Jump to content

Recommended Posts

on the topic of galactic annihilation, given that our universe is actually accelerating, and therefor every day expands at a greater rate than the previous one, it seems illogical to assert that a species that in its entire history has been unable to travel outside of a single galaxy would be capable of destroying the entirety of the cosmos. given our rate of technological advancement, we would be so far behind the speed of the universe that a claim that we could destroy what we couldnt even map a one thousandth of a percent on seems totally absurd. thats just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm back. Sort of.

 

I stick to my original point that it's impossible for humanity to wipe the universe out. I'll extend those reasons next.

 

However, here's some more stuff.

 

The only scenario which is actually happening which all these wipeouters keep coming to again and again is the LHC. However, a few more reasons this could never happen:

1. Hawking radiation. Quantum physics stipulates that at any time particle pairs appear and disappear instantly at random locations. These disappear because there is one physical particle and one antimatter particle. However, in a black hole, when one of these pairs is created at the singularity, one of the two particles is sucked in and the other one remains in existance. The energy created in this particle is lost by the black hole. All this was predicted by Stephen Hawking and has since been experimentally proven. The point is that a black hole of the size which would be created in the LHC would almost instantly dissipate because of the hawking radiation. Only black holes with a certain mass (which is much much greater than the mass of the particles in the LHC) are able to remain constant.

2. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Particle collisions equally or even much more intense than those in the LHC or any other human-built particle accelerator happen any time a cosmic ray enters the atmosphere. Tiny black holes are probably appearing and disappearing all the time up above our heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The events you describe will not take place for millions of years. The time frame on humans destroying the universe is ten to a hundred years.

 

See, this is ridiculous. There is no possible human method of universal destruction which would ever happen in this amount of time.

 

Also, i was just wondering why anyone hadn't brought up the debate between BG and Westminister on Wipeout. I think it was semis of the Glenbrooks. Westminster won on "love is good," i think. It does seem like another weak, weak link among many in the chain of logic here is the idea that humanity is worse than aliens, so a certainty of human extinction is less important than a remote possibility of alien destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right, now for time travel.

 

1. Empirically denied. Never been time travel before.

2. No brink. There's no reason time travel will happen soon or ever. You can say "but we have tf cards" all you want. I don't care. Tell me warrants.

3. Einstein. He was smarter than any of your authors.

4. No means for time travel.

a. Black holes fail. Gravity would crush a traveller/device/anything. Even in a kerr hole, gravity would destroy it before it reached the non-singularity.

b. wormholes fail. Wormholes in themselves don't travel through time; they only travel through space. (even if they traveled through time, that would make time travel inevitable because wormholes either exist or don't independantly of humanity.) The scenario for time travel through a wormhole involves one end of a wormhole being moved at relativistic speeds while the other remains fixed; the moving end will have aged whereas the other will not. This allows the person at the moving end to step backwards and the person at the other end to step forewards. However, the nature of relativity prevents paradoxes from occurring; it would be impossible to communicate with the outside universe in a meaningful way. It's like primer, as long as they spend the day in a hotel room they can't cause a paradox. Also, wormholes fail because their ends can't move.

c. Everything else fails: gravitational acceleration, cosmic strings, human-made time machines, etcetera all fail because they are unable to travel into the past beyond the time when the machine was created, as doing so would require creation of infinite mass. Time travel in the future is okay because there's no possibility of a paradox.

5. No impact to time travel: The only possible impact to time travel is a paradox, which cannot happen by the very virtue of being a paradox. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is the best. The simplest solution here is that a paradox simply cannot happen. This is possible in a few ways; either time travel could be impossible, or it would create a branch of a paralell universe, or it would travel to a paralell universe. Even if a paradox happened, there's no reason it would cause anything bad. It would just happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass of the solar system:2.2574242 × 1030kilograms.

That mass converted to energy: 2.0289 x 1047 joules.

That energy converted to type II supernovae: 20.289

Now, that is definitely a lot of energy. However, it is also definitely not enough to destroy the entire freaking universe.

 

conceded. physical destruction of the universe is impossible.

 

temporal destruction of the universe is impossible.

 

metaphysical (eg, partical accelerators lead to splitting reality) destruction of the universe is impossible.

 

human destruction of the universe is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1)Most every aff. that I know of claims to prevent extinction. I also think it is folly to claim nuclear war would never cause extinction.

2)The few aff.'s that don't claim extinction I wouldn't run wipout on.

 

 

 

 

THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wipeout as a counterplan is run by Guertin in a strange way.

They wipe out 95% of all life and save the rest.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

humans probably can't destroy the universe. you can read jerry mander all day long, but he's just a lot of rhetoric without warrants (although, the rhetoric is great).

 

point being, you don't need to win universal destruction to run wipeout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's wipeout answers and some cards useful in running the arg available in the evazon.... here

 

 

p.s. the file includes the oft cited jerry mander 1991 space bad card, which everyone should read at least once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Hawking radiation. Quantum physics stipulates that at any time particle pairs appear and disappear instantly at random locations. These disappear because there is one physical particle and one antimatter particle. However, in a black hole, when one of these pairs is created at the singularity, one of the two particles is sucked in and the other one remains in existence. The energy created in this particle is lost by the black hole. All this was predicted by Stephen Hawking and has since been experimentally proven. The point is that a black hole of the size which would be created in the LHC would almost instantly dissipate because of the hawking radiation. Only black holes with a certain mass (which is much much greater than the mass of the particles in the LHC) are able to remain constant.

 

1) You never stipulate how fast the black hole looses this energy. Black holes do lose energy via hawking radiation and dissipate over time, but it is a very slow process. It is conceivable that it lives long enough to destroy earth.

 

2) This isn't even the best warrant for a particle accelerator disaster. The best story is as follows: when the universe was created the energy fields of the vacuum of space didn't fall to the lowest energy level possible--meaning we are in a 'false' vacuum. A large jolt of energy, like those from high-level particle experiments, could presumably disrupt the stability of our vacuum, causing it to fall to the lowest energy state possible--in the process destroying the universe. The lit is pretty good and specific on this point.

 

3) Another good story is strangelets. Some of the sub-atomic matter spewed forth from particles at the moment off collision in very high energies is the strangelet. Much like anti-matter, strangelets would obliterate any thing they come into contact with. The difference with strangelets is the fact that it doesn't obliterate the object, it turns it into more strangelets. It would be a self-feeding process where a strangelet run-away happens and converts everything in the universe into this new form of matter.

 

 

2. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Particle collisions equally or even much more intense than those in the LHC or any other human-built particle accelerator happen any time a cosmic ray enters the atmosphere. Tiny black holes are probably appearing and disappearing all the time up above our heads.

 

1) This is the uniqueness of the scenario. Humans haven't created particle accelerators powerful enough to destroy the universe. The way Hut and Rees decided what energy level could destroy the universe was based on the cosmic rays in question. They reasoned that energies at or lower than cosmic ray collisions couldn’t destroy the universe. However, they conclude that any higher energies would pose a risk to the stability of our vacuum. The literature suggests that humans are capable of and striving to create particle accelerators above said energy levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All right, now for time travel.

1. Empirically denied. Never been time travel before.

You can't empirically deny time travel in a debate setting. Your contention is that time travel hasn't happened yet therefore it hasn't been invented because if it had we would see the effects. But we don’t know why it hasn’t happened yet. Time travel doesn’t exist is one conclusion. Another reason could be humans go extinct before they are able to. We could all die tomorrow or in ten years from nuclear war or something. In debate we must assume that this doesn't happen because the aff case shapes the future.In real life humans go extinct and don't invent time travel. In debate, the aff changes this and it is invented.

 

2. No brink. There's no reason time travel will happen soon or ever. You can say "but we have tf cards" all you want. I don't care. Tell me warrants.

1)Timeframe: 2100.

2)Warrant: Research

3. Einstein. He was smarter than any of your authors.

1) Einstein wasn't the end all be all of physics. He was a baller, no doubt. He had his weaknesses. He wasn't right about everything.

2) Einstein’s theories of relativity permit time travel. He gives us our theoretical backing.

4. No means for time travel.

1) High Gravity Concentration

2) Tachyons

3) Black holes

4) Wormholes

5) Tipler Cylinder

6) High Speed Travel

7) Circulating Light

8) Cosmic Strings

 

a. Black holes fail. Gravity would crush a traveller/device/anything. Even in a kerr hole, gravity would destroy it before it reached the non-singularity.

1) I named 7 other ways. 6 if you take away wormholes.

2) The literature is very specific that it is possible to navigate your way through a black hole without killing yourself. There are two types of black holes: static and rotating (within those there are some variations too). Spinning black holes allow for configurations of gravity that allow a traveler to pass.

 

b. wormholes fail. Wormholes in themselves don't travel through time; they only travel through space. (even if they traveled through time, that would make time travel inevitable because wormholes either exist or don't independantly of humanity.)

