Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons
Debate Rounds (5)
As for Iran's claims that it needs its nuclear weapons for self defense, Iran hasn't been attacked by another nation in 25 years as of 2013. It was last attacked by a regime that no longer exists. If a nation did attack Iran for no good reason, well, Iran has oil. Western nations would come to Iran's aid in this case.
I await a response.
This is a five round debate, and my opponent has already made a few arguments, though they are all anticipated rebuttals of what may lie in my constructive points. Because anticipated rebuttals do not make an actual argument, and because my opponent has yet to offer independent constructive points in greater detail, I will treat this round as merely a round for acceptance and allow him to further elaborate in round 2.
Best of luck to you, and excited to see your full argument next round! Just to let you know, this is actually a fantastic case and I debated it a while back in real life for the same side I'll be debating here, although the case was not my own so I really don't remember any of the points. But I do remember the round being exceptional and very interesting, so I await your constructive points.
I'll begin with a few quotes from Ahmadinejad:
"There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world." Source: Al Jazeera (October 26, 2005)
"Death to Israel! Death to Israel!"
Source: MEMRITV (August 2, 2006)
"I want to tell them (western countries) just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."
Source: Democracy Now! (December 13, 2006)
"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement" I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
Source: New York Times (October 30, 2005)
So what's the point of me posting the above statements? It was to prove a point: that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I think that's his name) clearly wanted to wipe out Israel. In a country ruled by Muslim religious leaders, this view is probably shared by most of the nation's leaders. Ahmadinejad is no longer in power, but his ideas hold a lot of sway in a country ruled by Islam. The Quran has several anti-Semitic quotes, so people who take every word of the Quran seriously are willing to kill Jews to obey Mohamed. Israel has a lot of Jews in it, so it would make sense for radical Muslims to try to kill Jews in obedience to the words of Mohamed.
Before I continue, here is one example of an anti-Semitic quote: "Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him " except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews."
Now, as I've stated before, Iran has a lot of oil, 10% of the world's proven reserves according to Wikipedia. This being said, why do they need nuclear power? I believe their "peaceful" nuclear program is a front for the secret creation of nuclear weapons. Granted, Iran has made some concessions to the international community, but I do not believe they've ended their nuclear weapons program.
Let me overview: Iran's leaders have the motive, though they may sometimes deny it. No one's taking any real steps to stopping them, so their nuclear progress is slowed down at best. Russia is helping them with their nuclear program, so they clearly have the means.
Now before I end my turn in Round 2, I'll state that Iran attacking Israel was prophesied in the Bible in Ezekiel 38-39. Of course, since you're an atheist, you can ignore that one.
Before I begin my constructive, I'd like to note that my opponent has made many arguments that all of you should consider irrelevant. The quotes from Ahmadinejad are irrelevant to an extent because Ahmadinejad is no longer in power, as Pro states, and Pro must demonstrate that these views are the views of the people by and large to hold any sway over this debate. You can disregard his attempted proof of an ongoing weapons program as well because of the nature of the resolution. The resolution does not state that we should bar Iran from continuing this specific program, but rather it operates under the assumption that Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry. Inasmuch as a resolution about allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant if they are not doing so, I will argue that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, not that this specific program should continue unhindered by the global community.
Now for the framework. To win this debate, my opponent has a few burdens which he must overcome. He first must prove that the global community has the right to impede upon Iran's sovereign actions and that Iran will definitely use nuclear weapons for impermissible causes. He then must prove that the methods of achieving this are efficient and do not unduly harm others to achieve said goal. Then, he must prove that our methods will be sufficient in achieving this goal. If he does not keep this chain intact, then his resolution falls apart. I will be arguing that none of these links are valid in this constructive round:
1. The Rights of Iran
My opponent must prove that Iran does not inherently have the right as a sovereign state to develop nuclear weaponry. He is unfortunately in a double-bind here. Either he believes that sovereign states unequivocally have no right to obtain nuclear weapons, or he believes that some states reserve this right while others do not. You see, there are no binding laws that delineate the rights of sovereign states. It is therefore prudent to strip rights based on certain circumstances rather than allocating rights -- to say what one nation may not do rather than what it may. The only time that an international body ought to be allowed to intervene is if there is a definitive and sufficient threat from one sovereign nation impeding upon the sovereignty and inherent rights of another. Does Iran reserve the right to build nuclear weapons? The answer is yes, because a state may supplement its defense to whatever extent it pleases so long as these defenses are not used for malicious purposes. Just as you cannot strip an American's freedom of speech away because you think he will shout fire in a crowded theater sometime in the future, you may not take away Iran's right to defense through force merely because they may use it against another nation. Because according to this argument, America and Russia's proliferation during the Cold War ought to have been prevented by the international community. Same for Pakistan and India. Either Pro believes that no country has the right to nuclear weaponry, which he must warrant, or he believes that some sovereign states have rights that others don't, in which case his philosophy is inconsistent regarding what a sovereign state can and cannot do.
2. Likelihood of Attack
Pro states that it is likely that Iran will use the weapons to attack Israel. His "proof" contains quotes only from a man no longer in power and nebulous claims about the desire of Iranians to bomb Iran. I raise two concerns with this line of reasoning.
-Iran has historically refrained from attacking Israel
Iran has not participated in the Arab-Israeli wars . They have, in the past, not joined forces with the rest of the Arab world to attack what they deem the holy land, and there's no reason to believe that they would decide to slaughter millions of people for the mere sake of revenge, Jihad, or whatever else you claim they would utilize as an excuse.
MAD, or mutually assured destruction provides cause for Iran to refrain from attacking Israel. Iran may be irrational at times, but they are not complete fools. The leaders of Iran do not want to turn their nation into a wasteland, nor do they want their workplace annihilated by Israel's bombs. You see, Israel reportedly has about 80 warheads . You are asserting that Iran would be willing to undergo strikes from Israeli warheads, most likely much more powerful and technologically advanced than their own, just to kill Israelis? This is absurd and unless Pro provide a warrant for Iran's circumventing of MAD, he will lose this argument and ultimately the debate.
3. Possible Costs Incurred, Sufficiency, and Likelihood of Success
The international community, as it stands, has three options to combat proliferation: diplomacy, economic sanctions, and military intervention. I am welcome to other suggestions from Pro as well. But insofar as these are our options, allow me to analyze each one individually. Diplomacy is obviously insufficient, as Iran is currently eluding all talks, and the notion that we could talk them out of developing these powerful weapons without some sort of threat to back us up is rather absurd. Economic sanctions actually damage regular Iranian citizens more than the government as well. Considering the fact that Iran, as Pro states, has expansive oil reserves and a substantial portion of the oil market, the government can offset losses through rent revenue on oil reserves, even if the revenue is diminished to an extent . But sanctions still hurt the average Iranian, and insofar as this is true, we can see that sanctions, to achieve an end, utilize the economic status of innocent Iranians as means impermissibly, and that this end is not even achieved, as evidenced by Iran's current persistence as well as past failures of sanctions and their negative effects on primarily innocent civilians . Damaging their economies can also exacerbate international resentment and affinity for extremist groups such as terrorist organizations, in what is known as "blowback". And because Iran is one of the leading producers of oil, sanctions increase oil prices, which can cause supply shocks in other nations if allowed to continue, leading to possible stagflation like what the US experienced in the 70's.
Military intervention, on the contrary, has a bit more potential to work. But a few impermissible harms travel with this policy as well. Obviously the immense costs of warfare are included in this calculus, as the injury and death of soldiers and the ineluctable tendency for wars to produce immense civilian casualty rates. But once again this strategy places Pro in a double bind. He can merely invade the country and attempt to persuade the leaders to step down through violence, which is impermissible insofar as it uses Iranians as means to an end, violating Kant's categorical imperative and reducing the Iranians to mere tools for the international community to dispose of to persuade a sovereign state to do its bidding, as well as leaving the opportunity of continuance of development and even usage in the face of a hopeless war against the international community. He could also invade the nation and strip its sovereignty and decision-making abilities by force, toppling the regime and instituting a temporary body in its place. However, this constitutes an affront against the sovereignty of another nation merely because of ostensible potential to use an undeveloped weapon to harm others. Infringement upon sovereignty must be predicated on definitive harms, not pseudo-prescient fallible prognostication.
The argumentative chain has been shattered, and Pro must mend it or forfeit.
 - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
 - http://www.timesofisrael.com...
 - http://www.voltairenet.org...
 - http://www.aljazeera.com...
JewishJournal.com, an article from July 17, 2012 labeled "Anti-Semitism In Iran: Worse Than You Think" will explain it. Many Iranian government officials have made hateful anti-Semitic remarks, according to the article. Also, google "Quds Day" for more information.
As you have stated, I am operating under the assumption that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Israel is a nation that has been attacked too many times by hostile neighbors in its short history, so it has developed one of the world's best intelligence agencies. If they say a nation is developing nuclear weapons, their reliable intelligence makes their claims worth listening to.
You have argued that Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons because it is a sovereign state, and that other nations have no right to impede on their nuclear development. I will use a fictional example for my case.
Imagine you live on Earth Street, and you are the husband and father in a family known as the Barnes family. The McBrown family hears a rumor that the Austin family, also on this street, is making bombs. The Austin family is racist against the McBrown family, which is the only black family on the street. The rumor has it that the Austins plan on bombing the McBrown house with the bombs when they finish making them. The McBrowns checked out the Austin house through the window and they saw an ingredient commonly used in bombs sitting on their living room couch. So, they tell you and your family about what they saw and about the rumor they heard. The Austins have a nice home, two well-behaved kids, and none of them have acted violently towards the McBrowns before. So do you, as head of the Barnes family, have a right to rally the neighbors together to go pay Austins a visit to check out the McBrown's story?
I argue that if the Iranian is planning to blow up Israel, their sovereignty should not be an excuse to not act. North Korea is also a sovereign nation, but we'd be stupid to let North Korea get itself a nuclear weapon. Also, Iran has a record of human rights abuses as long as my arm. Do you really trust a nation like that to not use nuclear weapons to blow people up? Don't forget that Assad's government, which has used chemical weapons on its own people, is a sovereign nation.
Just because you have not attacked a nation in the past does not mean you will not attack it in the future. Japan did not attack the US in World War One, but that did not change the fact that it did in World War Two. The same regime ruled Japan in World War One, when it stayed neutral, that ruled Japan during World War Two, when Japan was not neutral. Iran went through a revolution in 1979, after several of the wars against Israel, and this revolution resulted in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Israel is a small country, and hitting it with two or three warheads would completely incapacitate it, if anybody remained, preventing them from launching a counterattack with nuclear weapons. This would make mutually assured destruction not so assured, if you know what I mean. Or, they could give such weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah, and they'd use the weapons in Iran's place, allowing Iran to get away with it.
Even if they couldn't, radical Muslims believe that the apocalypse and reign of Allah will come to pass when Israel is destroyed. Therefore, if Iran is ruled by such radical Muslims, they'd be willing to throw away even their country to accomplish this purpose,
The argumentative chain has not been shattered, and Pro does not have to forfeit.
My opponent's rebuttal is rather unsatisfactory and unorganized, but I will attempt to address his contentions in order and then frame his rebuttal in the context of the debate at the end.
First he claims that Iran is highly anti-Semitic. This may very well be true. But how anti-Semitic do you have to be to slaughter millions of innocent civilians? Pro never addresses this factor. He merely assumes that they wish unimaginable harm on them and will act upon that desire merely because they are bigoted towards the Judaic faith.
