The End of the World (Cameronl35's R1 New Year's Tournament)
Debate Rounds (4)
It's 2012, and that means the world is ending, soon.
Resolved: We would save no one.
This debate is for Round 1 of cameronl35's tournament.
Please note that both 16kadams and I have agreed to debate this resolution.
- We are the American Government
- With special technology, we have deduced that the world is going to end in a month
- We have built a special bunker
- The special bunker can only hold 50 people, maximum
- This means you do not have to take 50 people, you can take say 10 if you wish
We have two choices here. We can choose to save people, or save no one from the disaster of the world ending.
Burden of Proof:
As Pro, I must prove that saving no one will be a much more moral choice, and much more humane. It would be a choice that upholds the values of the human race. Essentially, it is better to die free, than to live in squalor and chaos.
As Con, 16kadams must prove that saving people from the disaster is the best choice, regardless of morals and values. Essentially, the possible continuity of the human race outweighs any moral or humane implications.
As this is a would case, CON must implement a method to which these people would be chosen.
There are no real definitions that must be defined, it is pretty straight forward.
Round 1 acceptance, arguments will be posted later.
There are really no sources that we can use, as this is a fun, light hearted debate.
It is assumed that the world will end through asteroids, earthquakes, tsunami's, sun flares, those good stuff.
No ad hominem.
I look forward to this debate.
Okay, well I asked CON to implement a method to which people would be chosen and he did not. Hopefully, he would do so in this round.
I would like to start off by saying that saving no one would be the easiest solution, as there are no complications (explained later) and it is the fairest choice.
Anyways, let's get into some arguments.
C.1: The Other Guys
The special bunker can only fit a limited number of people, 50 to be precise. What about the other 7 billion people on Earth? We must not forget them.
We see that when we save people, we must choose which people to save. Unfortunately, we can only choose 50. Surely, when the other 7 billion people on Earth hear about this new bunker, they themselves will want to be chosen. This will cause violence and protests against the government. The world will erupt in chaos.
These people will do anything to survive, and it is obvious that if they are not chosen themselves, they will riot. They will have the feeling "Hey, if I can't survive, no one can.", and do anything in their power to destroy the bunkers, in an act of protest. In acts of violent protests, people do not care about their surroundings and try to destroy everything. In 2011, the year of the protester, this has happened many times: with Greece and the debt crisis, Torontonians in the G20 Summit, Cairo, and Libya. And it would surely happen again. This plan is doomed to fail, as protesters will destroy the bunkers, in an act of rage.
Normally, in protests, security and police control the crowd. However, this will not happen in this case. Only 50 people will be chosen, and the liklihood of police being chosen is low. Therefore, these people cannot be relied on to control the crowd, and will in fact join the protestors in their goal of destroying the bunker. Therefore, we cannot save people, when the others will destroy the bunker and our efforts will be in vain anyways.
As the moral society we are today, we stand for democracy and equality. How can we have this equality when 50 people must be chosen above all others? It is not possible. When we have this resolution, we are abandoning all our societal ideals, all the foundation that we, as the human race have worked thousands of years to achieve. In the end, without these moral ideals, we would be little but animals. And it is much better to die as humans, than to live like animals. Let us go with a good memory, the fact that we upheld our societal standards, and were able to maintain equality to the very end.
C.2: Unable to Choose
This is related to the previous argument, but it will be very difficult to choose 50 people. Which 50 people will be chosen? Who will do the choosing?
Obviously the person doing the choosing cannot be trusted to make a decision on behalf of the entire human race without moral implications. There will be a lot of stress on this person to make the right choice, and people not chosen will attack the chooser. This is an unfair burden to place on anyone and no one should have to go through this tough choice.
Furthermore, the chooser will be unable to make a fair, just call. The chooser will want to choose himself, his family, and his friends. These people would not reflect the best of the human race. It is obvious that when choosing survivors to carry on your race, you must choose the strongest, the most skilled, the best. However, obviously the chooser will not care about these choices, as humans are naturally selfish and want the best for themselves. It is inevitable that the choices will be biased.
