The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Abolish Nuclear Weapoms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 63390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is the first round and is for acceptance only.


I bid you farewell...

No, I mean hi there! :D
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry for the typo in title of the debate. I thank vwv for accepting and wish him good luck.

The motion we have and will debate on is to abolish nuclear weapons and I will be be speaking against this. So, before I present my line of arguments and positive case, I will provide some definitions. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction that cause explosions and derive its energy from nuclear reactions. Abolishing them means eradicating them from the face of the earth entirely - to not leave even one behind.

Moving on, my first line of argument is how nuclear weapons are an important part of this world now and are needed for deterrence. A very important fact is that the very existence of nuclear is what is keeping superpowers from triggering a war, in which the use of nukes is inevitable. Countries do not even dare to upset the other and involve armies, through which they and we all know what will happen. The use of these weapons leads to great tragedies and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in front of us, we all know what happened there. Because nuclear weapons cause so much destruction and devastation countries try not to engage each other especially if they are nuclear weapon states. We all saw how peaceful the Cold War period was, because the two superpowers' (US and USSR) nuclear weapons were deterrents.

Countries need to be able to defend themselves better and nuclear weapons are the best way to do this. A country and its people need to feel safe and they know with that countries without WMDs will not dare to attack them and a NWS will not attack them because they won't risk the safety of their own people nor will they risk a nuclear war. The use of nuclear weapons to threaten is legal and when a country has nuclear weapons, it prevents others from using it. If the US gets rid of nuclear weapons, would that stop North Korea from attacking anyone? The most important thing that governments need to take care of is safety and with nuclear weapons present we are actually ensuring safety so that our people do not panic or think that the leadership is incompetent.

With this I end my argument.


vwv forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Eltorick forfeited this round.


vwv forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff