The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Nuclear Disarmament the Best idea to attain world Peace ?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 90612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The rules are simple and just like a normal oxford style debate
The 1st round is just for giving your stance and a short intro.
The 2nd round is the main debating round.
The last round will be the REBUTTAL round.

Round 1
I will be debating against the motion of " Is Nuclear Disarmament the Best idea to attain world Peace ?".

I do not believe that this is the best time for nuclear disrmament because every country has a new threat ... it may be a state or a non state actor but who ever it might be nuclear weapons will always be an upper hand and thus I AM AGAINST THE DISARMING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.


Nuclear Disarmament is the best idea to attain world peace because without ICBMs and TNWs it ensures the safety of generations following, countries shouldn't be focusing on developing nuclear weapons they should be focusing on building other means of defense whether it's their army, air force or navy. Diplomacy and logic should take the front seat, this is our world and our nation we're talking about, it shouldn't be the biggest and brawniest but instead the wisest and most level headed.
Debate Round No. 1


Round 2
We see that in this time of insurgency all throughout the world nuclear disarmament is not the best idea to attain world peace. Let's first concentrate on the situation in the middle east, on one side is Saudi and Turkey with all their so called friendly countries, On another side we have Israel , the third counterpart is Iran and Syria and lastly there are the anarchists namely ,the ISIS, Al qaeda,PLO, Taliban , Hamas and many more and the funny part in all these belligerents is everyone hates each other (except some cases like hezbollah and Iran). With such a war going on in the one of the most sensitive places on the world one is never safe. Moreover this also harms the economy and trade of every country because remember the middle east is the biggest producer of OIL. The problem or rather the irreplaceablr damage that the countrie has done is to create a proxy war( wars where countries don't fight in their own land and are not even related to the problem but still take part) which obviously the US has done all the time. Seeing the situation of the world one country being superior (like USA or Russia) is not the end of the story. Every country will try to be superior than the other and that is what creates their nuclear arsenal. Other than that some countries may also develop these weapons to FIGHT EXTREMISTS or to stop/defend themselves from war. Seeing that currently 8 countries have nuclear weapons namely USA, UK, Russia , China, France, India, Pakistan and Israel but two countries are also suspected to develop these weapons out of which one has proved its might- North Korea and Iran.

The anarchists have given the world enough pain and we have suffered without doing anything. With the pace that the terrorists are gaining power they can cross the limit anytime and then we ned something to fight them. These 8(or 10) countries with nuclear weapons will always have the upper hand if a war ever breaks out because they will have something to defend themselves except the army, navy and the air force. Then, these countries which have their arsenal ready know that what a dangerous weapon they have . After the Japan bombings in 1945, everyone is aware that this weapon is only for those times when returning is impossible. Thus the use of nuclear weapons have and are carried out smartly. However, this point is not acceptable for the case of NORTH KOREA of course... Only God and Kim Jong Un knows what these people are planning. Oh yes and coming to DPRK we also need a strong force to fight what may become a nuclear war starting from the maniac's country. With Korea developing the H-bomb a greater threat is posed on the worls and especially USA. Thus, Disarming a weapon is equal to giving up your power and your courage. For USA nuclear weapons may also be the TRUMP card to world politics. Thus disarming at this point of time is not the best idea because even if you give up your power for peace, there will always be the ones who will take advantage of that and then one will have no power to come back to the position it once was.

"A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us "
-Margaret Thatcher, Former PM of the United Kingdom


rider_of_the_blue forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Seeing that the opponent has forfeited I may come with the same points given in the previous round. The summary that I may provide is simple.
1.The nuclear weapons are needed in order to maintain peace and order in differenyt parts of the world (like the middle east, south america North Korea etc.)
2.ICBMs and TNWs are required to defend a nation from its doom. This is because even if we disarm there will always be someone who will want to take advantage of us and declare a full fledged nuclear war which would result in the slaughtering of helpless people who had nothing to fight with.
3.To protect a country from rising threats like North Korea, Trump and many more.
4.By possesing nuclear weapons we will have a upper hand against the so called anarchists (al qaeda,ISIS) so that the we can win our fight when it is required.
5. Lastly, the 10 countries having these weapons are pretty much stable and going to think their way out without the use of nuclear weapons .


rider_of_the_blue forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
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: Pro didn't really make any arguments. Sort of a win-by-default.