It is inevitable that the chooser will choose family and friends, regardless of skill and strength. This is not fair, not moral, not right to other people. This resolution could not pass when we are unable to choose the best 50 people fairly. When we cannot choose the most skilled people, survival after the apocalypse will also be slim, as because you were biased in choosing, you did not choose a doctor, or engineer. Therefore, it is pointless to save people when the best people cannot be chosen.
C.3: Who to choose?
I know I already mentioned that the best 50 people will be chosen, the most skilled and strongest for the survival of the human race. However, we must also look at personality.
Obviously, you would want a doctor to be part of the 50 people, the best. However, what if this doctor is autistic, or a psychopath? Then you must ask the question, will I choose this doctor, or the next best doctor?
It is a lose-lose situation. If you choose this doctor, you risk the survival of the human race. The doctor, a psychopath, will murder everyone in the bunker, and you end up where you started. If you choose the next best doctor, then it has suddenly become unfair to the best doctor. This doctor, who has spent his entire life dedicated to his trade, to become the best, was pushed aside because of a mental issue, and the next best has been chosen.
This is immoral, and is blatantly discrimination. When the American government commits discrimination against it's people, then where would the people look to as a role model? Surely they will think "Oh, the American government is being immoral, surely it's okay for me to do the same?". When we have this, we lose all law and order that we have spent centuries trying to achieve. This is when we lose our humanity. And again, it is better to die human, than to live like animals.
C.4: Other governments
Surely other government systems around the world would want to get in on this choosing, as it is not possible that the best people will all be from America. Other countries would not give America the right to choose citizens from their country, and will want to be involved in the choosing process.
Just so you know, there are more than 50 countries around the world. Surely, the leader of each country will want themselves to survive, and their family as well. However, not every world leader can survive, and months can be spent debating which leader is the best to continue the human race, with no resolution.
Furthermore, it is obvious to anyone that North Korea and Russia have nuclear weapons. It is inevitable that these leaders will threaten to bomb cities and government buildings to try and save themselves. When they are not chosen, they will bomb other cities, as they would not fear retaliation anymore, as they would die themselves anyways. The world would descend into chaos with nukes going off every few hours. This would not be a good way to spend the last few moments of your life on Earth.
Again, there will be no fair and right decision, as it is just not possible. Again, choices will be unable to be made, and if we cannot choose which people to save, the most fair, easiest solution would be to save no one. And as a democratic society, we stand for fairness and equality.
C.5: Other professions
There are more than 50 jobs that are vital to the survival of the human race. How would we decide which job is more important? Who would decide? But most importantly, how would this be decided fairly?
There is a simple answer. We cannot decide fairly. There are many different opinions on this matter, and once again, the chooser will be unable to decide who to side with. This is an unfair burden on the chooser.
C.6: Post Apocalypse
Let's say that somehow these people are chosen fairly and successfully. After the end of the world, there will be no life. No plants, no animals, etc.
Humans would be unable to survive, as there would be no way to get food, no way to build a shelter. Furthermore, the disasters may leave radiation or harmful chemicals in the air. It is obvious that the survivors will be unable to survive long in these conditions. The efforts to continue the human race would be in vain, as the survivors will die soon themselves.
Therefore, there is no point in going through all these moral complications when the human race has no hope of surviving anyways.
I have ran out of space to continue, but I have 2 new arguments that I would like to post the next round.
"The special bunker can only fit a limited number of people, 50 to be precise. What about the other 7 billion people on Earth? We must not forget them."
Your case is all about the other 7 billion. I save 50, you save 0. So in all technicalities it ould be 6 billion 999 million etc I do nto feel like saying it. So I save 50, you 0. So my plan saves lives, a few, yours just diminishes them.
"This is related to the previous argument, but it will be very difficult to choose 50 people. Which 50 people will be chosen? Who will do the choosing?"
You never specified, othe countries may have the bunkers too. Sicne you never specified this is a shot in the dark as you cannot prove it and it is unnoficial to add rules in the middle of a debate.
