Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Topic: Cannibalism

General Purpose: To argue


Specific Purpose: I want to argue that the UN should endorse cannibalism.
Thesis: The UN should endorse cannibalism because 1. It would solve the problem of world hunger
2. It would solve the world's overpopulation problem 3. Despite moral quandries, it will actually
save lives.
Introduction
I [Attention Getter]: can you imagine a world where hunger no longer exists, and overpopulation
is a thing of the past? Where you will never have to see another ad with the starving children in
Africa? well have i got a proposition for you.
II[Justify/Point of Stasis] it may not have even occured to some of you, but canniballism is a
viable option given the current world circumstances in hunger and overpopulation.
Almost 50% of the worlds population is in China, India, and Indonesia.
The hungriest nations are Nambia, Zambia, Central African Republic and North Korea
III[Credibility] I have taken the time to study its implications and it seems that the only thing
holding us back is our own accepted morals. I also have a soft spot for satirists such as Jonathan
Swift who first made this proposition nearly 300 years ago.
IV[Preview/Thesis] Iwould like to argue that the UN should rethink their stance on cannibalism.
So as to facilitate solving the probmems of first) world hunger, second) overpopulation. and lastly
I would like to argue that it is only our morals that are holding us and therefore the UN from solving
these problems
Transition: So lets get cooking, world hunger
Body
[body I]It would seem like the entire purpose of the UN is to try to solve the worlds problems. One
problem I think the easiest to solve would be world hunger. People are always dying, it is a fact
that ,along with taxes, none of us can escape.
A) Lets say we have an older gentleman that wishes to die with dignity, we could pull the plug
before the massive amounts of drugs and pain start happening. Take him to the local butcher and
grandpa's funeral is now a luau.
B) another unfotunate case for death would be our children. How many lethal accidents do children
get into per year? According to the CDC 2011, just suffocation for <1 year olds in america was
almost 900. and why should we let them go to waste? I have it on good word from cannibals that
they are quite tender and should last for at least a few meals (swift). As a start to this initiative I
think we give out some cook books then we may have a fighting chance.
Transition: there are too many people anyways. As a completly unbased thought, could global

warming also be a result of overpopulation?


Body II
Weather it is or isnt is irrelevant. We know there are too many people in some states or countries.
For example china had enacted a one child policy in the past because of overpopulation.
a)there are some very nice people in rio de jainero that are living in slums. More proof and evidence
of too many people. As a matter of fact, any slum is evidence of either overpopulation or economic
disadvantage (which can also be solved with cheap food suddenly on the market).
A)Just as a factual example, the federal bureau of prisons logs that they have nearly 200,000
inmates in custody. We know that it costs money to keep prisoners in the prison, and if they are in a
federal prison they have commited a federal crime. We dont have a lot of space and are trying to put
more people in prison every day. Lets kill two birds with one stone and we can save money and get
more room by feeding one prisoner to another. Im not sure i even need to say, but how many
shankings are there in prisons, how many prison deaths? They could be the first on the menu.
Transition: if eating convicts is still an issue for you, you may be a part of the opposition.
Body III
The only thing I can see that is holding us back is our own morals.
[Denying Inherency] At the moment, I cannot argue that eating people may be morally wrong for
most people, however if we can think a bit more utilitarian, we can solve our problems. Very simply
if we have two children that are going to die of hunger, why couldnt we have let one child eat the
other? We would be saving a life, and is one life saved by eating another not better than two people
dead?
If all the dying chinese were butchered in country and sent to the starving countries of Africa, or
even to their close neighbor north korea, we could save thousands of lives.
[Expose Inconsistencies]Another thing, is the reason we dont eat our neighbors just because thats
the way its always been? If it is wrong should we keep doing it? I know it can be tough to change
tradition, but this may be the only way that society can keep growing.
[Differentiation]I'm not saying we kill newborns, I am suggesting that those who are already on
their way out would be the best option. Specifically people such as the elderly, convicts on death
row, the terminally ill, as well as infants that have the misfortune to die young.
[impact] These problems can solve themselves if only we allow our own sense of self to be denied
just a fraction. We just need to be a bit more utilitarian, loose some outdated tradition, and only use
the least able- bodied individuals.
Summary/transition: Caniballism is the answer to many of life's problems no matter how you look
at it.

Conclusion: so everything i have told you hopefully you can agree with on at least some level.

First. World hunger is a problem that we can solve by eating people


Second. Overpopulation is a problem that can be solved by eating people.
Third. If we can let go of some of our traditional morals, we can actually solve these problems.
Closing Statement
I feel I must mention that the United States has no laws against caniballism.
Let me paraphrase Jonathan Swift in saying I have no personal interest in suggesting this modest
proposal other than to suggest something controversial and for my own amusement.
Works Cited
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp
http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html
http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentiona
l_injury_2011-a.pdf
Swift, Jonathan. Satires and Personal Writings by Jonathan Swift. London: Oxford University
Press, 1965. Print
http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat4/sub15/item128.html
Enthymemes
Categorical
Major premise: It is the job of the UN to solve all world problems
Minor premise: Hunger is a world problem
Conclusion: The UN is not doing its job
Tests: the major premise is true. ( is it not the reason the UN was founded?)
the minor premise affirms the antecedent ( it supports the first part of the major premise

Disjunctive
Major premise: if people die then we will not have an overpopulation problem.
Minor premise: we can eat people that are dead.
Conclusion: if we eat people we will not have an overpopulation problem
Tests: the major premise includes all reasonable alternatives

the alternatives are mutually exclusive


the minor premise eliminates all but one alternative.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen