The Instigator
DrunkHoboSniper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BertrandsTeapot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global Nuclear War is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 116329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

1.Biosphere collapse inevitable " 3 warrants- resource depletion/overpopulation/inequality
Barry 15 [Glen, Glen Barry is a reporter for Scoop Independent News "Biosphere Collapse: The Biggest Economic Bubble Ever" July 19, 2015 http://www.scoop.co.nz...
The global ecological system is collapsing The biosphere having its constituent ecosystems liquidated for resources. Inequitable overconsumption has achieved such momentum that key ecological planetary boundaries have been surpassed as human numbers went from one to seven billion in a century " can fairly be characterized as willful ecocide.

2.Nuke War solves
Caldwell, 2010 [Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org... .

It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, the pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity with each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels. A third factor motivating global war involves timing. If anyone is motivated to wage global nuclear war and has the means to do so, sooner is very likely better than later. If delayed too long, there may be nothing left to gain. With each passing year, the planet's biodiversity decreases, another two percent of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves are consumed, and the risk of biospheric extinction increases. Once gone, these resources are gone forever. Extinct species will never return, and the planet's fossil fuel reserves, once exhausted, are gone forever. Human industrial activity will consume all of the remaining petroleum reserves and destroy millions of species more, including the larger animal species. For those tempted to wage war, the time to strike is now -- in fifty years there will be nothing left to win.

3.We would survive
Coughlan 13 [Sean, BBC News Education Correspondent, "How are humans going to become extinct?" http://www.bbc.com...
Humanity would survive. Nuclear war might cause appalling destruction, but enough individuals could survive to allow the species to continue

4.When we survive, we will pick up the pieces, start anew with a new mindset
Caldwell 2010 (Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org... .

As much as the US government and many environmentalist movements would lead you to believe, nuclear war will not be the end of the world. , it well be the salvation of the world. . After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again. Unlike previous history, it is likely that economics wouldn"t continue to be the "driver" of man"s progress. A minimal-regret strategy offers a way to do things differently.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

Pro is arguing that "Global Nuclear War is Good." I feel that we must define "Good". Since Pro has not done so explicitly, I will derive the definition from both his/her arguments/sources and my own:

Good - characterized by positives outweighing negatives

This is all such that the argument can be restated "Widespread destruction caused by nuclear weapons will have effects wherein the positives outweigh the negatives." I will first use some arguments and sources of my own to counter this stance and then break down each of his/hers. I will begin by discussing the negative effects of nuclear fallout on remaining human life. Surely, even if Pro feels that population reduction isn't negative, or in fact is a positive, the well-being of those remaining should be considered. ("After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again." as Pro says). Furthermore, I will later show that Pro's own source states that they do not advocate nuclear war nor feel it will have a positive effect.

1) Effects on Human Health - Larger bombs can flatten cities. Many if not most people within the blast radius — which can be up to 10 miles — would die instantly. Those who survived would wish they hadn’t, since most would die later of severe burns or awful cancers. Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crops and livestock as well as causing radiation sickness and cancer directly. Later, this fallout would cause genetic mutations in plants, animals and human beings, as it has in the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Nuclear explosions would also cause immense fires. The smoke from burning buildings, oil and gas fields, refineries, chemical factories, and industrial facilities would be highly toxic. Forest fires would engulf large areas. These effects would destroy more property and kill more people. (Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies - https://goo.gl...).

2) Effects on All Creatures - Nuclear bombs release what’s called ionizing radiation, says Steve Simon, a radiation health physicist at the National Cancer Institute. “So these gamma rays are a lot like X-rays but they're much more powerful, much more energetic,” he adds, explaining that gamma rays can knock electrons out of atoms in our bones, skin and any materials they pass through. “It's actually those electrons that do the damage to the cells of the body, it's not the gamma rays directly.” Nuclear fallout can also enter our bodies through the food we eat, he says. “So it's not the radiation that contaminates the plants, but it is the fallout material, it's the debris, it's this radioactive material. Once it enters the food chain, then it can travel. It can go through the food chain in steps, it can be diluted or can be concentrated, depending on the kind of food, and eventually can be consumed by man or animals.” (PRI - https://goo.gl...)

3) Effects on Climate
- An exchange involving just 50 nuclear weapons — the kind of thing we might see in an India-Pakistan war, for example — could loft 5 billion kilograms of smoke, soot and dust high into the stratosphere. That’s enough to cool the entire planet by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit — about where we were during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. Growing seasons could be shortened enough to create really significant food shortages. (Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies - https://goo.gl...)

4) Using the India-Pakistan Exchange as Example
  • Five megatons of black carbon enter the atmosphere immediately. Black carbon comes from burned stuff and it absorbs heat from the sun before it can reach the Earth. Some black carbon does eventually falls back to Earth in rain.

  • After one year, the average surface temperature of the Earth falls by 1.1 kelvin, or about two degrees Fahrenheit. After five years, the Earth is, on average, three degrees colder than it used to be. Twenty years on, our home planet warms again to about one degree cooler than the average before the nuclear war.

