The Instigator
Matthew_Wright
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
R00TiX
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,498 times Debate No: 18856
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Matthew_Wright

Pro

My first debate. A small topic to start off with and I hope to learn the ropes of a 'formal' debate.

My position is that Iran has the right of a sovereign nation to develop nuclear weapons and should be allowed to.
Con would argue that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons for whatever reasons they argue.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: summaries
R00TiX

Con

Accepted. Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew_Wright

Pro


Hi R00TiX, thank you for accepting the debate and good luck to you as well.



Premise 1: Iran is a fully recognized sovereign state.


Premise 2: The United States is a fully recognized sovereign state.


Conclusion: If the United States has the right as a sovereign state to develop a nuclear arsenal, then Iran also has the same right and should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal.


Ball is in your court Con...


R00TiX

Con

Well I've got a few things to say about this topic.

Side information:
Let's look at it from a broader perspective. You've got the United States, China, and other world superpowers with TONS of nuclear weapons. Therefore it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons. However, Iran has claimed that (since the beginning of its nuclear program) that it is developing nuclear power for energy use. Yet the country has refused UN inspectors access to its facilities, making it seem a little suspicious, don't you think?

Contention 1:

I don't believe that Iran should be able to produce any nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any country should be able too. They're the worst of a solution to any problem, and just make things worse. For example, when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, we were attacked first (Pearl Harbor), But that doesn't mean we have to go and obliterate two of Japans cities. What if Japan wanted to get us back? With the power they have now, they could easily destroy the White House, or any other big city in the United States. And then what would the United States do? We would bomb them back. And then they'd bomb us. And then we'd bomb them again, and there would be no more United States; and there would be no more Japan. In the end, what does that solve? Sure, it's a small possibility, but just an example to put things into perspective. We don't need nuclear weapons.

Contention 2:

Who would they use it against? If Iran's diplomats are trying for the production of nuclear weaponry, then they must be planning to use them. If anybody, they'd probably use it on Israel, or the United States. There's no way that the Iranian leaders are sitting there saying, 'Ooooh, I want some of those!' That's just ridiculous. If they want to produce nuclear weaponry, then they NEED a reason.

Debate Round No. 2
Matthew_Wright

Pro

Thanks for the quick response!

Con States: "You've got the United States, China, and other world superpowers with TONS of nuclear weapons. Therefore it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons." I argue that very point and in favor of any sovereign nation (to include Iran) to have the same rights to develop weapons as any other.

Counter-point to your Contention #1:
I am not arguing on the morality of the use of nuclear weapons. I am simply arguing for the right to develop them. Rights are not denied based on possible bad future use. I could possibly use my gun to kill someone, but (in the United States), I have a right to own one.

Counter-point to your Contention #2:

Your last statement declares that in order to produce nuclear weapons, Iran would have to justify a reason. What entity is responsible for determining whether a nation’s needs justify their production? What right would said entity have over a sovereign state? Could a state be sovereign by definition, if it’s affairs could be tampered with by an unapproved outside force?

My Point:

Any nation is capable of using nuclear arms to a very negative consequence. In your point of view, the United States has done so already. So what justification does any entity (being represented by nations, and undoubtedly the United States) have in being the arbiter in a nation’s armament affairs?

If a country uses nuclear weapons improperly, would they then lose their ‘right’ to develop them?

R00TiX

Con

No problem!

Yes, In my previous argument I stated that it is hypocritical for every other country to not let Iran produce nuclear weapons. But I also stated why I believe that they should NOT in the following sentence.

My Point:

Sure, any nation is capable of using nuclear arms to a negative consequence. And yes, the United States has done so already. But the thing is that Iran will not let any UN inspectors access to their facilities. As I said before. Because of the fact that Iran is not part of the UN, they are not patrolled by any other nation. They're already dangerous, as their enemy country is right next to them. And because of the fact that they aren't controlled, they could easily create as much nuclear weaponry as they want, unrestricted. Then if they feel the need, bomb Israel as a whole. And Israel is in the UN. SO GUESS WHAT THE UN WOULD DO. Bomb israel. I don't believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons for that reason, which I believe is highly likely.
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew_Wright

Pro

I would not dare say that the Iranian government is not full of holocaust deniers and irrational leaders. I also would not deny that in probable likelihood, they are denying UN inspectors as they are pursuing certain nuclear activities.

But I claim that they have just the same right to develop nuclear weapons as any other recognized sovereign state.

I will make my conclusion thus: If your argument is that their right should be stripped (thus defeating the idea of a sovereign nation) because they are more dangerous, then I will show how they are not more dangerous than other current nuclear-armed nations.

1. You are mistaken in thinking that Iran is not part of the UN. They are in fact a member (Here is the UN’s official record http://www.un.org...)

2. You state that Iran is dangerous because of their proximity to their enemy (Israel). Explain how that is different than the situation in closer neighbors Pakistan and India, who both have been continuously engaged in conflicts since the 1940’s. (http://www.globalsecurity.org...). Pakistani leaders have even stated their willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively! (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...)