"The chooser will want to choose himself, his family, and his friends. "
Maybe not, as some people value others over themsleves. And in this I must choose, this point is invalid as I am the chooser.
"I know I already mentioned that the best 50 people will be chosen, the most skilled and strongest for the survival of the human race. However, we must also look at personality."
You'll see my choices.
"Surely other government systems around the world would want to get in on this choosing, as it is not possible that the best people will all be from America."
This is a fallacy, as the goverment will choose the best of the best when needing to save the human race, therefore any country could have someone selected.
"There are more than 50 jobs that are vital to the survival of the human race. How would we decide which job is more important? Who would decide? But most importantly, how would this be decided fairly?"
This can be done easily. You just keep narowing down what you need. Until you get an ESSENTIAL 50. Fairly will be deided as you woudl want the best when it coems to that.
"There is a simple answer. We cannot decide fairly. There are many different opinions on this matter, and once again, the chooser will be unable to decide who to side with. This is an unfair burden on the chooser."
ex: jo shmo DO or Angelo Otero (my granpa) MD one of the first and considered one of the best arthroscopic knee surgeons.
"Let's say that somehow these people are chosen fairly and successfully. After the end of the world, there will be no life. No plants, no animals,"
If this was to happen the verment would obviously have seeds and livestock stored in the bunker. It's like you consider elected officials dumb, and it is the contrary.
C1: COntnuation of the human race
You need to contunue the human race as it is humane. The humans are the smartest beings on the planet, and letting them survuve is kinda given. You and I are humans and probably care for other humans, therefore it is logical we keep us in surivial.
Your whole case is how this might wrong, your case garentees we ALL die, mine says our human race still has a chance. SO mine is humane.
"When you are going through hell, keep going."
-Sir Winston Churchill
"More powerful than the will to win, is the courage to begin."
C2: The 50
here we go:
1. The president
2. the seceritary of state
3. Ron paul (a doctor too)
4. Burt Rutan best engineer
5. My mom (teacher)
6. Kaden (farmer)
7. Winston D. (marine)
8. Mr snyder (eagle scout)
9. Jacqueline K. Barton (technological scientist)
10. Peter J. Stang (biologist
11. Richard A. Tapia (mathematics)
12. Yvonne C. Brill (Rocket scienist)
13. Dr. Ignatius Piazza, (owns frontsight firearms training insitute)
14: Les Stroud (survivalist)
15. Bear Grylls (surivalist)
16. Ray Mears (survivialist)
17. Tom Brown (survivialist)
18. Glen adams (uncle oil CEO)
19. Craig adams ( uncle, oil CEO, geologist)
20. Michelle obama (just another women we need, obama and here wilmake more kids, ew)
21. Palin (she lives in alaska, has guns, is a woman, survivialist)
etc I feel no need to keep going.
C3: We could survive
As I said the goverent is not dumb and would have had supplies, and seeds fo after they get out.
This morning I received a call from a very prominent person in the storable food industry. He has asked me not to reveal his name. I have been dealing with him for an extended period of time and I consider him to be a rock-solid source. When I talked to him today, he had just received a huge order for storable food from a U.S. government source. He told me that the dollar amount of the order was in the "five figures". 
So they are already doing it.
Also we have gone through touh times already, famines, the great deppression, now, WW1 and 2. We can get through that, then we'll be alright.
C4: Why not try
Your cae is let's not try as your way MIGHT fail, your way WILL fail as everyone will die and mine gives us a chance. A chance...hope. Humans fight for hope and life. We have done in many times, we will do it again. So really, why not try, no matter who goes or who choses or whatever, why not at least try.
C5: The sahara desert
You say that there will be nothing left, this is the closest comparison on earth. Little lives there, little water, even after a apocolypse a solar flare wouldn't take away all of are water, just some of it. So people survive here, so why not when the world ends.
My opponents case is all what if it doesnt work and what if it is unfair. So what? My way we actually have a chance to keep our great human race going. Vote pro as my opponent's case is let's give up, not even try, mine is lets go, and we might have a chance.
Tough times never last, but tough people do. - Robert H Schuller
Let me start off by saying that Pro fails to understand my case. He thinks that my case is "my opponent's case is let's give up, not even try".