  • Earth's falling temperatures reduces the amount of rain the planet receives. Year five after the war, Earth will have 9 percent less rain than usual. Year 26 after the war, Earth gets 4.5 percent less rain than before the war.

  • In years 2-6 after the war, the frost-free growing season for crops is shortened by 10 to 40 days, depending on the region.

  • Chemical reactions in the atmosphere eat away Earth's ozone layer, which protects Earth's inhabitants from ultraviolet radiation. In the five years after the war, the ozone is 20 to 25 percent thinner, on average. Ten years on, the ozone layer has recovered so that it's now 8 percent thinner.

(Pop Sci - https://goo.gl...)

5) Damage to Cities - In the absence of warning and any subsequent evacuation, about 125 million people would be caught within the 2-psi circles (geographic areas which sustain a blast overpressure of 2 pounds per square inch); nearly 58 million would be inside the 15-psi region (Haaland et al., 1976; p. 20). In preparing the scenario, defense planners anticipated the delivery of 843 1-Mt warheads. It is estimated that each ground burst would leave a crater 1,000 feet (about 305 m) in diameter and 200 feet (about 61 m) deep. All structures from the point of detonation to a distance of 0.6 miles (about 1 km) would be leveled. Within the band between 1.7 and 2.7 miles (about 2.7 and 4.3 km) (5 psi) only skeletal remains of commercial and residential multistory structures would be observed. The 2-psi circle, characterized by moderately damaged structures (cracked load-bearing walls, windowless, contents blown into the streets), would reach 4.7 miles (about 7.6 km) (Office of Technology Assessment, 1979; pp. 27-31). (NCBI, Hal Cochrane, PH.D., and Dennis Mileti, PH.D. - https://goo.gl...)

6) Effects on Agriculture/Ozone Layer - A year after the bombs hit, some of the process put in motion by our contaminated atmosphere will start to tear a hole in the ozone layer. This will be devastating. Even with a small nuclear war that uses only 0.03 percent of the world’s arsenal, we can expect up to 50 percent of the ozone layer to be destroyed. The world will be devastated by UV rays. Plants will die around the world, and the living things that survive will struggle through crippling mutations of their DNA. Even the most resilient crops will become weaker, smaller, and far less likely to reproduce.[5]So when the sky clears and the world warms up once more, growing food will be an incredibly difficult chore. Whole fields will die when people try to grow food, and farmers who stay out in the Sun long enough to plant crops will die painful deaths from skin cancer. (Mark Oliver, Listverse - https://goo.gl...)


Now for Pro's arguments:
In conclusion, I feel I have shown not only that the negatives of nuclear war outweigh the positives, but that Pro's sources do not support his/her claims.
Debate Round No. 1
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Biosphere collapse is inevitable our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or another we are going to destroy it. My Barry in 15 evidence is very specific to this. The only way that we can attempt to get rid of our current mindset in relation to the environment and war is ti have a minimal regret strategy to have a nuclear war. The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all-out nuclear war! This was my Caldwell in 10 evidence that calls for an all-out nuclear war because it is the only way we can ever shift our consciousness. This Shift in consciousness will "create a world beyond the dichotomy of war" meaning that this will indeed be the ear to end all wars, This will create not only a world where we respect ourselves and other like us but also the environment and other species the we live with. I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead form the impending biosphere collapse. 2. The nuclear war stops the biosphere from collapsing. 3. Some form of life will continue to exist on earth. 4. That life will have a peaceful mindset which stops error replication.
However the Con makes a fatal error which means that you should be voting pro right now, They drop Barry in 15 which states that the Biosphere is going to collapse and after I get done with the time frame debate you will see just how damning this is.

Collapse debate
1.A 7 percent increase of industrialization means we are past the tipping point. Old studies fail, means bio d death assured.
San Francisco University 2012
http://www.sfu.ca...
,The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations., we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth"s history. "Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there"s no going back. it won"t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn"t have any memory of the old state." These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away. we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth"s surface or we won"t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse. We"ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, , humans have not done anything to stave off the worst

2.Time Frame Magnifier- We must act with quickness " past 2020 all actions are irrelevant and every day past 2015 is playing with fire. We are on the Brink!
Meadows, 14 [Dennis, Dennis Meadows is a co-author of The Limits to Growth. In 1972, was on a team of 66 scientists doing research about the Earth "Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge"
http://energyskeptic.com...

Once the peaks occur (between 2015 and 2020) all bets are off: past that point, the predictive ability is not to be relied on because the assumptions on which it relies will no longer be valid." in 1972 we had reached about 85% of Earth"s carrying capacity and today we are about 125%, and every month we delay in getting back within limits erodes Earth"s further ability to tolerate us. ". We have fundamentally altered the nitrogen, carbon and potassium cycles of the planet. It may never go back to an ecosystem in which bipedal mammals with bicameral brains were possible. Or, not for millions of years".
The Con didn"t do any work here other than making a claim that nukes aren"t the best way, but doing that they concede that a nuclear war solves for the biosphere collapsing. So I won"t spend much time here.