Both of these countries posses multiple nuclear warheads, and both are considered ‘dangerous’ by your logic, so where is their right to nuclear weapons derived from, if not solely because of their sovereignty? If Pakistan, a country just as dangerous as Iran by your definitions, can have nuclear weapons why can’t Iran? Pakistan has even had problems with their credibiliy on terrorist associations lately.

3. Yes the Iranians have leveled threats at Israel and even claim to “blow them off the map”. Countries do this political grandstanding all the time. Look at the Cold War--with two countries housing the more nuclear warheads than of all other countries combined. Khrushchev and Nixon had fierce arguments and threats--even with Khrushchev remarking that they would “destroy” the United States! Look at the political grandstanding in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s all about flexing their muscles. But there are reasons to hold back—I discuss next.

4. You also state that you fear the Iranians would subsequently bomb Israel once they have the bomb. Did the US bomb the Soviets and vice-versa during the tumultuous times of the cold war? Has Pakistan bombed India and vice-versa during the last 60 years of their conflict?

No. There are consequences for every decision. Mutually-assured destruction would be a big one. Do you really feel that Iran would bomb Israel, knowing that the Israelis have superior military power and already possess 60-80 nukes? http://www.fas.org...

Summary: Much mainstream propaganda has been directed at the Iranian government in an attempt to block their sovereign right to nukes. The case, as I hopefully have shown, is that Iran is no different than any other country that has developed nukes. They should have the same opportunity to defense as any other—otherwise how could you call them a sovereign country (call them a semi-country then)? If you are going to recognize them as a country and bring them into the United Nations, then you have to recognize their right to develop weapons as any other country.

Of course nuclear weapons should not fall into anybody's hands. You wouldn't give a nuke to Al-Qaeda or Hammas. But these are not sovereign countries, and they are not recognized as such. This is the difference with Iran. They are fully recognized and are full members of the international community. That right should be extended in light of this. They are no more dangerous than Pakistanis are or the Soviets were.

Thank you for presenting an articulate debate and you have the last word...
R00TiX

Con

Before I finish up my debate and summary, I just wanted to say it was nice debating with somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I've debated others, who have come up with the most ridiculous evidence. And I'm glad that you cite your sources and such. I apologize for saying that Iran was not part of the UN. I honestly thought they werent. That was probably something I should have looked up. Now,

Summary:

Yes, I completely agree with you saying that Iran is a sovereign country, and should have their rights. But do I believe they should have the rights to develop and produce nuclear weaponry? No. You brought up in your summary the Cuban Missle Crisis, and the Cold War. Those were both legitimate arguments against my case. But, those were EXREMELY close calls. But the only reason the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't happen, was because of John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev coming to an agreement. Missiles for Missiles. The US took their missiles out of Turkey, so the Soviet Union took their missiles out of Cuba. I could easily argue the same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, lets take a look at my first argument. In it, I stated that nobody should have nuclear weapons. Clearly the Cubn Missile Crisis and the Cold War wouldn't be in the history books if there were no nuclear weapons to begin with. Also, 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki wouldn't have died on August 6th, 1945. Sure, the US would have definitely retaliated from the pearl harbor bombing. But not with nuclear DEVESTATION. Now, John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev stopped the CMC. Who's going to stop Iran from bombing somebody? I rest my case.


It was good arguing with you.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by R00TiX 5 years ago
R00TiX
Haha, I lost bad.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
I never really noticed how much the U.S. thinks they own the world
Posted by Matthew_Wright 5 years ago
Matthew_Wright
Don't know how well I persuaded you Xiao, but I am at least glad to hear that you have 'open ears' for my side of the argument.
Posted by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
Iran wants to blow places off the map. I think I agree with Con unless Pro changes my mind.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was excruciating to watch. I was prepared to crucify PRO and his line of reasoning, but instead saw PRO crucify CON through skill of debating. Although PRO has done nothing to change my opinion that Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons, I concede that CON never challenged PRO's primary argument of rights of sovereignty (even though only a HANDFUL of nations actually have nukes). This was a painful debate to follow...I wanted to kick CON out of the debate and take his place and crucify PRO. Oh well, c'est la vie.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: stupid debate. If you could call it that. No arguments were provided. Con could have easily won by argueing a) Iran should not be recognized as a sovereign state. b)even if they are. There is danger in them haveing nuclear wepons and they should not be trusted.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have done a better job. Personally I would have liked see more references to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which Iran signed and ratified.
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did better all around.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Iran is a very dangerously run country and if it developed nuclear weapons it would severly jeopardize world peace. However Pro provided a helluva good argument about how as a soverign state they have the right to do so. Con's arguments were kinda nuts. Pro used sources but Con was rather polite towards the Pro so I threw him the conduct points. Good debate :)
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided quite an argument. Con did as well. Pro had a more convincing argument though. Con really only focused on the idea that Iran is bad and could possibly bomb someone.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's main point was that if they get them, they must use them. He really didn't bring up evidence to back his claims. It is most likely that they are getting them for protection. Con never showed that no countries should be able to get nukes. I think a better way to argue is that Iran may give the nukes to terrorists incognito.
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
Matthew_WrightR00TiXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: They were both good :)