He then attempts to use analogy to justify a nation's right to weaponry. However, this analogy is flawed in many different ways. First, it would be fair in the example to also allocate 80 bombs to the McBrowns and remind the audience that the McBrowns most likely hold some contempt towards the Austins as well, though not on quite the same scale that the Austins despise the McBrowns. So do the McBrowns have the right to build a bomb? Obviously they do, insofar as the Austins have not been reprimanded for owning 80. And do the Austins have the right to prevent the McBrowns from doing so? Of course not! Under any sort of government, the government alone holds a monopoly on coercive force. This is the reason vigilantism is, as a practice, illegal. It would be up to the governing body to "check it out", but there would be nothing to "check out", as building a bomb has already been allowed 80 TIMES by the same governing body. You would not dispute a sovereign state's right to form an army, would you? Yet because this bomb is more powerful, you have drawn a line between armies complete with cavalry, tanks, and a navy, and armies with this one specific type of bomb. If your fear for Israel is the only reason that you retain the right to strip these weapons from Iran, then why would your argument not extend to stripping Iran of all weapons capable of harming Israel, including an air force and tanks? Why would this argument not extend to all Arab nations capable of harming Israel with similar ostensible motives? Pro's argument is absurd and fails on multiple levels. But, of course, he must refute MAD as a deterrent as well.
My opponent is right. The past does not always predict the future. However, if Iran has been bent on attacking Israel for so long, then why did they not join the other Arab nations in repeated attacks against Israel? And does probable motive warrant a preemptive strike when no harm has actually been done?
My opponent claims that hitting Israel with a few warheads will totally incapacitate them, however, Israel has a fantastic missile defense system, and their nukes are relatively covert. In essence, no one knows where they're stationed. And as soon as Israel learns that they've been hit by a nuke coming from Iran, they will obliterate them. It does not take an unscathed nation to press a button. The notion that a couple of nukes will undoubtedly prevent a counterstrike is absolutely absurd, and the size of Israel, about 75 miles wide at its widest and 250 miles long at its longest, certainly wouldn't permit incapacitation after "two or three warheads", which would most likely be rather impotent in comparison to warheads of more technologically advanced nations such as Israel or the United States. My opponent believes that Israel's nukes are essentially useless in the event of a nuclear war, and that Iran would be willing to risk a VERY possible annihilation of the majority of their populace. This is unfounded and he does not actually grapple with the concept of MAD. He thinks that if destruction isn't quite 100% assured that Iran will attack Israel, but, of course, if the annihilation of your entire nation is only 90% or 80% assured after attacking another nation, you will probably refrain from doing so, no matter how badly you despise your target. Pro fundamentally misunderstands the concept of MAD and thus provides an unsatisfactory rebuttal that is both invalid and incomplete. And the notion that Iran could give the nukes to Hezbollah or Hamas is irrelevant. The warheads are traceable by satellite and require something such as a plane or advanced launch system to deploy, neither of which Hamas or Hezbollah have. If, as pro says, we are sure that Iran has these nukes, then Israel is sure as well. If they are launched from within Iran or dropped by a plane (which Israel could probably shoot down anyway), Israel is still likely to strike Iran, and Iran knows this. MAD is still solvent and these very specific and peculiar scenarios do no justice to Pro's arguments.
Pro drops my entire third contention. He does not provide us with a manner of achieving his resolution which is not either ineffective or ethically impermissible. Because Pro has conceded my entire third contention, the argumentative chain is unequivocally shattered, and to contest this is folly. As of now, Pro is asserting that we should either waste our efforts and, in the end, achieve nothing, or that we should commit morally impermissible acts to achieve an end, which is, as I've stated, undesirable. We have a negative duty not to behave in a manner that is morally impermissible, such as utilizing the lives of Iranians merely as means to eradication of warheads.
In fact, Pro's only contentious argument is his MAD rebuttal. This is not to say it is a valid rebuttal, as I've shown above, but he leaves the other two points unsatisfactorily addressed. His only argument against the impermissibility of impinging upon sovereignty is a faulty analogy which ultimately proves nothing. My arguments stand, and impinging upon Iran's sovereignty, even under Pro's analogy, would be impermissible. He has done nothing to refute this notion. And unless he can provide a mode of action bearing auspicious properties that does not commit any acts that are morally impermissible, Pro concedes this point and ultimately the round.