1.Spark solves biosphere collapse takes out industrialization a key internal to collapse.
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014
The candidate minimal-regret population puts an immediate halt to large-scale Industrial activity. It restores the planet"s biosphere as close as possible to the way it was prior to the massive changes brought about by agriculture and industrialization. It raises the likelihood of mankind"s survival back to what it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. It saves the planet for future generations. It restores to all other species the freedom and ability to continue to exist
2.A quick nuclear war is key " actions past 2020 are irrelevant Cross Apply Meadows in 14 from the Collapse Debate

Survivability debate
1.Only .000001% chance of extinction from 150 teragrams of black carbon nuclear winter
Shulman, 12 [Carl, Writer for Overcoming Bias.com "Nuclear Winter and Human Extinction: Q&A with Luke Oman (Luke Oman was a scientist who studied climate change in the world of a nuclear war in 2007) November 5 2012
http://www.overcomingbias.com...
The probability I would estimate for the global human population of zero resulting from the 150 Tg of black carbon scenario in our 2007 paper would be in the range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000.(.00001% chance of extinction) Biggest population impacts would likely be Northern Hemisphere interior continental regions with relatively smaller impacts possible over Southern Hemisphere island nations like New Zealand.
2.The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors
Dallas, 15 [Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War" August 16 2015
http://www.newsweek.com...
long-term investigations have concluded there are no statistically significant increases in birth defects resulting in atomic bomb survivors.. A WHO study concluded that there were no differences in rates of mental retardation and emotional problems in Chernobyl radiation-exposed children compared to children in control groups. A Harvard review concluded that there was no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced effects on embryos or fetuses from the accident.
They say firestorms are deadly however Earth only needs 5 million alive to sustain Human population.
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014)
Candidate minimal-regret population: A global human population of 5 million
hunter-gatherers and a single industrialized country of 5 million.
. Why 5 million? Because it appears from
archeological evidence that the planet was able to support about 5 million hunting gathering human beings for hundreds of thousands of years, without causing substantial
changes to the biosphere.
A.They say ozone layer but nukes do the exact opposite it would solve climate change not induce it Even NASA agrees " a nuclear war solves warming best
Rosenberg 11 [Adam, reporter for digital trends "Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA Says" February 28 2011
http://www.digitaltrends.com...
big thinkers at NASA have worked out that even a small-scale nuclear conflict could serve to reverse the effects of global warming even a small "regional" conflict could have a dramatic impact on rising temperatures around the globe that the fires left in its wake would release five million metric tons of black carbon into Earth"s atmosphere. It would first settle in at the upper part of the tropospherewhich means a longer period of global coolings. A more grand-scale nuclear engagement would have similar results, With a smaller regional conflict, the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research scientist Luke Oman said in a Friday press conference. Average global temperatures could drop as much as 2.25 degrees for two to three years after.
Mindset shift debate
The Con doesn"t do any work here so grant that there will be a mindset shift after the nukes. I won"t spend much time here either.
A MINIMAL REGRET SOCIETY CREATES HARMONY & A MEANINGFUL EXISTENCE BETWEEN A HIGH & LOW-TECH CULTURES. THEIR MUTUAL DEPENDENCE WILL CHECK RAMPANT INDUSTRIALIZATION & RISKS OF EXISTINCTION
CALDWELL 2003 [Joseph George Caldwell, Handbook of Planetary Management,

One of the fascinating aspects of the minimal-regret is the fact that it allows for and promotes both a high-technology society and low-technology societies on the planet. In a minimal-regret-population world, both cultures exist in harmony. Both exist on the same planet in a symbiotic relationship preventing the rise of mass (global) industrialization. and dramatically reduces the likelihood of human-species extinction from catastrophic incident
BertrandsTeapot

Con

Before digging into many of Pro's arguments and sources, let's look at the statement that effectively lies at the crux of the entire debate. Pro claims that, assuming a nuclear war produces a society in the state that his sources say it will (which is debatable, at best), the new civilization that arises will be patently "better" than the current civilization. More specifically, Pro states, "This Shift in consciousness will "create a world beyond the dichotomy of war" meaning that this will indeed be the ear to end all wars," and " After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again." Pro and I would likely be able to exchange countless rounds of sources making our respective cases. I would argue that an overwhelming amount of Pro's evidence comes from Caldwell and/or misleading/outdated research, though I feel it is important to put that aside for a moment. I could also note the clear differentiation in spelling and grammar between the two of our sets of arguments, but we can leave that for voters to decide in later rounds.

Note: My argument in this round in no way is a concession that any of Pro's claims about the current state/capacity of our environment, the biological effects of nuclear war, the environmental implications of various fallout scenarios etc. are correct. Rather, I'd like to show that even if those were to be granted, there is nothing remotely resembling a guarantee that the consequent society would be superior to our current one. Since the Burden of Proof to show that the positive effects of "Global Nuclear War" outweigh the negative effects, I feel it should be incumbent upon them to show, irrefutably, that a world resulting from a nuclear holocaust would be better than the current state of affairs.

Right off the bat, I would ask how we know who it is that is going to survive this nuclear holocaust. Are we going to corral the greatest thinkers, political scientists, and philosophers into the only safe bunker to ensure that those creating a new society are those best fit to not make the same mistakes as past civilizations? "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it," as it is said. Pro claims that those who survive will have a new "mind set" but by what mechanism would this be achieved or even likely? I don't think any educated person would suppose that a majority of this world's citizens would be fit to effectively rebuild a "better" society (whatever that means) than we live in today. If the group of people that survives are proportionately representative of the current population, who is to say the same evolution won't take place? Pro states, "A minimal-regret strategy offers a way to do things differently." As I said, I am choosing to neither refute nor affirm their specious arguments in this round, but rather ask they fulfill the BoP in helping voters understand in what way it is certain that a surviving population make use of, let alone even be familiar with a minimal-regret strategy. Humans are the only species to hunt and kill just for fun rather than survival. What is to be made of that?

Tangentially, "minimal-regret" isn't even the name of a leading forms of decision making in decision theory (see: minimax, maximax, and maximin (and sometimes Expected Value and Iterated Removal) - University of Oxford, Richland College). But that is neither here nor there.

On to some scholars:

Every civilization that’s ever existed has collapsed. This suggests that while humans have variable potential natures subject to ongoing biological and cultural evolutionary processes, the emergent dynamic of human behavior seems to always be the same, which is expansion until collapse. I have a basic hypothesis as to why that might be so. The point in stating the hypothesis is really to frame the problem as fundamentally as possible so that mitigating solutions can be properly focused.

The basic idea is that exploiters will always emerge – somewhere – in the global population. As a thought experiment, imagine a world where systems were indefinitely sustainable, and the current global population was cooperative in maintaining this sustainability. Given inherent genetic and environmental variability, however, as well as the fact that the environment itself can undergo changes that are both locally and/or globally catastrophic (e.g. earthquakes and large volcanic eruptions), the emergence of people who are exploitive in nature will always naturally emerge.

And such exploitation would beget ever-greater exploitation over time, until we reach the state of collapse once again. This is because exploitation involves the hoarding of surplus and the manipulation of exploited people to produce this surplus. And once such dynamics begin, they only give the exploiters more resources and technology with which to accelerate the exploitation process. Exploitation inevitably leads to growth in other words.

This exploitation could develop from a sustainable cooperative state in a number of ways, from the generational erosion and conversion of sustainable mechanisms to selfish ones, to bands of raiders pillaging the countryside after losing their home to an environmental catastrophe.

This dynamic seems impossible to keep from developing. The only possible solutions would be to somehow change Homo Sapiens themselves (impossible), or build sufficient immunization into what necessarily must be a global system on some level, otherwise the development of an exploitive culture in one area of the world entails the demise of sustainable cultures elsewhere.

If we can’t reach sufficient technological sophistication to mitigate the more catastrophic existential risks, such as asteroid strikes, then our extinction is also eventually entailed. We had once chance with oil to make ourselves secure, but instead we’ve almost destroyed ourselves with a resource that could have preserved us long-term. Now what?

("Human Nature", Ehrlich, Eric Hiatt)

I love nature. We all do. How could it be otherwise? For tens and even hundreds of thousands of years, we as a species came of age through daily and intimate connection with the natural world. That propensity and need to connect - deeply and intimately - with nature is with us still. It's part of our human nature. If that's true - and I'm sure it's true, though the research evidence is only beginning to catch up to it - then why are we degrading and destroying nature at such an astonishingly quick pace? The partial answer I'd like to discuss here focuses on a problem that drives me half crazy. It's the problem of what I've called "environmental generational amnesia. (Peter H Kahn Jr., Ph.D.)

Within anthropological and historical studies, there are 5 components that often accompany societal collapses: destratification, despecialization, decentralization, destructuralization, and depopulation. Other theories regarding social collapse include:

Linking social/environmental dynamics - Modern social critics commonly interpret things like sedentary social behavior as symptomatic of societal decay, and link what appears to be laziness with the depletion of important non-renewable resources. However, many primitive cultures also have high degrees of leisure, so if that is a cause in one place it may not be in another—leisure or apparent laziness is then not a sufficient cause. (Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed)

Population pressure and mineral resource exhaustion - see Joseph Tainter or Frederick Jackson Turner

Toynbee’s theory of decay - all civilizations pass through several distinct stages: genesis, growth, time of troubles, universal state, and disintegration.