What I am saying is that it is impossible to choose 50 people fairly and morally, and without any bias. I am not just "giving up" and "not trying". We have tried to choose people fairly, however, it is not possible. It is a much better option to die humans, than to live like animals. My opponent has not addressed the crux of my arguments.
Also, thank you for providing a list of 50 people, however the actual list is not important, and I never intended you to be the chooser.
To save space, I will not quote, but rather I will list them in numbers.
1. Yes, your plan does save lives, however how can you value those 50 lives above all the other 7 billion lives? Life is priceless, it is immoral to value someone else's life above another. That is discrimination, it is immoral.
As I mentioned, in C1 and C3, we stand for morality in our society. We cannot just throw it away, we have spent centruies establishing this morality. What would the citizens think of this? Again, CON fails to address this. When the government becomes immoral, people and other countries will do the same, because the American government is a role model to many.
2. How does difficulty in choosing people mean that other countries will have bunkers? Never have I said that other countries may have bunkers as well. My point remains unaddressed.
3. Never have I specified in the rules that you are the chooser, however you just proved my point. In the list of chosen people, I see that your mom and uncles are chosen. They are your family. Obviously, you have bias towards them. I doubt that your mom is the best teacher, which further proves my point: how do we measure who is better than who? It is not possible.
4. Yes, however your choices prove nothing. This point addresses the fact that personality must be considered. You may have the best people, however if their personality stinks, for example, all of them are aggressive and violent, you cannot continue the human race, they will turn against each other. The new human race will be in chaos, they would want to run for leader, people will die from this violence. Your efforts would then have been in vain. It is better to not choose, maintain society's moral ideals, than to choose badly, forsake moral ideals, and anger many, just to have the new race fail because of bad choices. You want to find nice people, which further proves my point: "How do you measure personality?" It is not possible.
5. Exactly. The best of the best. You do not address how this "bestness" will be measured. How do you determine who is the best? Through physical strength? Through mental capacity? Through personality? Through moral ideals? Frankly, I do not understand your rebuttal. You fail to address my point that other countries would also wish to be a part of this choosing. And remember, many of these countries have nukes. You fail to explain why getting nuked by North Korea because Kim Jong Un was not chosen, while being able to badly choose (as it is not possible to choose fairly and well as I have explained) 50 people who have no possibility of surviving in the new world is a good idea. By the way, I don't do fallacies.
6. Except, what jobs are essential? The importance of a job differs depending on how developed the country is. For example, Africa is mostly undeveloped. A job that is essential there is probably a farmer. America is developed. An essential job here would be a software engineer. (I am just making these up for example purposes) Africa would have little need for a software engineer, and America would have little need for a farmer, as it can import foods. The new world would be undeveloped, as everything developed would be destroyed. That means we would be taking along with us farmers, herders, nomads, aboriginals, etc. to find food, to hunt. Maybe decades later though, engineers would be needed to build cars, trucks, homes, etc. That's why you cannot tell which jobs are more important, as ALL jobs are equally important. If a job is unimportant, it would not be a job.
7. Pro fails to explain why this rebuttal proves anything. It has me quite perplexed. Okay, cool story bro, your grandfather is a good knee surgeon. The chooser still will be unable to decide fairly and still have an unfair burden of choice even when your grandfather is not a knee surgeon.
8. I do not consider elected officials dumb, just that they cannot choose fairly, no one can. First, seeds take time to grow into plants. What will you survive on during that time? Second, it is not even certain if seeds can grow in the new conditions of the world. What will you do then? Third, livelistock need food to survive too. What will you feed them? Sure you can eat them and survive for a while. But what will you do afterwards? Please enlighten me.
It may be logical, but is it moral? No. CON fails to adress why logic > morals. I have explained time and time again, and CON fails to refute this: It is better to die humans, than to have the remote possiblility to live like animals. When we have this resolution, we throw away all our moral values. Morals are what makes us human, different from a bear, who doesn't have a problem with killing it's own kind. When we have this resolution, we throw away our humanity, we become little different from animals. What is the point in living when we do not have morals, when we do not have a humanity? There is no point. I have also proven that there is zero possibility of the continuation of the human race, anyways. Better to retain our morals and humanity, and die with dignity. Like the DDO user, death before dishonour.