Pro states that the argumentative chain is not shattered, but this is because the chain hardly exists. None of Pro's rebuttals are satisfactory, and my arguments stand.
As for your rebuttal of my Austins/Barnes/McBrowns analogy, you said that Israel also has bombs. This is true, but when Israel was building bombs, were their leaders caught chanting "Death to Palestine" or "Death to Iraq" or "Death to Iran" or whatever other country? Israel has the bombs, and they haven't used them. They haven't used them to threaten or coerce any country.
As for Iran, on the other hand, I heard that the Mullahs once stood up and started chanting "Death to Israel." I'm referring to the Mullahs, which unlike Ahmadinejad are still in power. Also, what you probably didn't know is that Iran actually gives money to Hamas, and we all know that Hamas likes to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore, the evidence suggests that Iran's leaders have a thing against Israel and that by helping fund Israel's enemies, they have indirectly attacked Israel. Israel attacking a nation that is already assisting in attacks against Israel is called self defense, not immoral.
Then, you've stated that Iran has not participated in previous wars against Israel, such as the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Do not forget, however, that the regime that was in power in Iran back in those days was more secular than today's Iranian theocracy.
Then, my opponent stated that two or three nuclear missiles would not completely incapacitate Israel. You were right, and I apologize for my misinformation there. Israel could counterattack, You have suggested that Iran would not sacrifice itself to destroy Israel. Maybe not the Iranian people. However, crazy leaders would do so with no hesitation if they believe they'd be serving Allah by doing so. There are plenty of doomsday cults that want to bring about the apocalypse, and some adherents to radical Islam may share this trait with such cults.
I also said that Iran could give the weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah. You struck my argument there down, or so you think. But what about Improvised Nuclear Devices (INDs)? Also called "suitcase nukes," they could be detonated quite easily. And it'd never be traced back to Iran.
You'll probably think of some brilliant counter to all the above arguments. But before you do, I would advise you to get a book called "Atomic Iran," written by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. You can probably find it at your local library. The book may have a conservative bias, but it is a very informative book, and it can argue my case a LOT better than I can.
I await a response.
First, I must point out that my third point is still uncontested. At this point, unfortunately for Pro, he is unable to retort, as beginning his rebuttal on that particular point in the final round would be a new point and thus unethical. However, he has conceded more than just the third point by not giving any possible avenues of policy by which we could actually stop Iran without either failure or impermissible action. He hasn't contested my impact either, in which I state that, if Pro does not refute this point, you cannot possibly vote for him as he fails to provide evidence that this is feasible and morally permissible. Insofar as these concessions stand, Pro loses the debate outright. I needn't even cover the other points (but I will).
My opponent first falls prey to a Nazi analogy, which admittedly we all do from time to time. The problem with Nazi analogies is that they're almost always invalid. Germany was a "civilized nation", but that didn't change with the Holocaust necessarily. It changed when the country was crippled by WW1 reparations, hyperinflation on levels you couldn't even imagine, and a rise of the Nazi regime that eventually granted absolute power to one man known for his opinion not that the Jews were part of an inferior and competitive religion, but that the Jews were parasites that fed off of society and creativity and that they needed to be destroyed. There is a fundamental difference between the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and Nazi Germany, including both the ideological reasons for hatred of their leaders and the conditions under which heinous acts potentially take place. Another reason that Germany was able to slaughter millions, as with many genocides, was that the millions being slaughtered were members of their own nation, meaning that they believed that hiding the evidence from the international community was possible. It'd be hard to hide anything on the scale of nuclear holocaust from the global community, I would say. Acting upon your own citizens is fundamentally different than acting upon the citizens of another nation.
Concerning your analogy, a few people chanting "death to Israel" (which by the way, is unsourced in your argument, so any voters would be hard-pressed to take what you state as fact) is not comparable to actually slaughtering millions of innocent Israelis. Not only does this only represent a fringe group of Islamic extremists, but this also is more than likely a metaphorical chant, not about the death of Israelis, but the death of Israel itself and what it embodies to the Iranians. They would like to see the Muslims regain control of Palestine, but are they willing to face the wrath of a nuclear Israel and America while slaughtering millions of innocents for it? No, and a few chants is not sufficient evidence to show otherwise. Neither is "I heard that" a source.