And, finally, per Wikipedia, a quick list of societies that have collapsed over time:

By reversion or simplification

  • Akkadian Empire
  • Hittite Empire
  • Mycenaean Greece
  • The Neo-Assyrian Empire
  • Indus Valley Civilization
  • Angkor civilization of the Khmer Empire
  • Han and Tang Dynasty of China
  • Western Roman Empire
  • Izapa
  • Maya, Classic Maya collapse
  • Munhumutapa Empire
  • Olmec

By absorption

  • Sumer by the Akkadian Empire
  • Ancient Egypt by the Libyans, Nubians, Assyria, Babylonia, Persian rule, Greece, Ptolemaic Dynasty, and the Roman Empire
  • Babylonia by the Hittites
  • Etruscans by the Roman Republic
  • Ancient Levant
  • Classical Greece by the Roman Empire
  • Dacians by the Roman Empire
  • Eastern Roman Empire (Medieval Greek) of the Byzantines by the Arabs and Turks
  • Modern North East Asian civilizations
  • Qin, Song, Mongol and Qing China
  • Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan, ending with the Meiji Restoration
  • Aztecs by the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire
  • Incas by the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire

By extinction or evacuation

  • Cahokia
  • Lost cities
  • Norse colony on Greenland
  • Original Polynesian civilization on Pitcairn Island
  • Malden Island
  • Flinders Island
  • Carthaginian Empire
In summation, I used this round's argument not to counter Pro's specific claims, though I am happy to do so in future rounds. I feel that, as illogical as his/her viewpoint may be, there may also be someone who has written on the subject in such a way that Pro can construe evidence or proof. Pro likely thinks the same of me. Rather, I used this round to show a flaw in the logic underlying the entirety of the argument, namely that given any post-apocalyptic world, there is no guarantee that a civilization would arise in which positive externalities have outweighed negative and society would be any better off than today.

Debate Round No. 2
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Lets start with the Caldwell indict
Look the Con keeps hinting that Caldwell does not actually advocate for nuclear war I know I have the exact same piece of evidence in my answers to spark.. (LOL we both need to update are spark files for this season), while that was true until just recently, Caldwell is all for nuclear war in 2018 in fact he now advocated for one. They also say that Caldwell is outdated, here is Caldwell in 2018 saying that Nukes are indeed the salvation that humanity needs.
Caldwell 2018 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Is Nuclear War Survivable Published May 15 2018
"Donald Trump May Have Substantially Increased the Likelihood of the Long-Term Survival of Mankind." By his pronouncements on nuclear warfare, Donald Trump may or may not have raised the likelihood of an eventual global nuclear war. The likelihood of an eventual global nuclear war is already very high, and it is unlikely that his statements could change it much. It would appear, however, that he may very well have made a significant change in the timing of that war. He has likely moved the occurrence of that war much closer. By doing so, he may well bring about an early end to the Sixth Extinction, and he may well have significantly increased the likelihood of the long-term survival of mankind.

Next lets go to the collapse debate,
The Con makes a huge mistake again, the con drops the meadows in 14 evidence. This evidence says that the biosphere will collapse in 2020, that"s in 2 years. The judges can think that its crazy to claim that but it doesn"t matter because the Con drops it.
They make an argument here about how every civilization ever has collapsed and then provides a list but
1.This collapse will not happen in 2 years, which it would have to, to solve for the biosphere collapse.
2.The Collapse that I am referring to is an extinction event of the entire planet not the collapse of just a civilization
Next on the solvency part of the debate the Con again does not work here other than asking if we round up all of the worlds smart people and protect them" NO we want to kill everyone randomly and the industrialized areas of the world.

On Survivability the Con Claims that they are not conceding to the fact the I won this portion of the debate and they would address it later, they can claim this all they want but the fact of the matter is they could not provide evidence to this at the time and would be extremely abusive to allow the Con to bring it up at a later time and expect me to address it properly. So the Judges need to grant me the survivability portion of the debate when the Con spends no time on this debate.

Next to the mindset shift the Con makes an arg that there can be no guarantee of a civilization post spark. But that doesn"t mean anything when I am winning the timeframe debate of the collapse. In 2 years nothing will be alive on the earth unless the spark happens which the Con has already conceded solves for the collapse. So the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn"t mean anything at all.

Remember from the second round I said I had to win four things to win this debate

1.We are all dead from the impending biosphere collapse
2.The Spark will stop the biosphere from Collapsing
3.Some form of life will continue post spark
4.Whatever form of life that survives will have a peaceful mindset towards the planet.
So far the Con has not proven any of those things will not happen.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

Pro's arguments are only growing more convoluted and contradictory as we move along in this debate. They are also growing more and more presumptuous and illogical, as I will show below.

First of all, they still have not addressed the issue that I pointed out is at the crux of the debate. Regardless of how many (if any) survivors nuclear holocaust leaves, Pro insists that an unsubstantiated, non-evidenced "spark" will create the inception of a great new society that will be categorically and objectively "better" than our current civilization. As the BoP lies with Pro, it is absolutely essential that they irrefutably prove that, assuming ALL of their other claims are true (a point on which I vehemently beg to differ), the consequent society will be one such that the positive effects of "global nuclear war" outweigh the negative effects.

Pro states "here is Caldwell in 2018 saying Nukes are indeed the salvation that humanity needs." Despite the fact that this is still one person allegedly saying the same thing repeatedly, Pro then goes on to reiterate his credentials (which have nothing to do with science, anthropology, sociology, or anything else related to this debate) and then cites a quote about Donald Trump stating he may have increased the likelihood of long-term survival of mankind. If the long-term survival of mankind has been increased, why would we be favoring nuclear warfare?

This is where Pro starts to contradict him/herself.

