The Instigator
DrunkHoboSniper
Pro (for)
The Contender
DebaterTheWise
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DebaterTheWise has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 109711
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Nuclear war is a good thing

A) Biosphere collapse is inevitable for three reasons
1. Over population
2. Resource depletion
3. Inequality

B) A nuclear war would solve for biosphere collapse the quicker the better
.
C) We would survive. Life would continue post nukes .

D) Mind set shift. When we survive and pick up the pieces we will began again with a new mind set
DebaterTheWise

Con

Nuclear war is a bad thing

Refuting arguments...

A) Biosphere collapse is inevitable, but we can delay it for long past humans are gone by using renewable energy.
1) Population growth slows down. It is estimated that the 12th billion human will never be born. Source:
2) Renewable energy! (read in bill wurtz-like jingle)
3) Civil Rights and the UN! (also read in bill worth jingle)

B) WE DON'T NEED BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE.

C. "Nine countries together possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status " ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945." -http://www.icanw.org...

This would definitely eradicate humanity because of a wondrous (not actually wondrous) thing called nuclear winter.

D) See B.

WE DO NOT NEED NUCLEAR WAR. LISTEN TO FACTS.
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 " I WAS 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 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.

WE ONLY NEED TO WIN FOUR THINGS. 1. IN THE WORLD OF THE AFF 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.

The Con agrees and says biosphere collapse is inevitable, but can be slowed but Meadows is really good on this issue of time frame for the collapse he writes we must act with quickness past 2015 we are playing with fire and past 2020 we are dead
http://energyskeptic.com...

They say renewable energy but
Mukerjee,writes in Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Scientific American.
http://energyskeptic.com...
collapse is now all but inevitable,. "It will come through a self-reinforcing complex of issues""including climate change, resource constraints and socioeconomic inequality. "when the rich can"t get more by producing real wealth they start to use their power to take from lower segments and inequality increases, You can"t expect markets to solve the problem the short-term focus of capitalism and of extant democratic systems makes it impossible not only for markets but also for most governments to deal effectively with long-term problems such as climate change. "
Ill grant the con that population is falling but that doesn"t matter as long as I am winning one of the three for the collapse I am good but as it happens im winning two.

This means that you should be voting pro on the chance that nuclear war doesn't cause extinction. It doesn"t and I will answer my opponents arguments on survivability in a moment but for now lets go to the solvency of nuclear war.

The Con only makes one argument here and that is we don"t need the biosphere. Extinction is assured without the Biosphere this is common knowledge and
Caldwell writes in his book titled will america survive
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.

Caldwell is really good on this (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)
I could go more but im winning the solvency
Next on survivability the con only makes one argument and that is we will all die from nuclear winter. I never said humanity would live I said some form of life would continue post war, but I will defend humanity would survive for now.

They say nuclear winter but
1.Next the Con says we wont survive because of a nuclear winter induced ice age but i have 1 response
NUCLEAR WAR WON'T CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING. OCEANS WOULD GUARANTEE WEATHER PATTERNS, WHICH WASHES AWAY SMOKE CLOUDS
ZUTEL writes
http://www.peace.ca...,
To enumerate some other problems with the nuclear winter mechanism: 1. The cooling mechanism as Sagan and associates describe it, could only operate over land masses. Ocean surface water is continually supplied with heat from below. Even if sunlight were blocked for many months, the temperature at the ocean surface would remain virtually unchanged. Consequently, weather patterns would continue, with warm moisture laden air from the oceans sweeping over the land masses and as it cools, rain clouds would form and even more of the sun blocking smoke and dust particles would be washed out of the atmosphere.

Zutel is also really good on this
[Eugene G., Arizona Dept. of Emergency

2.Only .000001% chance of extinction from 150 teragrams of black carbon nuclear winter
Shulman, writes
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.

Hes really good on this 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)

Last go to the mindset. They don"t do a good enough job here so grant me a 100% risk of a mindset shift post war.
So with all of that being said this debate is really easy either you vote Pro and provide future generations to earth or you vote con and we are all dead by 2020.
DebaterTheWise

