CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are you prepared for an End Of The World scenario?
Many people get discouraged when they consider how much room they will need to store a year's supply of food and water for one person. They become even more discouraged when they realize that they will need a lot more than that until they regroup with others, form a commune and establish a farm that will feed all of its members.
The problem, however, becomes more manageable once you realize that all you need is a computer with a database that shows where all the food/water hoarders live. You will also need different calibre guns and lots of ammo. The reason for the different calibre guns is so that when you find ammo, you will have a gun that can make use of it.
I know that you are now thinking about the logistics of storing so much ammo. You might even feel a little discouraged at the fact that you are just substituting storing food and water with storing ammo. But the fact remains that even if you decide to store food and water, you will still need guns and ammo to protect it.
The problem becomes more manageable when you realize that, if you are a good shot, it takes about 12 bullets to take out a family of four (if you take them by surprise) in order to acquire their yearly rations of food and water. You may need a few more bullets to take out your neighbors in order to have a place to store your new found loot. So when you think about it, storing 72 bullets is better than storing a year's supply of food and water for 4 people.
So you see, preparing for an End Of The World scenario is not as daunting as you may have first thought.
End of the world scenarios are your fantasy? Hell can we establish a fantasy sports league for that?! if so I call Bruce Lee, Bear Grylls, and all of the Z fighters!
Chuck? Really? I mean..., really!!! First of all, Bruce Lee showed that he could kick Chuckie's ass. Second of all, Chuck is a nickname for Charles or Charlie and Charlie reminds me of Charlie Brown..., who is also known as Chuck. The only scary Chuck I know is Chuckie, as in the movie. And one swift kick can send him flying across the room ;)
Perhaps if you, as opposed to storing guns and ammo, stored blunt battering-worthy weapons, and accrue a posse of friends, you can raid tight quarter buildings, such as homes and apartment complexes, without the expense of searching for bullets. So in other words, guerrilla warfare. Doing so you'd likely find guns and ammo anyhow and could then ward off other militant groups with said ammo.
The problem, however, becomes more manageable once you realize that all you need is a computer with a database that shows where all the food/water hoarders live.
No such database exists, to the best of my knowledge; certainly not one we could gain access to. And in any event, post-apocalypse technology will be limited to things that operate without electricity, for the most part, so maintaining and powering a computer after the End of the World would be pretty much impossible.
I think you need to take your plan back to the drawing board, as it all hinges on this one ill conceived idea.
Also, even if your computer idea worked and was a reality, you just told a whole bunch of people about it, so now you have unwanted competition.
If the scenario involves zombies, I'm more than ready.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
You are right. Better to kill single people. Less loot but easier kill, less bullets used and they re probably single because there's something wrong with them, right?
Then childless couples for basically the same reasons ;)
It's not a justified reason- we're not in some flipped out computer game here. It's a minor apocalypse, and everyone who survives will be better for it, so killing people is really horrible- and using guns to do it has no honour. That's just my opinion, but I really hate guns!
Think of it this way..., an apocalypse is nature's/God's (take your pick) way of telling us that humans deserve to die. All you would be doing, by shooting people, is help carry out nature's/God's plan and, at the same time, justifying that plan ;)
But I like to work my own plans, and if I don't agree with something, I won't help carrying it out. I'll just start locating these mountains the viking prophecies talk about which won't get hit by all those balls of fire and stay there...(, ;) )
You live in the UK and you have a wet place..., uhm..., I mean..., you live near a wet place. Which is most of the UK..., but you're there..., somewhere ;)