They say, "the biosphere will collapse in 2020, that"s in 2 years" and just a few lines later say, "This collapse will not happen in 2 years"

They then say, "The Collapse that I am referring to is an extinction event of the entire planet not the collapse of just a civilization" yet they previously stated, "When we survive, we will pick up the pieces, start anew with a new mindset." The word "survive", by definition, is mutually exclusive with the term, "extinction event of the entire planet." T

Furthermore, it is clear that Pro missed the point of the argument about civilization collapse. The point was that, regardless of the sequential occurrence of the "global nuclear war" and consequent "spark" that will mysteriously give rise to the superior civilization Pro insists will occur, it is almost inevitable that that civilization will, in turn, collapse.

Pro goes on to state, "On Survivability the Con Claims that they are not conceding to the fact the I won this portion of the debate and they would address it later, they can claim this all they want but the fact of the matter is they could not provide evidence to this at the time" however, as I've just illustrated, it would be impossible to provide evidence to specifically counter their argument since they've provided contradictory arguments. Will some of humanity survive the nuclear war and pick up the pieces? Or will it be a mass extinction?

Next, Pro states, "Con makes an arg that there can be no guarantee of a civilization post spark...In 2 years nothing will be alive on the earth unless the spark happens which the Con has already conceded solves for the collapse. So the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn't"t mean anything at all."

Aside from the fact that this "spark" is an entirely ambiguous, also-unsubstantiated event/force, I need to point to the phrase, "the fact that Civilization may not be recovered doesn't"t mean anything at all."

**Let the voters be sure to recognize that Pro just stated that deciding whether the net effects of global nuclear war are positive or negative is independent of whether a new, superior civilization is "recovered."**

Unless we are moving to a philosophical Nihilist argument (which would be interesting, but seemingly out-of-place here), this seems to expose a fundamental flaw in Pro's reasoning.

Finally, let's move to the sequence of premises that Pro seems to think can be proven, in some sort of order (?), to affirm his/her argument.

Again, they refer to this undefined "spark" that we have no way of understanding nor contextualizing in terms of the survival and/or development of civilization. Regardless, this series of logic is nothing short of silly. The BoP is on Pro, not Con, and Pro has not only done nothing to prove these claims true, they haven't even validated the logical progression of their points.

Even IF we "are all dead" from the alleged collapse of an impending biosphere (debatable), and even IF "some form of life" will continue, Pro does nothing to define or explain what form of life this will be. Will it be a group of frogs? Trees? Microbial bacteria? Viruses? Mutant dragonflies? Who is to say that this life form will be sentient, let alone capable of developing a civilization, let alone capable of developing a civilization superior to that which currently exists. On that note, who or what is to say that "whatever form of life that survives will have a peaceful mindset towards the planet."

In summation, the only form of consistency held by Pro's arguments is their inconsistency and tendency toward self-contradiction (as demonstrated above). Furthermore, Pro's usage of the same source, even if a quote is updated, is no stronger proof of correctness than it was previously. Aristotle believed in the geocentric model at the beginning of his career and at the end. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Pro makes the completely unproven claim that a life form which is not just conscious and sentient, but has a peaceful mindset toward the planet, will survive the nuclear holocaust and be capable of developing a superior society such that the positive effects of said nuclear war will outweigh the negative.

Con did absolutely nothing to counter the ample evidence I provided showing the harm inflicted by nuclear warfare, but it is almost irrelevant due to their completely flawed logic, presumptuous thinking, and inherent contradictions.
Debate Round No. 3
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Lets start off with the indict again..
They say that Caldwell is unqualified to speak on this subject. But
1.Judges I urge you to click on anyone of the cites that I have used by Caldwell and read stuff about him, there is not a person that is more qualified to speak on this subject that Caldwell
2.They never made any arguments about the environment or anything that they say Caldwell isn"t qualified to talk about. I have other sources that will conclude the same things a Caldwell that are experts in their fields but I don"t read them when the Con doesn"t make any arguments that deal with any of those things
They bring up a quote about Trump I used.
1.Those were Caldwell"s words in 2018 that showed that he thought nuclear was indeed the way to save humanity.

Next they say I Contradict myself on the collapse debate.
1.When I said that the collapse will happen in 2 years I am talking about the collapse of the Biosphere
2.When I said that this collapse will not happen in two years I am talking about the collapse of civilization that the Con is referencing not the collapse of the biosphere, that"s my fault if I was not clear enough.
They say I contradict myself on survival of Civilization.
1.No I did not in fact not once have I said that modern civilization should survive. The con says I did when I was talking about the Mindset shift but I choose my words very carefully and so did Caldwell. Neither him or I claimed that it would be humans that survive the nuclear exchange. I did say it was possible that they survive but I never said I had to prove that humans or civilization had to survive post the nukes. ( To be clear I am not wiping out but I could have)
They say I Contradict myself on survivability because the Con had nothing to read on it, this is a bad argument, just because they did not understand this part of the debate does not mean I contradicted myself and here are a list of pretty damning things they could have read here. Don"t let them now it is to late and I don"t get another speech to defend myself
1.Firestorms
2.Chalko
3.Escalation
4. Bioweapons
5.Ecosystems
6.Bees
7.Pole Shift
Those are seven really good survivability claims that I would have made had I been in the Con"s position but they did not
Finally they say that on the mindset shift that I said there can be no guarantee of civilization so that means that I contradict myself. Again the same applies from the beginning I said the four things I had to win in order to prove that nuclear war is good and the survival of humans and civilization where not one of them. Yes I did say humans could survive in my first round but I did not outline that, human survival was key.