Did you consider all their personality traits? Did you consider their past history? Did you consider their potential intelligence? Did you consider their moral standards? Did you consider their character? Judging on how fast you replied, I doubt it. You put Richard as a mathmetitian. What about other mathmetitians? Why is Richard's life valued more than theirs? How do you measure someone's worth? You see, there are lots of moral implications and complications to choosing people to continue the human race.
Actually the government is dumb, or at least the Bush government was. Yeah, yeah food, supplies. I already proved why seeds don't work. The bunker will not have space for thousands of food boxes, like the picture. I said 50 people, maximum. Meaning at maximum capcity, ever corner filled, it could hold 50 people. You're going to have to get rid of some people if you want to put those food boxes in.
Why not? I've explained many times. Moral issues... the like. Also, I told you humans have a zero chance.
The people who lived in the Sahara are long dead, tribesmen. http://answers.yahoo.com...
I doubt anyone today would be able to live there. Furthermore, chemicals and radiation, I said that!
C.7: Unimaginable stress
The new people in the new world would be under a lot of stress, knowing they were the ones chosen to carry on the human race. That is an unfair burden to place on anyone. It is not right to force someone to carry this stress the rest of their life.
I know I said 2 arguments, but it was brought up in the refutation and rebuilding stage: the part about measuring worth, personality, and it's unfair to place someone above another, as that is discrimination.
Pro explains alot about how it is always better to live, no matter what.
Let me end off with real life questions:
-Why do people suicide?
-Why did warriors beg to be killed after losing a fight?
-Why did spartans rather die in a fight than surrender or retreat?
Hint: It all has to do with dignity and honor. Of personal moral standards. How people rather die than forsake the standards of their society and themselves.
7 billion people die out of mere indecision? You have basically WHAT IF they choose wrong and we all die.
It doesn't matter who gets chosen or why because it still gives our race a chance to endure and run on. I had a quote on this I will show it again:
"When you are going through hell, keep going."
-Sir Winston Churchill
SO my opponents argument is let's kill our whole race and not even try, because we MIGHT mess up. Well yes I concede we MIGHT mess up. But in your argument WE WILL all die and our race WILL die off. So my opponent says let's end the human race because we might mess up. NEVER GIVE UP!
"Fall seven times, stand up eight."
SO even if we fall and fail 7 times, never give up just because we might mess up, stand up eight and keep going.
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can achieve greatly."
Robert F Kennedy
Yeah this goes right into this argument, let's say all of the mess ups you say happen, but we can still push on. Wanna achieve? Then get ready to fail.
more quotes here: http://www.searchquotes.com...
sorry can't resist this quote destroys your argument:
"You can't cross the sea merely by standing and staring at the water."
Think about read it it destroys the arguments you have made.
OK now defend my arguments.
defense of C1:
Yes it is logical and morale. It let's our race push on and it saves a few lives. Is it not morale to save a few lives out of many? Is it not moral to save as many lives possible? I do not see how in anyway saving no one like you say is more moral then saving a few. It just doesn't make sense.
Defense of C2:
If this was a real life situation all of that could be checked:
interviewees with family and friends
back round checks
Sees would work, seen the movie doctor strangelove? They said they could plant seeds under ground. Also the US had bunkers that the goverment would be able to stay in for 50 years IF nuclear fallout occurred, if they can do that then then this super bunker could too. They also have invented lights that act as a sun "Supplementary electric lighting is usually the easiest and least expensive way to provide enough light for plants that do not receive adequate natural light
defense of C4:
NEVER GIVE UP! you just kill everyone and literally, drop the swords. Hope brings us though tough times, it did during the black plague, courage brought people to end the roman empire etc.
Courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality.
Aster and Richter Abend
Hope is a waking dream.
Yahoo answers...ok It will be hard to find a better source.
