniuses existed particularly.
To close my statement; I think that cancer (and other such life threatening diseases) should not be cured, nor should genocide be viewed as a crime by the UN so as to sustain humanity for a long period of time, rather than us (humanity) possibly pushing ourselves not only further into poverty, but also hunger, and ecological failure through our mistreating of the earth and it's resources.
My second round shall both refute my opponent's rebuttals and contend against the decision to outlaw the curing of certain diseases.
Rebuttal: My opponent has factually identified a global crisis: overconsumption of Earth's resources. My opponent goes further to say that a solution to overconsumption is a decrease in population. This is a possible solution, yet not at all necessary. In fact, overconsumption can be directly solved by a decrease of consumption itself. Thus the question is: Should genocide be the course of action most, or at all, practical and lawfully acceptable in our society? I contend that it is not, and that it is a negative course of action only harmful to our entire human society. My opponent says "I feel that if this is necessary for the preservation of humanity as a whole, then we cannot focus on the short term struggles." This I view as a statement contending that genocide is acceptable, or exempt from ethical or lawful jurisdiction, if it is necessary to preserve humanity. I will disprove my opponent on this matter because I contend that genocide is NOT necessary to prevent global collapse, thus making it ethically and lawfully wrong; giving it no socially acceptable place in society.
Genocide is not necessary to prevent a global collapse.
According to the definition provided by investopedia.com: "A total economic collapse is characterized by economic depression, civil unrest and highly increased poverty levels. Hyperinflation, stagflation and financial-market crashes can all be causes. Government intervention is usually necessary to bring an economy back from collapse, but can often be slow to remedy the problem."
My opponent asserts that genocide is the best course of action, or at least a favorable one, for a global form of government to prevent a global economic collapse. This is incorrect. Many other forms of government intervention, or even simply government involvement can deter or prevent a global collapse. Elements of command economy or mixed economy, or similar ideas implemented in known forms of government such as socialism, communism, utilitarianism, etc. can be far better alternatives to genocide. These such elements would amount to governmental economic regulations such as limitations of imports; particularly on wasteful products with global conservatism in mind, regulation of resource consumption or selling by private or federal businesses or other entities, or any form of strategic increase of taxation on scarce or valuable resources; excluding the distribution of basic and necessary living staples. Of course this course of action enforced separately by each nation, country, or state could catastrophically cripple an entire economy, thus the only implementation of this governmental intervention would work on a global or multi-national level of decisive agreement. This, however, does not give an advantage to the more easily feasible method of genocide because it should be safe to say that genocide is unsupported by more than the majority of our globe's nations.
Environmental protection and regulation is also a safer and more favored alternative to genocide. Our society's ever-growing technological advances may, if in the interest for human preservation, be implemented towards resource protection, resource conservation, and resource recycling. A global understanding of an imminent economic crisis would involve not manslaughter, not war provocation, and not national contempt, but it would contrastingly bring our world's powers together in progressive cooperation.
These alternatives I have offered are far more acceptable than genocide and I understand that to win this debate, my opponent must refute my claims and explain how the unethical, unlawful act of genocide could still be a better, and necessary alternative.
First, we need to look at human nature, is it not more in our "blood" (figuratively speaking) to be violent creatures, rather than to obey laws that keep us from what is natural to us or any other animal? Yes, we are a more sophisticated species, yes, we have formed laws in order to protect ourselves and others but is that right? What is so wrong with death in the first place? Genocide is an option to prevent global collapse because it is easy. The governments of the world would have a much harder time trying to work together to find a solution to resource consumption than to allow certain entities to try their best at taking over sections of the world and eliminating certain populations. Even with all of the resource conservation we could muster, a growing population such as our would continue to sky rocket, and it would not be enough to save us from collapse, for the world simply cannot continue to grow the way that it is now.
While many of the worlds more civilized countries would be more against using genocide as a tool to limit our population, third world countries, and all the corrupt powers in the world would use it to seek not only further power, but also global domination, and naturally larger states like the U.S., Britain or Russia would step in and "fight the good fight" in order to stop these powers. Through many wars we would slowly but surely decrease population and return to a more reasonable standpoint with our population.
If we decide to continue to outlaw genocide and continue to work around trying to conserve our resources, we will be forced to limit the number of children to be had by each family, thus not only causing society to decline due to unhappiness with either gender or the limit of kids allowed, but also a very regulated and hard to control population that may simply lead to revolt, as many cannot see the eventual outcome of the increase in population and what the would mean for us as a whole. This example has already been show by the feature "The Children of Men", as well as by China's own decision to limit the number of kids allowed by a couple, which has led to many Chinese daughters either sold into sex slavery or even being killed so that the couple has a chance to have a boy; the desired gender in China. (Source: http://geography.about.com...) (Source 2: http://www.gendercide.org...)
While we, being humans, see death as a dreadful thing, not to be welcomed into society as I think it should, as a whole it needs to be understood that for the betterment of mankind and thus more joyful future that death will bring upon a balance in not only resources, but wealth, and power as well. A decrease in population would serve many purposes, not just to avoid a certain global collapse, but also to prevent future war and suffering, through a short period of war and the outlawing of curing certain life threatening diseases such as cancer etc. I feel that if we as mankind are willing to make the small and insignificant sacrifice of about 5 billion people, then we can retain a much longer and more peaceful human existence, for a long period of time to come. If we decide to deal with all of these issues on a diplomatic level then we not only run the risk of still seeing global collapse, but we also do not solve the problem, as we will continue producing, ignoring the risk of it all, and becoming frustrated when we aren't allowed to have children. The diplomatic view only allows a "band aid" to the current situation, whereas the elimination of a large number of humans allows a much longer lasting peace and a future where we can all be civilized and provided with the proper amount of necessary resources for
Mad_Chameleon forfeited this round.
ParadigmParalysis forfeited this round.
Mad_Chameleon forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.