Con

Biosphere collapse is inevitable, yet we can survive it without a change in mindset. We can "save the planet" and use renewable energy. We could take Elon Musk"s route and go to other planets. Or we could just enjoy the life we have. Your arguments are like saying that we should blow up the Earth to prepare us for the heat death of the Universe. Because, what I was saying is that biosphere collapse is inevitable, but we can put it far in the future. We are definitely going to die when the Sun swallows the Earth or when the Universe dies, so why end it now? We don"t need to push humanity into a few bunkers into the ground. An all-out nuclear war would also kill us all. And we don"t have to worry about governments doing nothing about climate change, because Elon Musk is getting us to Mars. Also, you can"t "wash away" smoke clouds that are covering the ENTIRE PLANET. Remember 1816, "The Year Without A Summer?" Here"s some info: https://www.google.com... . This shows us what nuclear winter would be like. Also, nuclear fallout would be so dangerous that we could not go to the surface for years. Mess with some specs here: http://nuclearsecrecy.com... . All of this says that a nuclear war would kill everyone and would not be good.
Debate Round No. 2
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Overview
Look This debate is a simple one, In the world of the Con we are all dead by 2020 from biosphere collapse. The Con tries to claim that we would just leave earth or "get off the rock" but as we will get to in moment on the biosphere collapse debate this is a problem for them. The only thing that can stop the biosphere from collapsing is a minimal regret strategy nuclear war. When this happens it solves for resource depletion and over population this is a very easy win for the Pro

Global warming
The Con claims that nuclear war is bad and that elon musk will solve for global warming but spark solves warming
Even NASA agrees " a nuclear war solves warming best
Rosenberg writes 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.
Adam, reporter for digital trends "Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA Says"

Racism
Spark also solves racism
No spark = Slavery and dehumanization
Caldwell writes

The agricultural revolution led naturally to human slavery. In a hunter-gatherer
mode, it is not practical to keep slaves. Slavery did not exist because our forefathers were less ethical or religious than we.
On the contrary, they were far more religious than we are. Slavery existed because of a
strong demand for energy, Take away today"s access to energy, and human slavery will return as quickly as it left.
(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)

Biosphere collapse
Next on the biosphere Collapse debate the Con makes a claim that we could simply get off the rock and go to mars. This would have been kind of damming for me if the con had done any work on the time frame debate. The Con Concedes Meadows that says the biosphere will collapse in 2020, means we would have to colonize mars in less than two years. So if we had longer, getting off the rock might be a better solution but the Con doesn"t do any work on the time frame debate, don"t let the con now make timeframe arguments it"s too late, they should have been made earlier.

Next extend all of my biosphere collapse inevitable claims and warrants. The Con conceded the reasons for biosphere collapse in the last round, they never brought any evidence that was assumptive of what I said in the last round, the Con Just made general claims with no warrants.

Solvency
This is pretty easy here the Con concedes that a nuclear war would solve the collapse. Extend my arguments here. I have done enough to be sufficient here especially when this is conceded.

Survivability
They say that you cannot simply wash away black carbon but
1.Cross apply the Nasa card here. It is only in the troposphere for two years doesn"t cause extinction
2.Read the cons article it talks about what a nuclear winter might look like by using a condition 200 year ago and humans survived that. The Cons evidence says nothing about extinction
My Three pieces of evidence are good enough on this point I"m winning that we survive
Then the Con says that I want to Blow up the earth.
1.Not true just have a minimal regret strategy nuclear war
2.If you read Chalko evidence saying that it will I have answers
The con Says radiation would kill us but
1.The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors
Dallas, writes
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.
[Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War"

Next the Con says that the universe will collapse and kills us if the spark doesn"t but
Zey Writes
HUMANS ARE CRITICAL TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE FROM THE BIG CHILL OR BIG CRUNCH "BIG BANG REBOUNDS OR SUN EXPLOSION, MEANS WE OUTWEIGH ALL YOUR SCENARIOS

Our species is guided by a sense of higher purpose, a destiny, as it were, of which we are only now becoming aware. This new vision synthesizes a century of scientific and theoretic research into the nature of the human species and our ultimate place and role in the evolving universe. the human race"s capacity to vitalize, bring life, order, creativity, and novelty to everything it touches, sets the world on a completely new evolutionary trajectory. Moreover, the world now possesses an entity, the human species, that could develop tools to save the universe from the Big Chill or the Big Crunch, the demise argued by the Big Bang theory.
(executive director of the expansionary institute) [Michael, The Futurist n3 v35 p28,
This means that if there is a .0000000000001% chance humans survive the spark you vote Pro to save the universe and solve biosphere collapse
They also say that there is no reason to push humans into bunkers but
1.Don"t put them in bunkers solves overpopulation and inequality since most first and second world countries would take the most of the nukes
Mindset shift
Again they do no work here so give me 100% chance of a mindset change post spark.

Underview

Look they make very few warranted arguments and a lot of claims keep that in mind when evaluation the debate. I will impact calc and address morality concerns in my last speech
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
Nd2400
And millions and millions will be lost. And you could be in those millions of lost lives. So are you sure you want one. If you knew you won't make it.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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