The Instigator
DrunkHoboSniper
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Amphia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Global Nuclear War is good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
DrunkHoboSniper
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 110239
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Global nuclear War is good

A. Biosphere collapse is inevitable for three reasons
1. Resource depletion
2. Overpopulation
3. Inequality

B. Nuclear war solves the collapse

C. We would survive

D. There would be a mindset shift post nukes
Amphia

Con

Global nuclear war is bad

A. Disastrous effects on the climate (acts as a catalyst to climate change)

B. Nuclear war leads to mass destruction of life
-Human life (radiation)
-Animal life
-Plant life

C. We might survive, but that doesn't make it worth the fight. We survived WWI and WWII, that doesn't mean they were worth it.

Explain the mind shift please.
Debate Round No. 1
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE - OUR SPECIES CONTINUES TO PILLAGE THE PLANET AND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY IT - THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN ATTEMPT TO GET RID OF OUR CURRENT MINDSET IN RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND WAR IS TO 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! 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 WAR TO END ALL WARS. THIS WILL CRATE NOT ONLY WORLD WHERE WE RESPECT OUR SELVES AND OTHERS LIKE US BUT ALSO THE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER SPECIES THAT WE LIVE WITH.

I ONLY NEED TO WIN FOUR THINGS. 1. IN THE WORLD OF THE CON WE ARE ALL DEAD FROM 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.

Lets go to the biosphere collapse debate first

They drop that the biosphere will collapse. This is damning as the con concedes that all life will die when the biosphere collapses. They also don"t do any work on the timeframe of the collapse so you should prefer mine

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 in 14 writes
[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" June 3, 2014 Accessed November 6, 2015]
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".

This means we are all dead by 2020 meaning the spark is the only thing that can have a chance to save us.

Lets go to the solvency of the collapse.
The Con says that the spark would be a catalyst to climate change but does not give any evidence so you should prefer mine evidence that says spark will solve for the collapse. Not only does the spark solve the collapse it also solves warming

Even NASA agrees " a nuclear war solves warming best
Rosenberg in 11 writes
[Adam, reporter for digital trends "Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA Says" February 28 2011 Accessed November 10 2015]//
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 troposphere, which 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.

But spark also solves the collapse
Spark solves biosphere collapse takes out industrialization a key internal to collapse.
Caldwell in 2014 writes
(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.

Next they don"t do any work on Survivability besides saying it would kill a lot of people plants and animals. GOOD!!!!! That"s the point it solves for overpopulation and inequality and resource depletion
They say radiation but the con doesn"t say it causes extinction but I will pre-empt it
The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors
Dallas in 15 writes
[Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War" August 16 2015 Accessed November 11 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.

So we survive the spark

Next they don"t do any work on the mindset shift debate. All this says that we will have a peaceful mindset post spark

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 in 2003 writes
[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. At 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

Next they bring up morality concerns about the spark but
Spark Solves Future Generations Impact Magnifier
Caldwell in 2014 writes
(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)//EM

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?
That means if we are to save 40 quadrillion people we must kill 6 billion. That a pretty easy decision.
Amphia

Con

Something I would like to point out before I begin is that the reason I dropped everything as you say is simply because I was mimicking the format you used. But, let"s dissect this, shall we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My opponent mentions how biosphere collapse is inevitable, thus the only way to survive is to have nuclear war which will shift our mind. I would like to point out how absurd this is. Decimating our population will not create a mind-shift, why would people decide to care about the Earth because everyone around them has died? People don"t care about the environment because of disconnect, they don"t feel a sense of urgency regarding climate change. Having a nuclear war wouldn"t give them a sense of urgency, if anything they would care less what happens to Earth because everything is dead and now there is no point.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My opponent also provided some burdens. I would like to scrap those and provide my own. Since my opponent claims solvency, they have the burden of proof, and must prove that a world with nuclear war is better than the status quo. However, I will rebut their own burdens regardless.
1.Yes, we will all die eventually but that"s a silly burden. How can anyone prove the world won"t end at some point?
2.Nuclear war does not stop biosphere collapse. How can you say we are all dead from collapse and then in the same breath say nuclear war will stop what is inevitable? In your own evidence you state the following: "Once the peaks occur (between 2015 and 2020) all bets are off: past that point." We are in 2018 and nothing has happened. But even if you don"t buy that, that is all based on "assumption" as Meadows puts it. What we do know is that if there IS nuclear war, people will die and the environment will suffer.
3.My opponent states some life will remain on Earth but this is Phillips 2000:

PHILLIPS 2000
No scientific study has been published since 1990, and very little appears now in the peace or nuclear abolition literature. *It is still important.* With thousands of rocket-launched weapons at "launch-on-warning", any day there could be an all-out nuclear war by accident. The fact that there are only half as many nuclear bombs as there were in the 80's makes no significant difference. Deaths from world-wide starvation after the war would be several times the number from direct effects of the bombs, and the surviving fraction of the human race might then diminish and vanish after a few generations of hunger and disease, in a radioactive environment.

Nuclear war causes human extinction. Another good point made by Philips is the following:

(I separated the information into paragraphs for clarity).

Nuclear war destroys the environment
The 1980's research showed that the dust and the smoke would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would be dark and cold like an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The cloud of dust and smoke would circle the northern hemisphere quickly. Soon it could affect the tropics, and cold would bring absolute disaster for all crops there. Quite likely it would cross the equator and affect the southern hemisphere to a smaller degree.
While the temperature at the surface would be low, the temperature of the upper part of the troposphere (5-11 km) would rise because of sunlight absorbed by the smoke, so there would be an absolutely massive temperature inversion. That would keep many other products of combustion down at the levels people breathe, making a smog such as has never been seen before.

PYROTOXINS is a word coined for all the noxious vapours that would be formed by combustion of the plastics, rubber, petroleum, and other products of civilization. It is certain that these poisons would be formed, but we do not have quantitative estimates. The amount of combustible material is enormous, and it would produce dioxins, furans, PCB's, cyanides, sulphuric and sulphurous acids, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in amounts that would make current concerns about atmospheric pollution seem utterly trivial. There would also be toxic chemicals like ammonia and chlorine from damaged storage tanks. Another bad environmental thing that would happen is destruction of the ozone layer. The reduction in the ozone layer could be 50% - 70% over the whole northern hemisphere - very much worse than the current losses that we are properly concerned about.

Nitrogen oxides are major chemical agents for this. They are formed by combination of the oxygen and nitrogen of the air in any big fire and around nuclear explosions, as they are on a smaller scale around lightning flashes. So after the smoke cleared and the sun began to shine again, there would be a large increase of UV reaching the earth's surface. This is bad for people in several ways, but don't worry about the skin cancers ? not many of the survivors would live long enough for that to matter. UV is also bad for many other living things, notably plankton, which are the bottom layer of the whole marine food chain. There would likely be enough UV to cause blindness in many animals. Humans can protect their eyes if they are aware of the danger. Animals do not know to do that, and blind animals do not survive. Blind insects do not pollinate flowers, so there is another reason why human crops and natural food supplies for animals would fail.

Altogether, nuclear winter would be an ecological disaster of the same sort of magnitude as the major extinctions of species that have occurred in the past, the most famous one being 65 million years ago at the cretaceous extinction. Of all the species living at the time, about half became extinct. The theory is that a large meteor made a great crater in the Gulf of California, putting a trillion tons of rock debris into the atmosphere. That is a thousand times as much rock as is predicted for a nuclear war, but the soot from fires blocks sunlight more effectively than rock debris.

In nuclear winter there would also be radioactive contamination giving worldwide background radiation doses many times larger than has ever happened during the 3 billion years of evolution. The radiation would notably worsen things for existing species, though it might, by increasing mutations, allow quicker evolution of new species (perhaps mainly insects and grasses) that could tolerate the post-war conditions. (I should just mention that there is no way the radioactivity from a nuclear war could destroy "all life on earth". People must stop saying that. There will be plenty of evolution after a war, but it may not include us.)

This also serves to turn my opponent"s NASA argument. Even if there will be mass amounts of cooling, this would lead to"human EXTINCTION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My opponent talks about biosphere collapse which is inevitable. They do not even solve for this, as I said before, our mindsets will not be changed. If this is a policy debate (which I think it is), if Con wins on just one stock issue, I win. Thus I am winning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nuclear war will not send the human race back 100s of years ago to when there was no industrialization. The Pro has so many contradictions. In their own evidence they say that we have put too much toxic gases into the air. This is their Meadows card: "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" We have FUNDAMENTALLY changed our Earth, nuclear war won"t change that. It"s too late.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nuclear war solves for overpopulation alright. In fact, it"s OVERKILL. We"re going to have human extinction my friends! Even if not everyone dies during the war, they will die when the air becomes toxic and we can"t grow crops and humans are too slow to evolve! But I guess you"re right that we won"t have inequality anymore. Since everyone will be dead. :)
My radiation argument was not meant to be a card for extinction. It was an example of the negative effects of nuclear war. No, radiation won"t kill everyone, nor will it kill all the babies, but our toxic environment certainly will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I have said already, minimal regret is a flimsy argument. Both cultures do not exist in harmony because both cultures are dead. But even if they were alive after nuclear war (which they won"t be, trust me), why would that change their mindset? At this point, the Earth is destroyed, crops won"t grow, infrastructure is decimated, what do they even have left? It"s WAY too late to start over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In their Caldwell 14 evidence, my opponent states that nuclear war may kill 6 billion people but without nuclear war everyone dies. My opponent does not even solve for human extinction. As I have said numerous times, nuclear war LEADS to human extinction. So I guess my opponent is saying that we can solve extinction with extinction? And even if nuclear war didn"t lead to extinction, they still do not solve because the mind shift change argument is flimsy.
So anyone watching this debate must make a decision. Do we want extinction in a long time? Or do we want it right now? If you vote for the Pro, you want to die real quick. If you vote Con, you want to live longer. Also going back to burdens, my burden was that the Pro has to prove the world with nuclear war is better than without. As I have shown you, it isn"t. Thus I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Biosphere Collapse
They just say that my time frame is off because its 2018 and we haven"t seen any impacts that are going to happen in 2020, but don"t read any evidence on the time frame of the collapse which means meadows still stands as the time frame for the collapse.
They also say that this is an impossible burden because the world will end sometime. But the Con just had to win that the world wouldn"t end because of resource depletion over population or inequality. They didn"t so don"t let them now

NW solvency
They Say Nuclear war doesn"t solve for the collapse but
Only a minimal regret strategy nuclear war solves
Caldwell writes 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)//EM

The very serious drawback of the optimal-population-size approach is that it does not
address the issue of how much stress the environment can sustain without collapsing
From the viewpoint of long-term survival of the human race, this is an incredibly absurd
approach.The approach of determining optimal population size is an attempt to maximize the
number of human beings on the planet, while completely ignoring the possibility that
mankind"s economic activity may destroy all life on the planet.
. In contrast, the minimal-regret approach addresses the issue of planetary
destruction head on, and takes it fully into account.

Survivability

Extend their Survivability answers

Extend Philips in 2000
Your right we (the humans) would all die.
All of their we won"t survive cards talk about human life. Again look at my overview of last round I said I had to win some form of life post spark not human life , This is not abusive I as said that is what I would have to win
Again the con is very specific to who goes extinct because of the spark. Fine grant them humans go extinct doesn"t matter im still winning the spark debate
.

In the world of The Con , there is always a risk of biodiversity loss that would take out ALL LIFE FORMS at the expense of keeping some humans alive.

In the world of a Pro, humans are all dead due to the spark, however, other life on the planet would still be alive.

