defeater argument against this?
Debate Rounds (3)
but a meteor might be very big.. has to be a deep bunker..
i am taking the con position..
Although it is quite unlikely that you will be hit on the head by a meteor, there is still a chance that you could be. After all, our instruments to find meteors are not completely infallable, so a meteor always could slip through. If a meteor does slip through and hits you on the head you're probably dead, unless it is very small and doesn't actually hit you. Meteors have hit places before and killed people, although not in direct impact, but there have been instances of direct impact with meteors, although not always lethal.
Thus, since there is a chance that you could be hit by a meteor, moving into a completely meteor-safe place (like a deep bunker) reduces your chances of being hit by a meteor to zero, which means that your chances of being hit with a meteor have been decreased by a factor of infinity.
Not only that, but a bunker will protect you against many other things while still protecting you from a meteor. If a nuclear war breaks out, then you will be safe in your bunker, which should have an abundant food supply in it. You will also feel more secure if you are paranoid of government conspiracies, it doesn't matter if they are true or not because you won't be affected! And any issues you have with modern society you can ignore in a bunker because they won't affect you anymore.
I believe I have successfully shown that it is in fact a good idea to live in a bunker underground to protect yourself from meteors, and the side benefits of such that cannot be ignored. Vote Pro! Then move into an underground bunker!
but okay.. also, there is a possibility you will fall and snap your neck if you dont jump for me 10 times real fast, go
well there is no telling if you not jumping 10 times breaks my spell
Although your chances of getting hit by a meteorite inside a bunker are reduced by a factor of infinity, that doesn't really matter. When dealing with percentages from 0-100%, it is more important to pay attention to the difference between the two than the factor. For example, if I live in a place where the tax rate is 10%, and then the government doubles it, I am paying 20% tax on all of what I buy, or 10% more than before. However, If I live in a (terrible) place where the tax is already 20%, and the government multiplies it by 1.7, then the new tax rate is 34% (and a revolution will probably happen soon). The actual increase in tax there is 14%, even though the multiplier is smaller.
Bringing this back to the original argument, the incredibly small chance that you will be hit by a meteorite, about 0.000000625%, is only reduced by 0.000000625% when you move into a bunker. That is a very small chance that you are protecting yourself from.
Moving into a bunker also introduces new dangers. If you have a heart attack, or another medical emergency that debilitates you, there would be no medical facility near you to save your life, and you can't exactly try to use defibrillators on yourself, for obvious reasons. By moving into a bunker, assuming you lived in a relatively safe country beforehand, you would actually increase your chances of death.
Also, if you move into a bunker then you cannot pursue anything that you had wanted to in life, you would be living in fear without a chance of accomplishing anything you had wished to do in your life (unless your life goal is to live in a bunker).
I am pretty sure that it's obvious at this point (and always has been) that moving into a bunker to protect yourself from meteorites would be a stupid idea. Also I don't believe that vi_spex has magic and he has no proof of it, so I don't need to worry about my neck snapping if I don't jump up and down really fast. Vote Pro!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by H501 10 months 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Con refused to capitalize, so he loses conduct and grammar. He also did not even make an argument and did not use 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.