Lets break the debate down now

The Con drops honestly everything and its pretty damning for them. They go all in on that I have contradicted myself.

Lets start with the Biosphere collapse debate
1.The Biosphere is going to collapse in 2 years this argument has been all but conceded by the Con meaning you must weigh it as such when judging this debate. You judge may not think it will but that does not matter when the Con does not make that argument.
2.So with the impending collapse of the Biosphere we must do something to curb this or we are all dead.
With that lets move to the Solvency debate
1.This spark or nuclear war will stop the Biosphere from collapsing even if you judge think that is a crazy idea or will not happen it does not matter because the Con never claims that and it is far to late for them to claim it now when I do not get another speech to defend myself.
2.Since this nuclear saves some for of life from the impending collapse that is why nuclear war is good and the Con in their last round did not argue this back so here judges is your easy way out. You should be voting Pro right here The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations, outweighs the Con
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014)

Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must
be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only
result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and the
extinction of all other species on the planet
If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will
have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is
expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents
forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential
compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today?
( and no this is not a contradiction even though the con will try and say it is. I never wiped out)

Next if we go to the Survivability
1.Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments
2.Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead

Lastly if we go the mindset shift debate
1.The con only says this means that I must have to defend that a superior civilization will rise but that"s not at all what I am saying. All I am saying is that whatever form of life exists after the nukes will have a peaceful mindset. Never once did I say humans had to be the ones to have this shift. If humans do survive it they will have this mindset shift but even if they didn"t it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of a collapse again.
2.Since there is some form of a mindset shift post nukes that means I have proven that nuclear war is good.

You are voting pro because of four reasons
1.I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win
2.The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020
3.The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is I contradicted myself and that I cannot guarantee that civilization will continue but again I did not contradict myself and It doesn"t matter if or if not civilization will continue because Civilization is gone in 2 years anyway
4.The Con contradicts its self and its really damning. If I fact I did have to win that civilization must continue post spark the Con did it for me. By listing all of the other civilizations that had collapsed in the past and there were 20 of them. This means that the past 20 Civilization collapsed some form of human life was able to rebuild. This isn"t a contradiction of myself about mind set shift because even if there is error replication humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life meaning that nuclear war extend life.
Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won.

Judges The con is going to try and convince you that I have somehow contradicted myself but remember that I have chosen my words very carefully and I have not contradicted myself and the only person who has is the Con

Lastly Do not let the Con make new arguments I don"t get another round to respond to them.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

Let's go through this final round's argument in order. I feel I have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pro has not only used insufficient, narrow-minded, outdated sources to back up specious claims, but has also provided arguments rife with contradiction. Perhaps most importantly, they have completely failed to satisfy that which they themselves have resolved, that the net result of the action they recommend will be "good".

"Judges I urge you to click on anyone of the cites that I have used by Caldwell and read stuff about him, there is not a person that is more qualified to speak on this subject that Caldwell"

All of the articles cited on Caldwell's website are simply ones he wrote himself. This hardly confirms him as a qualified candidate to speak intelligently with authority on this matter. He has degrees in math and statistics, which also do not qualify him to speak on this matter. Furthermore, these degrees were conferred in 1962 and 1966, respectively. I think that suffices to say any academic standing he may have had is severely outdated. He has also authored books such as "How to Play the Guitar by Ear".

"They never made any arguments about the environment or anything that they say Caldwell isn"t qualified to talk about. I have other sources that will conclude the same things a Caldwell that are experts in their fields but I don"t read them when the Con doesn"t make any arguments that deal with any of those things"

I would direct all voters to my Round 1 statement in which I very specifically argued regarding the following (among other things):

- Effects on Climate
- Effects on Agriculture/Ozone Layer
- Effects on Human Health

I think it goes without saying that the climate and ozone layer very much concern the environment.

Furthermore, the BoP is on Pro. It is incumbent upon him/her to bring up all of these alleged sources from "experts in their fields" if they substantiate their currently unsubstantiated, contradictory claims.

"Next they say I Contradict myself on the collapse debate."

In Pro's final argument he states that he was "not clear(ly) enough" arguing that the biosphere would collapse in 2 years, though civilization would not. The biosphere is defined as, "the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth (or analogous parts of other planets) occupied by living organisms." Surely if the regions of the earth that are occupied by living organisms collapse, those organisms wouldn't be able to survive. Thus, in trying to counter the claim that Pro contradicted him/herself, he/she only served to further this notion.

"No I did not in fact not once have I said that modern civilization should survive. The con says I did when I was talking about the Mindset shift but I choose my words very carefully and so did Caldwell."