1. Oceans life would survive.
Dotto in 86 writes
[Lydia, study commissioned by the scientific committee on the problems of the environment and the INT"L scientific communions]

The open oceans are well buffered against extreme temperature changes. It is unlikely that even the most severe nuclear war scenario would result in acute-phase reductions of the sea-surface tempurature by more than a degree of two, and the temperature would not be expected to change in the deep oceans. Thus, little direct impact on ocean species is expected by temperature effects,

Mere human extinction claims are anthropocentric and morally wrong. Rights of non-humans would exist post human extinction.
Fox writes in "87 [Dep of Philosophy,l Queens U Ontorio.]

deep ecologists argue for a radical shift from anthropocentric to a biocentric or ecocentric one. non-human life forms have independent, intrinsic, or inherent value, they possess value in and of themselves and without reference to human experience, interests, or needsit follows that annihilating or decimating them is morally abhorrent. In short, the extinction, or massive slaughter of homosapiens is not the greatest tragedy that the earth could suffer other things have a right to continue existing even if we insist on obliterating ourselves in whole or in part.

Impact framing,

There is no inherent reason to vote to prefer human life over the life of other organisms.

3. No intrinsic value to human existence
Bayles writes in "85 [U of Florida philosopher]
Nonetheless, one should ask both why it is and how bad it would be. Would a nuclear war be bad because it would mean the end of the human species? I the continuation of the human species is not intrinsically desirable.

In fact the opposite is more true. Humans are innately bad.

4. If there"s anything unique about humans it"s our capacity and drive to destroy and inflict cruelty and suffering.
Branch writes in "92 [Professor and distinguished professor @ USC]

Humans are unique in their willingness to deliberately murder another member of their own species without defensive or evolutionary reason. With and without justification, humans harbor hate, absent in other animals. we almost always seek a scape goat to blame, or hate, or to destroy Throughout history, humans have been capable of deliberate cruelty, unknown in other species: torture; disfigurement, and dismemberment; crucifixion; burning at the stake, within a flaming "tire necklace," or dowsed with gasoline; and other violent acts calculated to terrorize. Except for several insect societies, only humans enslave members of their own species, and they are the only animals that provide a low level of existence and security for a substantial portion of the population. Only humans fouled their environment to the extent it causes sickness and death.

5. Even human existence does not end ethical obligation to other species and alien life.
Bayles writes in "80 [U of Florida philosopher]

the existence of human beings may not be necessary for duty, obligations, or values. Should other rational creatures capable of duties and obligations exist in the universe, then the extinction of the human species
And Other life outweighs human life

6. Other species just outweigh human extinction
Slack writes in "82 [Surplus Species need Prevail]
After all, this earth is theirs as much as it is ours. Perhaps, their claim is even superior to our own, since they outnumber us and they have done far less damage to our common habitation.

Means you vote Pro to keep some life on Earth at the expense of humans, in the face of the risk of losing all life forms due to humans.

Mindset shift

Kick this part of the debate, I don"t need to win it because human are dead post spark

Now to the frame work in which they said they only have to win one thing. Not true my framework was in my over view as long as I am winning now three things I win the debate
1.Bioshere will collapse ( I am they conceded)
2.NW solves ( I did prove and I have a lot of evidence if I need it)
3.Some life would survive ( I am they conceded when they read only humans go extinct". Shoulda read some Chalko )
Amphia

Con

It's alright but I'll just end the debate.

I've never been very into policy and I didn't realize what I was getting myself into here...
Debate Round No. 3
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Just extend all of my arguments

Thanks to my opponent for completing the debate.
Amphia

Con

Debate over.

T
H
E

E
N
D
!
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PointyDelta 3 years ago
PointyDelta
please stop posting your awful miscut cards
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
Welcome.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Thanks for finishing
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
Debate over! :)
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Do you need to post this round or will it just give it to me
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
It's fine.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Thanks, sorry if that came across as an insult
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
I forfeited without forfeiting.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
No, but I have done pf and never have felt like I could have impact turned. I honestly didn't mean it as an insult. Sorry if it came across like that, my bad
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
No, but I have done pf and never have felt like I could have impact turned. I honestly didn't mean it as an insult. Sorry if it came across like that, my bad
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 3 years ago
Varrack
DrunkHoboSniperAmphiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded

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