The Sahara Desert covers over 3.5 million square miles and has only 2.5 million inhabitants - roughly 1 person per square mile 
nothing about being dead.
The majority of the people living in the Sahara Desert are nomads, which means that these people continuously move from region to region in search of better living conditions. 
So if they stay they die but if they keep moving they have a chance. For one thing, they never give up.
His stress argument:
So? Once again, kill 7 billion people, give up end the human race because we might fail? That is just absurd really though. Also it would be a honor to carry the human race, that wouldn't be stressful, but I see how they would have stress. But really? End the human race and life as we know if because we MIGHT fail? That is an odd argument.
So to refute my opponents whole conclusion do to my rebuttals.
First, let me highlight that CON did not respond to many of contentions (like the protesting argument in C.1). He also did not respond to any of my rebuilding and the last 3 questions I left him. As he did not respond to them, all of my arguments and questions still are logical and still stand. After reading this, CON might want to respond in the last round. However, that merely shows bad conduct. By responding in the last round, I do not get the chance to defend my arguments.
Secondly, CON keeps thinking that my case is about giving up. Note that he also says "7 billion people die out of mere indecision?" This is plagiarism. This was copied directly from what ConservativePolitico said in the comments. 16kadams did not give credit to him, and I said specifically no plagiarism in the rules.
That aside, I am not merely giving up. As I said, and CON again failed to respond to this, it is impossible to choose 50 people morally and fairly. As humans, we need to have morals, it is what defines us as humans. We depend on morals everyday. Just think. Why did you not get murdered today? Because of societal ideals and morals. If we did not have these ideals and morals, we are not humans anymore. This is essentially what we are throwing away by choosing 50 people and valuing their life above all others, which CON again failed to respond to. We are choosing the lesser of the two evils. I admit, both choices are bad. But saving no one is a much more humane and moral decision.
Let me put this in perspective. Say, you CON, were the chooser. You would want to pick your friends, family, the girl you like, maybe. You would let your personal opinion affect the choices. It is called conflict of interest. In today's society, police detectives are not allowed to solve cases where they are personally tied to, judges are not allowed to judge cases where they are personally tied to. Why? Because of conflict of interest. Because of bias. Because it is not fair. Because it is immoral and not right. Now think about this for a second. If judges, and police detectives are barred from certain cases because of conflict of interest, shouldn't you be barred from choosing? Yes, you also have a conflict of interest. Now, we must find someone who does not have this personal bias to be a chooser. The thing is, we can't. Everyone has friends and family, everyone has a bias. Therefore, everyone should be barred from choosing. Therefore, no one can be chosen. Therefore, we would save no one.
Now, say that you CON, is a random farmer. You are a 2nd generation farmer. You work very hard every day. You dedicate your life to farming. Your neighbour, is also a farmer. He is a 5th generation farmer. He has more experience, more land. Now say that your neighbour was chosen to be part of the 50, and you were not. How do you feel? Mad, sad, heartbroken. You would want to know why you were not chosen. So you go to the government, along with millions of other non-chosens, demanding to know why you were not picked. They tell you, you're not a good farmer. But the thing is, you spent your entire life farming, you work hard. It's not your fault you're not a 5th generation farmer, you can't control that. You, along with 7 billion other people, are outraged, you lash out against the American government. You want to destroy the bunker, you want the government to feel the pain you're feeling. The bunker, under the attack of 7 billiion people, gets destroyed. No bunker, no survivors. Therefore, we would save no one.
Thirdly, CON seems to be addicted to quotes, thinking they are reliable sources. The thing is, you can find quotes on anything. You can even find quotes saying that murder is good. Does that mean murder is good? No. I can just as easily find quotes about the morality of the human race, about how that is important:
Morality is herd instinct in the individual.
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves.
Exactly, quotes don't prove anything.
No, it's not moral to save a few lives out of many because you are valuing their lives over others. It is discrimination. No, it isn't moral to save as many lives as possible because again, you are valuing their lives more. Saving no one is more moral because then you value everyone's lives equally. And that is what we aim for as a society in the 21st century, equality. Pretend you're an African American. So you would be okay if you weren't chosen because you were black? You would be okay because the human race is "surviving"?
