The Instigator
chowder65
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Destroying all Weapons of Mass Desturction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 455 times Debate No: 68859
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

chowder65

Pro

Weapons of Mass Destruction are bad, they can lead to wars that will eventually end our world, I don't want to see that happen do you? Even the people they don't kill in the very initial start will die because of radiation, so let me ask you would you rather die of radiation or destroy all of them so we cant live under their constant threats
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons means detterance.

Through the Cold War the US created the theory of Nuclear detterance by means of Mutally Assured Destruction. Now MAD is when a nation uses a nuclear weapon against another nation the US in turn would launch all of their nuclear weapons at that nation. Now this sounds crazy and it's meant to be that way. When we observe the Stability-Instability theory we can see that the nuclear weapons have helped the world maintain a cold peace between superpowers as none of the World's strongest nations haven't waged war against eachother in the past 70 years. They are forced to only engage in minor conflicts and proxy wars. (Schelling, T. C. (1966), "2", The Diplomacy of Violence, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 1–34) The US still has nuclear weapons in the Post Cold War world due to the US using them to protect itself and our allies in the world.

Contention 2: World not perfect. People will still use weapons.

Subpoint 1: Humans, in nature, are evil and selfish.

Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.


"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."


Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) This shows that both Hobbes and Freud show that humans are terrible creatures and make terrible choices, hence the phrase, “Only human.” This is why we need the government to regulate many of these things otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do many things, because we would be so dysfunctional.

Subpoint 2: The world cannot be trusted.

With the Philosophy applied from Subpoint 1, we can see that humans are naturally evil things and if nations began to disarm then other nations would be liekly to invade and/or use nuclear weapons against these nations. There are several rogue nations that would be highly likely to attack the United States with nuclear weapons as soon as we dropped our defenses. Wheather it's North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, or Russia we simply cannot trust them to disarm as well. That is why we cannot disarm.

Debate Round No. 1
chowder65

Pro

chowder65 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
chowder65lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
chowder65lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro
Vote Placed by Texas14 2 years ago
Texas14
chowder65lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.