Merely stating that they have funded terrorists in the past is not evidence that defeats a necessity for defense. The United States funded terrorists to fight Russians a few decades ago, but I doubt you'd argue that they don't need defensive measures as well.
Also, my opponent does not, as I've asked, discern between nuclear bombs and other weapons as to why one bomb is impermissible but an entire army is not. At this point, take it as dropped in the round.
My opponent claims that, today, Iran is more of a theocracy, but this does not mean that the leaders still don't have the same lust for power that guides them to prudent decisions, such as "don't attack Israel". Especially now, when other nations would be unlikely to help as they would have in the past, such as repressive theocratic regimes in Iraq, unhindered armies in Syria, and a more authoritarian regime in Egypt.
The only reason my opponent gives for bombing Israel is that Muslims want to bring about doomsday. This is the epitome of speculation. He states that some doomsday cults want to bring about the end of the world. He then states, sans evidence, that some radical Muslims share this desire. He then believes that the leaders, who lust for power and probably do care about their lives and the lives of their constituents to a degree, will be willing to condemn their entire nation to martyrdom for the sake of partly incapacitating Israel. This point, as it stands, is self-refuting.
And "suitcase nukes" is not an refutation of my previous point. If, as I stated, Israel is aware that Iran has nuclear capabilities, and they are struck by a nuclear bomb, it does not matter the source. They will jump to the conclusion that it is Iran. They will attack Iran because they will believe that no one else could have done this. My opponent also assumes that a suitcase nuke is easy to build and that terrorists will be able to sneak the bomb into a major Israeli city. He also now predicates the reason as to why we shouldn't let Iran obtain nuclear weaponry upon the notion that "they will make a suitcase nuke, give it to Hamas, and let them bomb Israel with it." This is an absurdly narrow and ridiculously unfounded attempt at prescience that certainly is not and will never be grounds by which we can impinge upon the sovereignty of another nation for developing a bomb that many nations still use today in a defensive manner, including Israel themselves as well as Pakistan and India. By the way, Pakistan is quite Islamic, and we haven't seen them attempt to nuke India nor have we seen them fund terrorists to do it for them. They haven't made an attempt on Israel either. But that's besides the point.
My opponent's concession of my third point is grounds alone for voting Con. The other points just hammer the nail into the coffin with additional force.
Now, I will move on to answering challenges raised that you raised in your previous turn. You criticized my Nazi Germany analogy, saying that they were moved to barbarianism by their horrible economy caused by the war reparations required according to the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazis took power and forced their beliefs on Germany. However, many Germans supported what the Nazis were doing.
Now let me contrast Nazi Germany to Iran. Iran/Persia has always been a civilized nation. In the Middle Ages they were known for their fine rugs and beautiful mosques and stuff like that. But in Iran today, like what happened in Nazi Germany, Iran has been taken over by a group of radicals. Yes, there are differences to why the Nazis hated the Jews then and why the Mullahs hate Jews today. But the point is, they both hate Jews, and different motives for wanting to wipe them out doesn't really matter here.
And perhaps you were right when you said Iran would immediately be known for what it did if it nuked Israel. There would be a retaliation, and Iran would be destroyed. So I now have to prove that Iranian leaders would virtually commit suicide to wipe out Israel. what you don't understand is how closely linked the destruction of the Jews is to Islam. The Islamic view of the end times involves Muslims attacking the Jews and wiping them out. If there was a Biblical prophecy that the end times would come when one million Christians did the hokey pokey, I'm sure a million Christians would do the hokey pokey to see the end times through, whether it came or not.
Consider Charles Manson. If the apocalyptic "Helter Skelter" he predicted was to come to pass, he may very well have been among those who would've died. He wouldn't have any more power, because he'd be dead. All of his followers would be dead too, so even if he lived he'd have no one to rule over. Yet he was willing to do what it took to make the "Helter Skelter" happen (thankfully it didn't). You've implied that no one is willing to kill themselves to bring about the apocalypse, and this is simply untrue.