Grammar aside, this point doesn't make much sense. Yet again, Pro references his/her only source (Caldwell) who has degrees in subjects unrelated to this debate from over 50 years ago. They claim that they have not said that anyone from modern civilization would survive, but that there would be a "mindset shift". Mindset is defined as, "the established set of attitudes held by someone." Unless we enter the realm of an intense metaphysical debate, the word "someone" implies personhood which, in turn, implies conscious being(s). Thus, a shift in "mindset" requires continuity of consciousness and memory which, by definition, necessitates continuity of life. This, also by definition, implies survival. IF Pro meant to say that, though humans would be wiped out, a new civilization of similar beings would arise capable of generating a new society, surely they should be required to prove that this would happen. Just because they didn't list this on the things they need to prove doesn't negate the fact that they have to, if not up front, at least when I challenge the point.

"Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments"

I specifically raised questions on the nature of the survivability that Pro referenced when I stated:

"...it would be impossible to provide evidence to specifically counter their argument since they've provided contradictory arguments. Will some of humanity survive the nuclear war and pick up the pieces? Or will it be a mass extinction?"

"Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead"

It is here that I feel Pro has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of logical discourse. Ignoring, for a second, the fact that they contradicted themselves when they tried to argue that there would be life after "the nukes", they most certainly have not proven that post-2020 life would be better than pre-2020 life. By what definition is nuclear war "good"? Pro has still not provided this. Suppose the conscious life that remains after 2020 is filled with nothing but pain and suffering. Would ending the existence of a current society in which many are flourishing in the service of generating a civilization filled with misery necessarily, "good".

Not only do I have substantial misgivings regarding Pro's eschatological claims, I would also note that there have been countless previous predictions of when the "apocalypse" would occur which have, of course, shown false. Just a few recent ones include:

- June 30th, 2012
- December 21st, 2012
- August 23rd, 2013
- September 23rd-October 15th, 2017
- April 23rd, 2018

However, such predictions can be traced all the way back to 66-70 CE.

(https://goo.gl...)

"All I am saying is that whatever form of life exists after the nukes will have a peaceful mindset. Never once did I say humans had to be the ones to have this shift. If humans do survive it they will have this mindset shift but even if they didn"t it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of a collapse again."

Only certain life forms, not necessarily limited to humans but certainly limited in some way, can have a "peaceful mindset." Thus, Pro should at least need to prove that such a life form would survive/arise after nuclear apocalypse. Pro also did not prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that, "even if they didn't, it would at least be a couple thousand years before we were at risk of collapse again."

Pro completes his final argument as such:

You are voting pro because of four reasons

1.I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win. Not only have they not done this, but they have not countered any of the claims or arguments I've made in response to theirs. With BoP on Pro, it seems that this, alone, should sufficiently decide the debate.

2.The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020. Again, Pro has not proved this at all. Firstly, they did not even sufficiently show that life would end in 2020. More importantly, perhaps, they have not defined, "good", but they have not shown by any stretch that "one germ" surviving past 2020 is a "net good" as compared to humans living until then.

3.The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is I contradicted myself and that I cannot guarantee that civilization will continue but again I did not contradict myself and It doesn"t matter if or if not civilization will continue because Civilization is gone in 2 years anyway. This is, again, patently false and subject to the same fundamental issue that Pro seems to be missing here - that he/she needs to show that, in order for nuclear holocaust to be "good", the positive effects must outweigh the negative. In order to show this, in turn, they must first show that current civilization will not survive past 2020 (which they have not done sufficiently), and then that whatever life follows will be of superior nature. They most certainly have not done the latter.

4.The Con contradicts its self and its really damning. If I fact I did have to win that civilization must continue post spark the Con did it for me. By listing all of the other civilizations that had collapsed in the past and there were 20 of them. This means that the past 20 Civilization collapsed some form of human life was able to rebuild. This isn"t a contradiction of myself about mind set shift because even if there is error replication humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life meaning that nuclear war extend life.
Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won. Again, this is misdirection, fundamental misunderstanding, and contradiction on Pro's part. In Round 3, we established that Pro stated that deciding whether the net effects of global nuclear war are positive or negative is independent of whether a new, superior civilization is 'recovered'". He/she is now saying something completely different. Furthermore, the fact that the collapses of past civilizations preceded the rise of new ones in no way implies that any sort of "good" society will arise post-nuclear-apocalypse. This is because of the fairly obvious (I believe) reason, that those civilizations did not collapse due to a complete annihilation of the world in which the future civilizations arose. I previously outlined, in ways Pro did not contest, a few of the many ways in which nuclear war would set up a future world in which life would be unlikely, impossible, or simply uncomfortable. The listing of these civilizations does not imply that "humanity will have gained beyond 2 years of life" because that very listing does not imply that humanity will survive this particular type of collapse.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AKMath 3 years ago
AKMath
@BertrandsTeapot
Will you accept my debate on America is the best country?
Sorry about the abortion debate...
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Hey thanks this was one of the best Spark debates I have had on this site, it was nice to run into someone that understood what was happening to them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.