No, the thing is, it can't be checked because you can't measure personality or skill or experience or worth. It is priceless. Again, Con fails to respond to this line of reasoning.
Aren't seeds supposed to be planted underground? It's not like you would plant seeds above ground. Yes, but those are not the same US bunkers. I realize that the US had many bunkers, but those would be unable to protect against an apocalypse. Otherwise, you could save many more people than just 50. This is a new bunker that can only hold 50, therefore it would not have the space to store food.
Do you know why household plants, and not crops, use supplementary electric lighting? Because we don't eat household plants. It isn't healthy to eat plants grown by supplementary ligthing, like it isn't healthy to eat plants grown on pesticide. Also, supplementary lighting doesn't decrease the amount of time it will take for the seed to grow. It would still take a year for it to grow so you can eat the plant. What will you do during that time?
First, there is no hope. There is zero chance of survival in the new world. Second, I am not giving up. I challenge CON to find me a way to choose people fairly and without bias. The black plague was different. There was no defense against it. Everyone was equal. If there was a bunker that protected against the black plague, and could hold 50 people, I'm sure things would have been very different.
That source is from 1998. No one lives there anymore. Conditions in the Sahara were less severe back then, because global warming was not as severe. Also, chemicals and radiation in the new world. Con again fails to respond to this. How people can live in a world with no food, little water, with chemicals and radiation in the air.
What do you mean so? It is unfair to place such a high burden on these survivors. Honor? Not really. Every moment of your life, mind you short life because they will die in those conditions, you would think about the other people not chosen. You would feel guilty. Everytime you mess something up, you think about other people how they could have been better choices. Indirectly, you murdered them. Stress affects actions severely. People suicide because the stress is unbearable. Why do we get people to retire work at 65? Because it is unfair to make them work longer. Our society is all about fairness and morals. We are throwing all this away when we choose to save people.
Con has failed to respond last time to the three questions I left him. CON's entire case is about how it is better to live, no matter the consequences, as life is the most important thing. That is not true at all.
Some people, mostly elderly and diseased patients, agree to be euthanized. Why? There is still hope, like you say Con, that they may be cured one day. So why do they want to die, if it is always better to live, like you say Con?
Think for a moment.
Why do so many people say it is best to die free than to live in servitude?
As Pro, I believe I have proven my case. There is no way to choose fairly and without bias. The survivors cannot live in the new world. The bunker will be destroyed by protestors.
Better die with dignity, with a good memory of the human race, to remain human and keep our morals.
I did respond but I responded as a whole basically disproving all of your arguments in one swoop as my computer is being ghetto.
"plagiarism in the rules. "
how is it plagiarism? I had no other words?Also I changed the beginning, my firs draft had quotes and said see comments, I tol you my computer keeps crashing and deleting crap. Anyway that concept is correct. I edited out the efront and used an entire different ending/
plagiarism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
did I say it was mine, I tried to give credit but my computer probably has a virus as it is changing minor things. Was it unauthorized no, did I credit my self once again my computer must have a virus and I tried to quote it twice. Also if you look at his wording and mine it is slightly different.
"it is impossible to choose 50 people morally and fairly."
The BOP is still unknown as you didn't specify bt you have not proven how this matters. Or why. Also you need o defne moral:
moral; " of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical "
So is choosing people to survive, therefore saving lives, ot moral? Your case neither pertains to or fits into this definition. Mine does, it is ethical as I save 50 lives, it is right conduct as we save the human race possibly, and it uses the distinction of riht and wrong. Your case doesn't fit anywhere in that.
"You would want to pick your friends, family, the girl you like, maybe."
False because I only choose those family members as they had skills, if they where bugger picking hobos I wouldn't have done anything and I wouldn't have chosen them. And again, why kill all 7 billion humans if you can choose 50 and have a chance to contuntue the human race? our case is quite odd.
Also letting people choose is moral and right as no matter who they choose they still have a chance to contintue the human race. You asically say let's not try we might mess up. I say try we might mess up but trying gives us a chance.
"He is a 5th generation farmer. He has more experience, more land. Now say that your neighbour was chosen to be part of the 50, and you were not. How do you feel?"
So? Sure I would be pissed but so what? The choices the goverment made would be better because they would choose better people. So you care more about mad citizens then saving the human race? Once again...odd.
"Thirdly, CON seems to be addicted to quotes, thinking they are reliable sources."
my quotes are reliabl as they are from reliable people. Also I wasn't using them as sources i was just oing it for fun. as this is a fun debate no?
Also I have proven that letting no one live is immoral and therefore you quotes help me.
"Thirdly, CON seems to be addicted to quotes, thinking they are reliable sources."
If oyu proved that destroying the human race is moral then the quotes help you, and those are reliable quotes you have. Sadly your quotes help me as I have proven that SAVING the human race possibly is more moral then killing it.
"No, it's not moral to save a few lives out of many because you are valuing their lives over others."
Guess what your doing, killing a whole race because of minor discrapancies. Which is immoral. That's like saying a baby is gonna die let's kill t because it only has a small chance of survivial. Which is odd. So your case more moral then mine? I think not.
"So you would be okay if you weren't chosen because you were black?"
The goverment would choose black people, but only if they had skils. Obama will probably still be president so if this happened he would be choosen, and he's black. Also why discriminate due to color in this situation? If a white guys skills where half of that of the black guy next to him the goverment woudl chos the black guy. Once again, kill a whole race of humans for minor problems.
"No, the thing is, it can't be checked because you can't measure personality or skill or experience or worth."
I will c/p that again and show how each would find something:
would check personality and speech intellegence.
interviewees with family and friends:
Talks about personality, any issues etc.
tests basic intelegence
experience and worth in the feild
back round checks
prsonality also checks if he is a criminal
It can be measured easily.
"therefore it would not have the space to store food. "
It could be a buner that holds 500 people but it;s full of food so it only holds 50. You never specified so that is possible.
Also th elighting works for inside plants, plant need the same lighting as one another, a tree could live of of a few of those lights. So if you had enough you could grow potato farms, 1 for every 2 seeds. Totally possible.
"First, there is no hope. There is zero chance of survival in the new world."
let's look athow you said the earth would end:
"It is assumed that the world will end through asteroids, earthquakes, tsunami's, sun flares, those good stuff. "
asteroids just put holes in the ground and would make lakes when the rain comes, wo would be useful.
tsunamis would onlaffect sea regions and islands.
sun flares would just cause global warming and faster evaporation, leading to more rain. and earthquakes temporarily.
All of that is survivable.
"If there was a bunker that protected against the black plague, and could hold 50 people, I'm sure things would have been very different."
disagree the kings would just be there (most kings didn't get the black plauge) so they wouldn't have changed the world much.
"That source is from 1998. No one lives there anymore."
The copyright is 1998 you can still update t and keep it under the same copyright. Also let me use another source then:
Less than 2 million people live in the Sahara desert. 
people still liver there, but only a few. source from 2000.
let's use a less credible source:
"Thousands of people live in the sahara" 
"population of the Sahara Desert vary from between 2.5 million to 4 million people." 
His whole case is let's give up, turn back, we might die. My case i let's try so our race lives on. Our race has gone through tough times, we can do this. We need to contuinue our race, so voters vote him choose give up and kill the human race or vote me and save the human race possiby and have hope. Why give up due to minor flaws that might occur?
Also the protesters would:
a. not know where it is
b. probably get shot on sight
c. even if they know where is is the goverment would have it in a hard to reach spot.
So they would not destroy it. Also you are brining in other things into this debate, like why add in extra protesters? Also how would you destroy a bunker? they are made to withstand some nasty crap. a picket sign won't do anything.
How is giving up dignity? How will you remember if your dead? how is killing the human race and giving up moral?
those are the reasons his case is flawed. Vote pro, vote for the human race.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 11 records.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to refute all of pros contentions, while at the same time giving more sources.
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.