Next, you said that the "Death to Israel" chants are not to be taken literally. Let's put it this way: many mass shooters show some kind of evidence that they're going to kill people. They might leave a Facebook post saying "gonna kill people LOL" or their psychiatrist may say that he fantasized about killing people and about his previous incarnation being an Auschwitz guard (yes, this happened with one killer in I think it was the UK). You also said that my sources are unreliable. Some of my information came from "Atomic Iran," and the guy who wrote that book had a Ph.D. Some of my other sources include Wikipedia, which is usually a pretty reliable source. I'm not simply making up "facts."
Finally, you said that suitcase nukes are hard to make. So are nuclear bombs, but the isolated nation of North Korea made them, and Iran's been getting help from Russia. Implying that a suitcase nuke, if created, could not be smuggled into a city is an absurd declaration (you like using the word "absurd," but it's my turn to say it now). Something the size of a suitcase (or even a car) quite easily be smuggled into a city. Even a car-sized bomb could be smuggled in at night or smuggled inside an 18-wheeler. This is perhaps your only ridiculous argument.
My "consession of your third point" was accidental, and I've answered that challenge now. I've removed the "nails from my coffin" by answering your challenges.
And as I've stated before, you really should get that book, "Nuclear Iran," if only to rent it from a library. And I don't think anybody's watching this debate, so I could just start posting gibberish if I wanted to.
I won't include too much content in this final round; I'll merely address each issue individually to crystallize the individual arguments within the round in the context of the larger image. I'll frame the round essentially in the same manner in which I've organized the debate:
1. Right of other nations to impinge upon the sovereignty of Iran
So my opponent doesn't even grapple with the notion that the international community doesn't have the right to invade Iran based upon speculation. He merely continues with this speculation, avoiding the larger point. This concession alone wins the round. But many other concessions alone win the round, I presume. All Pro offers us on this point is arguments that Iran wants to kill the Israelis. I'm being quite generous by even categorizing this under the same point as sovereignty and right to defense. But all of my opponent's points are based upon his own prognostication, unwarranted by actual evidence. Let's address his contentions one by one, under their proper category:
2. Likelihood of Attack
1. Hitler did it
Refer to my many salient differences between the two regimes as well as the fact that, while Hitler may have done it, that ignores all of the people in the past who have not engaged in genocide yet have hated another group of people. He says that, merely because of hatred and the acquiring of means to slaughter, Iran will necessarily do so. Interestingly enough, he drops my analogous contention, that is Pakistan and India, offering no explanation as to how a radical and unstable nation such as Pakistan has managed to acquire nukes and refrain from using them with both evidence of terrorist ties as well as an enemy who also has nuclear weapons. This point can also be applied to the suitcase nuke point. Why hasn't it happened in India yet? But I digress. Comparisons to Hitler are easy to make, yet harder to warrant. The fact that Nazi Germany and Iran both share a relative disliking of Jews is not evidence in and of itself of inevitable genocide.
2. Charles Manson
Do I really have to answer this one? A comparison between Iranian Pm's and legislators and a known sociopathic serial killer with severe mental infirmities? Come on. My argument wasn't that it isn't possible for people to want to end the world to prove a point. My argument is that it's unlikely, and no amount of sociopathic serial killers will prove that point wrong.
3. Death to Israel
Once again, my opponent fails to cite this, making his claim unreliable. But even if some important members of the Iranian government were chanting this, it does not mean that Iran will act upon this for reasons stated above, such as MAD, and a few radical members of the government do not necessarily control all action taken by the government.
4. Suitcase nukes
This still, as my opponent concedes, will likely lead to retaliation. So MAD is solvent in the face of all of Pro's contentions except for the willingness to engage in nuclear holocaust to prove a point contention, which I address above. But then Pro says it would be easy to construct a suitcase nuke and sneak it into a city, forgetting both the tight security in Israel and the fact that building a nuclear device capable of operating inside of a suitcase is certainly no small feat, and it doesn't necessarily follow from acquiring of nuclear capacity that Iran will be able to develop such weapons. If he opposes this technology, then he should oppose the technology directly, not the acquiring of nuclear weaponry altogether.