1) Wormholes existing doesn't make time travel inevitable--it would still need a traveler.

 

The scenario for time travel through a wormhole involves one end of a wormhole being moved at relativistic speeds while the other remains fixed; the moving end will have aged whereas the other will not. This allows the person at the moving end to step backwards and the person at the other end to step forewards. However, the nature of relativity prevents paradoxes from occurring; it would be impossible to communicate with the outside universe in a meaningful way. It's like primer, as long as they spend the day in a hotel room they can't cause a paradox. Also, wormholes fail because their ends can't move.

1) Relativity doesn't prevent paradox. It actually enables it. If something travels faster than light, it creates a paradox, because you would leave your destination before you arrive. Going through a wormhole allows a person to by-pass space-time and travel faster than light--it is a short cut. Thus the paradoxes happens.

2) You would still interact with the outside world. When you go through a tunnel you can still launch a nuke and obliterate the other side of the mountain (assuming the tunnel goes through a mountain).

3) Cross apply my 1 from the previous

c. Everything else fails: gravitational acceleration, cosmic strings, human-made time machines, etcetera all fail because they are unable to travel into the past beyond the time when the machine was created, as doing so would require creation of infinite mass. Time travel in the future is okay because there's no possibility of a paradox.

1) I agree, you can't use a time machine to travel to a time before it was made, but that doesn't matter. If the time machine was made in 1987 and I travel back now to then, I could still kill my parents and prevent my birth.

2) Cosmic strings exist in nature and it is a matter of utilizing them so we could travel further back than our utilization of them.

 

5. No impact to time travel: The only possible impact to time travel is a paradox, which cannot happen by the very virtue of being a paradox.

1) There is lit that concedes that time travel causes paradox. This very paradox is what destroys the universe.

2) There are other warrants.

i) Extending on the particle accelerator warrants about high energy, the moment of acceleration to the past (or present, clashing with your point that travel to the future doesn’t matter) would release unprecedented energy, possibly disrupting the stability of our vacuum

ii) The universe can only hold a given amount of mass at any given time before it collapses. If large numbers of time travelers from the future traveled to the past, the mass carrying-capacity would be overshot, causing the collapse of the universe. The lit suggest that there would be vested interest to massively flood back to the past.

 

Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is the best. The simplest solution here is that a paradox simply cannot happen. This is possible in a few ways; either time travel could be impossible, or it would create a branch of a paralell universe, or it would travel to a paralell universe. Even if a paradox happened, there's no reason it would cause anything bad. It would just happen.

1) I hate to break it to you but paradoxes happen. You can’t just wish away their existence. For example, a man is sentenced to death. It is Sunday and the executioner tells the convict his date of execution will be a surprise and that he will be executed by the end of the week (Saturday). The convict goes to his cell. He reasons that he can't be executed on Saturday because it would not be a surprise because after midnight Friday he would know he would be executed. He further reasons that he can be hung on Friday because that wouldn't be a surprise either because he knows he can't be hung on Saturday. The logic applies to Thursday, Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday. The prisoner is so happy because he has reasoned that he can't be hung. Much to his dismay, he is surprised then to find out he is hung on Wednesday. There. A paradox. They exist. Occam's razor can't simply pop something out of existence because it isn't logical. This situation could exist. We simply can’t say it doesn’t because it is intellectually easier. I think you misuse the razor here.

2) Even if time travel leads to a parallel universe destruction of one destroys them all.

3) The energy release warrant could still access destruction of the universe, even with traveling to a parallel universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a wipeout file since I do LD lol, so this may be off topic. Is the warrant that there are aliens out there that the universe is infinite? If it is then wipeout fails since there would have to be another species (such as green homo sapiens with everything else being equal) that would cause the destruction of the universe, meaning that wipeout gets no solvency since it would only affect planet earth and not other species that will detroy the universe. If that isn't the warrant for other species existing then there's no reasonable reasonableness reasonability to the claim that there's something out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kill all humans because they will eventually kill something greater, i.e. gaia, the universe, e.t., etc . . .

 

gaia, the universe, e.t., etc > humans

 

 

keep enjoying LD.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rights malthus is a much better right wing environmental theory than wipeout

 

personnally i don't find wipeout very right wing but maybe thats just me?

 

seems pretty amoral and not either side of the isle though i suppose anything you dislike is considered right wing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres the litmus test for arguments:

 

dale gribble might support/believe it --- right wing

it could be mis-attributed to baudrillard without anyone noticing --- left wing

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...