The Instigator
PhilosophicalMan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Galal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

I abolish the possession of nuclear weapons

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 2 votes the winner is...
Galal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 43050
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

PhilosophicalMan

Pro


I, pro, will defend the position to restrict others to have possession of any nuclear weapons or substances. I furthermore exclaim that we have a good and fair match. I await my opponents defense for their position.

Presentation:

I think the government should abolish the possession of nuclear weapons because of the dangers of deadly explosions and radioactive waves of destruction. I also would want to restrict this because there is a whole website dedicated to the banning of nuclear weapons and substances.

Link:


Conclusion:

I will await my opponents answer to my passage. I also will consider not arguing to much about the restriction of nuclear weapons, and will wish the contender much luck in this debate.

Source:My brain, and the internet.

;)

Galal

Con

Given the fact that my opponent failed to elaborate the specific party that should be banned from possessing 'WMDs' I will assume he meant other governments, because if he did mean private parties and regular people that would categorize them as 'terrorists' and that would not be a debatable topic because it would only be logical for a government to do all that it can at countering terrorism. However, banning other governments from possessing weapons of mass destruction is a whole other matter.

In my simple Philosophy, one government has no power or influence on others. Meaning, if they do not wish others to obtain such power they should get rid of the ones they already possess. But if that is not the case and if they do in fact own powers of mass destruction, then I can see no issue if the other governments have similar artillery to defend themselves. Why should one government have an advantage over the other?
Debate Round No. 1
PhilosophicalMan

Pro

PhilosophicalMan forfeited this round.
Galal

Con

Galal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PhilosophicalMan

Pro

PhilosophicalMan forfeited this round.
Galal

Con

Given that my oppoenent have failed to elaborate more, and it seems like he has no interest in the debate anymore. I have no further things to add to my original argument. I believe that my opponent must be busy with something else. It's a shame I wanted to see this to the end.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Anonymous
major lulz here
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Um....what? Everyday people cannot possess nuclear weapons.
Posted by PhilosophicalMan 3 years ago
PhilosophicalMan
like, people that don't work for the army or government, etc
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
What do you mean by "casual people?"
Posted by PhilosophicalMan 3 years ago
PhilosophicalMan
No, they can have nuclear weapons, just that casual people shouldn't have any.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
So your position is that all governments around the world should relinquish their nuclear weapons?
Posted by PhilosophicalMan 3 years ago
PhilosophicalMan
All around the world.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Which government? All governments? Just the US?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
Anonymous
PhilosophicalManGalalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Obvious reasons
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PhilosophicalManGalalTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited less...