3. What action would look like
I appreciate my opponent's last-minute response to this contention, but insofar as it is a completely new point made in the final round, voters cannot accept his rebuttal and must still take it as dropped. But just for fun, because I have extra space, I'll address it anyway (note that even if you don't accept my rebuttal as refutation of my opponent's contention, I still win on this point because his contention is new in the final round thus should be discounted).
My opponent turns to invasion, as I suspected he would. However, he does not actually engage with my arguments, namely the warrants that back the arguments. He turns to military invasion with the goal of government takeover. He doesn't address the possibility of usage as a retaliation to this invasion. He doesn't address the issue of demolishing of sovereignty of Iran merely because they're developing a weapon that the very invaders possess themselves. And he unsatisfactorily address the issue of the cost in both lives and money of such a war, though he concedes likelihood of instability after. While he fails to address why the destruction of a sovereign is warranted by the development of weapons possessed by the invaders, it doesn't matter. Discount this point. It's new in the final round.
Note that Pro did not contest my weighing mechanism for the debate. He thus concedes that it is his duty to keep this argumentative chain intact. Therefore, if you acknowledge my victory on even one of the three points I've provided, I win outright. Even if you don't accept one or two of my arguments, the third will still gain me victory by the conceded weighing mechanism provided at the beginning of the debate.
So let's frame the debate in an ostensibly concise manner:
1. I win because my opponent fails to prove that the international community has the right to invade Iran in this situation. Pro only uses one analogy to attempt this at first, but he later drops my contentions and thus concedes this point. His analogy fell apart into more accusations of Iran's desire to attack Israel, which totally skirts the issue of our right to attack them.
2. I win because Pro did not prove that Iran will attack Israel. His contention to the notion that Iran does not want to commit genocide is that Hitler did. If this doesn't cry "desperate for rebuttal", I don't know what does. But then he attempts to use something that he reportedly heard somewhere, from someone or something, as evidence. The notion that people chant "Death to Israel" all the time. All he had to do was source this to prove its validity, but he didn't. If this was common knowledge or a common occurrence, we would expect no trouble finding at least one source verifying it. The notion that some people wish for the end of the world is warranted by Charles Manson. Charles Manson. Let me just repeat that for you one more time. Charles. Manson. Mental infirmity is not comparable to cultural hatred of a specific group. Mass delusion and indoctrination is a sociological issue. Not a psychological issue, as Pro frames it. One more time...Charles Manson. Iran is a sovereign and their leaders are unequivocally hungry for power. My opponent does not satisfactorily address their natural tendency to avoid nuclear holocaust.
3. Automatic concession, automatic win for Con. Pro answers contention in last round, thus we should discount this contention as we would in all debates, and acknowledge this point as conceded. Pro doesn't prove that the resolution is a feasible, ethical option. Thus the resolution is unaffirmed.
Any one of these points gives Con the victory, and you'd be hard-pressed not to automatically award me with both the first and third points, as my opponent directs his entire offensive towards the second point. Insofar as I still effectively address his contentions on the second point, this debate appears to be a sweep to me. Vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was lost by Pro early, sadly. The arguments just aren't there. By providing absolutely no mechanism by which we can prevent their ownership of nuclear weapons, or even stating reasons why we should, on principle, do everything in our power to prevent it, Pro fails to meet his burden. It's easy to pull the trigger here. Same with the points on sovereignty and using people as means, which get no response. I could vote on MAD, which appears to be reason enough by itself to prevent this (though I don't agree). If I wanted to, though, I could decide based off of their non-threat to Israel, which I don't beleive, but is well argued by Con. The suitcase nuke point comes too late, is well-responded to, and is simply not enough to showcase that they would use terrorist groups to do their dirty work. Con is winning this across the board, as well as with citations.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.