The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jack.Jameswood1
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Drop the bombs, the big ones, please.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Jack.Jameswood1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 62032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

please all you tyrannical capitalist/communist, land grabbing scum. Bring your atomic destruction upon the masses, so freedom of your tyranny rings. DROP THE BOMBS YOU COWARD ARSE PO\\\\S! Atoms, bombs, no worries here.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con


As someone who has seen the destruction of hundreds of small bombs dropped strategically over enemy targets, witnessing what failure looks like and what success looks like, I have a unique perspective. While I’m not opposed to bombing, any suggestion of the use of nuclear weapons today, especially if in your comments of communism your referring to the former Soviet Union is just reckless, deadly, and frankly an invitation for a kind of global suicide. It was unclear whether this debate is structure to facilitate a debate over the use or interest the US should have in maintaining its nuclear arsenal. I suppose I’ll wait for further clarification. Thanks for the debate.


Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

Thanks for your service to this country sir, and I do love this country, this land, and especially our constitution.

No country has bombed more people in the last 40 years then the country we love. What is it that we love here? Our power to bomb?

I fear that until the big bombs are dropped on the masses by one tyrant or another we will never get to a resolution. I am pretty sure that the Russians take their nukes more seriously then do our leaders. Of course, this a a free country, with Democratic lee elected representatives, so of course what the majority of the minority believes and votes for must be true. We drop bombs almost daily, and further the pool of our enemies, because who wouldn't swear jihad if a foreign nation dropped a bomb on your neighbors granddads head?

Thanks for taking the debate, this is the last day of summer, tomorrow is fall, and winter is ahead. Our leader wishes for the Arab Spring, and created it.

When the bombs do come here, please duck, sir.

Drop your font pussius pantius..
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

I appreciate the comment in the comments section. However, I am somewhat confused taking those comments with the original proposition, which appears some kind of events where nuclear weapons on indiscriminately used on large innocent populations. Initially, the first round, I thought you were advocating a more aggressive military policy and geared toward a where the use of nuclear weapons would be an alternative to ground forces or something similar to that.

Therefore, I will continue with the original counter position that today (excluding the past) the United States should not consider the deployment of nuclear weapons against in an offensive military campaign and in reality the United States should work on maintaining the remaining the large stockpile that remain on US soil. If you’ve have watched or read anything about our current weapons systems then you’re probably aware that many of the technologies system are several decades old and many arsenals still use floppy discs.[1] The article I provided says that some says this makes the technology very secure because it is close impossible to hack. Another article in Forbes worth reading provides a good summary of the shape of our arsenal.[2] At the bottom I found a clip that provides a quick overview of all the potential problems.

I don’t pretend to know very much about the technology or claim to have direct experience in that area, but from news accounts and from military reports on the subject, as well as having some causal friends that have worked at the sites in George and North Carolina they are falling apart. Below I provided a funny HBO video make a good case for the danger of nuclear weapons not only as conventional weapon but as something incredibly dangerous for people living near these sites.


In fact, last year the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the last uranium enrichment site in the United States, closed about 35 from my house and 25 minutes from my business. After it closed, obviously, many people had jobs, but what continues to worry me is whether the contamination site will leak into the ground water. In the late 1990s, they had to shut down the site temporarily because traces of technetium-99 and polychlorinated biphenyl were found in people’s water wells and a year or two before that the site had to be shut down because of radioactive sludge bubbling out of the ground a mile away because somebody (several decades before) decided to bury several barrels off-site, which would when the radioactive stuff from the barrels they were in someone’s backyard.

For all these reasons, and others, Con believes we should NOT “drop the bombs, the big ones” as legitimate military policy or to settle geo-political rivalries that are likely temporary. But the main reason we need to re-think the entire issue of “the big bombs” is that in reality they won’t be bombs from our enemies, rather they will be accidently events. Only a while back did the National Security Archive declassify an incident where an Air Force bomber dropped two nuclear weapons in North Carolina, thankfully they did not detonate. Any conversation about dropping big bombs, specifically nuclear weapons has to realize they the most likely victim of their use are not enemies threatening the country but by not maintaining or keeping in mind the fact these very old systems remain in sites throughout the country and they continue to age.

Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

Drop your font was what I meant, but once again we let the all knowing voters decide. So be it.

Why the boldface, if you are not a politician seeking power? I've gotta go to bed after my dinner, good night, and thanks maybe.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con


I will keep my comments brief for three reasons: First, my opponent’s lack of defending the other side in any round. Second, the burden of proof is fully my opponent’s, which means I only have to undermine his position and therefore do not have to advance my own. Third, the rebuttals and arguments made by Con appear to me as better from a substantive perspective. However, far from discounting my opponent’s view on the matter let me more fully engage with one statement made in Round 2.



One argument left unaddressed is Pro’s contention if a big bomb (inferred nuclear weapon) then global society and US political gridlock will remain. This is true but if we imagine whether the use of a nuclear bomb and likely retaliation of nuclear weapons from another country is preferable to the status quo. Undoubtedly, the answer must be nonuse is the preferable option, especially considering the long-term (read permanent) damaged posed by the byproducts of using the weapon, among them radiation. Voters who consider Pro’s argument valid and encourage expediency, I would encourage them to watch the Vice News’s piece of Nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan throughout the cold war. I provide a promotional video but since the season played on HBO, there is not a way for me legally (or technically) upload a video on here.


Not necessary to read the next few sentence they include only an explanation for my font choice. I would like to apologize for Times New Roman—and the text actually is not in bold, it only appears bold because of the size of the font. And my reasons are due are a matter of readability. And I don’t plan on becoming a politician just by the virtue I have a debate.org account. Thanks for the debate. If we debate again, send me a message or write in the comments section the exact font you want used.



https://www.youtube.com...



Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I apologize for the conversation above your talking heads.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
I am not sure you will hear this but it must be writ in electrons by myself as it is necessary that I apologize for my harsh words and accusations towards you sir. My rage is not just a little as I work hard, and pay my taxes and see those donations to a tyrannical species wasted on bombs that kill innocents almost daily. I respect your service, and continuing hard work and will to overcome the pain in order to provide for your family. I also own a small business and seek nothing other then the respect of my patrons. I am sincerely sorry for my name calling, third grade tactics, and hope you will not snipe me for real. If you do, then so be it. Death is the ultimate freedom, from this world of hatred and commutapitalism. If you wish to be a Trump or a Mao, then you will brush my words off as dust, and send a black clad sniper here, which is fine.
So be it. Thanks if you read this. Good luck with your business sir, I hope it feeds your family fairly, and also your customers.

Max.Wallace
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
Max.WallaceJack.Jameswood1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Half a resolution with no backing. No debate here.
Vote Placed by willhudson79 2 years ago
willhudson79
Max.WallaceJack.Jameswood1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave all my points to Con because Con was the only person that participated in the debate. Pro used Round 1 to talk about dropping bombs on the masses and then used Round 3 to talk about Font.