The Instigator
DebaterAgent
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheBoss
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (internationally)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,933 times Debate No: 27637
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

DebaterAgent

Pro

I am for banning nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon is a weapon
that causes huge destruction. So far, we have confirmed that at least 9 countries have nuclear weapons. The US
spends at least $60 billion on nuclear weapons each year. If we didn’t have nuclear weapons, we could be using that money for more important thing like the
economy and government. We have over 20000 nuclear weapons right now (2000 of them are ready for trigger anytime) That is way to dangerous.
TheBoss

Con

Thank you for making this debate.

1. "A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us." by Margaret Thatcher
2. "Our nuclear weapons are meant purely as a deterrent agains nuclear adventure by an adversary." by Atal Bihari Vajpayee

What 1. 2. are both saying, is that it is more dangerous without nuclear weapons. It is not only the perspective of the "risks" but there is an element of "safety" as well.

Debate Round No. 1
DebaterAgent

Pro

If we don’t ban nuclear weapons quickly, there is a possibility that a country will release their nuclear weapons. The largest nuclear bomb is equivalent to fifty-million tons of TNT. In perspective, that is about 3333 times more powerful than little boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we don’t ban nuclear weapons, one country may try to conquer the world and/or wipe-out the whole planet’s population.
TheBoss

Con

You are correct. However, there has been only one incident of that. Dropping nuclear weapons is a rare thing. Even if it is shot, we can shoot back at them if we have nuclear weapon so it is technically like revenge. Right? If you say you want to ban it, how will you ban it? What if one country secretly develops nuclear weapons? What are we going to do with the nuclear weapons that are banned? Who is going to be enforcing this ban? Please answer these questions for me.
Debate Round No. 2
DebaterAgent

Pro

If a country gets caught developing nuclear weapons, we will have economic sanctions on the country and we will have the leader of the country go to a place where a nuclear bomb was dropped, for example, Hiroshima to see the damage made by the nuclear bombs. The United Nations will be enforcing the ban if actually banned. To be specific from the United Nations, we will have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be enforcing the ban.
TheBoss

Con

How can the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency be so sure that other countries aren't developing nuclear weapons secretly? Remember, you are only pointing out that it is dangerous. However, I will point it out again that it is also for safety reasons. If other countries know that we have nuclear weapons, there is a less percentage that we will attacked. So it is defending our country overall.


Thank you for the debate and the audience.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
This was a terrible debate.( I am just in a bad mood so really anything i say will be negative) I cannot even vote as the resolution is talking about international affairs and the statistics are from a single country.
No votes have been placed for this debate.