The Instigator
dylancatlow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Living on the island of Manhattan is one of the most dangerous places to live in the United States

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...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 30119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

dylancatlow

Pro

Rules:
1) No semantics (there should be no need in this debate)
2) No posting arguments in round 1 (this round)
3) Failure to comply with the above rules = automatic loss for my opponent

Accepting this debate means you accept my terms
Heineken

Con

I accept this debate and I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
dylancatlow

Pro

In short: nuclear terrorism.

Per President Barrack Obama, "Nuclear terrorism is "the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term. This is something that could change the security landscape of this country and around the world for years to come." ... "If there ever was a detonation in New York City or London or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating.'" (1)
George W. Bush called it his "ultimate nightmare." Sen. John Kerry, running for president in 2004, said that it was "the greatest threat that we face." (2)

Should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in the United States, the location that would do the most damage would be New York City. With its population, influence, and 'capitol of the world' status, New York makes for a prime target. Not incidentally, New York is one of the likely cities for a nuclear terrorist attack to occur. Living in Manhattan is essentially a death sentence if a nuclear bomb with high-yield goes off anywhere in the borough. Even a small nuclear bomb like a suitcase nuke could devastate Manhattan.

First off, let it be understood that the technology to build a nuclear bomb is not complex. The actual building of the bomb is an engineering challenge, but not an impossible one. Two students managed to build one with everything but the nuclear material (3).

"Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent." (4)
Even if the experts are wrong by a factor of ten, any city on the list of probable targets are still EXTREMELY dangerous to live in. New York and Washington are the most likely targets, or even easier to argue, New York is ONE of the most likely targets.

I pass the debate to con.




Sources:
1) http://www.stopnuclearterrorism.org...

2) http://www.engineeringchallenges.org...

3) http://www.guardian.co.uk...

4) Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent.

Heineken

Con

Pro established his burden. My opponent will show that nuclear terrorism is a direct threat to Manhattan.

Pro cited political positions from President Obama, Mr. John Kerry, and Ex-President Bush. All of the associated quotes are anecdotal. They are politically loaded warnings, not evidence. Positional statements do not create proof, they establish an opinion. My opponent should be focused on proving that Manhattan is under direct nuclear threat.


------------------------------------------------


Pro established that if a nuclear terrorist attack occur in the United States, the location that would do the most damage would be New York City.

Rebuttal: If New York gets hit with a Nuclear weapon, it would indeed cause mass destruction. However, if New York was hit by a meteor, it would also cause mass destruction. As would a tidal wave from an Atlantic earth-quake.

Simply citing the destructive power of a catastrophe does not make it an imminent threat.

My opponent must be able to prove that Manhattan is under direct nuclear threat. Perpetuating the horror of the event doesn't make it more imminent. It simply seeks to arouse panic.

------------------------------------------------

Pro established: With its population, influence, and 'capitol of the world' status, New York makes for a prime target. Not incidentally, New York is one of the likely cities for a nuclear terrorist attack to occur. Living in Manhattan is essentially a death sentence if a nuclear bomb with high-yield goes off anywhere in the borough. Even a small nuclear bomb like a suitcase nuke could devastate Manhattan.


Rebuttal: A fine example of Argumentum ad Metum [2]; a rudimentary logical fallacy. An appeal to fear is a Red Herring, an irrational argument that "attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion."

Consider, a nuclear suitcase bomb does not exist. [1] The Hollywood dramatization is a far cry from contemporary nuclear technology. My opponent has completely deviated from reality.

------------------------------------------------

Pro stated: First off, let it be understood that the technology to build a nuclear bomb is not complex.

Rebuttal: Profusely incorrect. Plutonium enrichment requires an incredibly sophisticated reactor, which in itself is a marvel of modern engineering. The cost, material and training required to operate such a device requires an impressive vault of resources. It's certainly not within the reach of cave-dwelling Jihadists in the Afghan mountains.

Uranium enrichment is likewise a sophisticated process. Simply mixing up a batch in your Al-Queida EasyBake oven is far from reality. In fact, the Stanford Nuclear Threat report stated that "it would be difficult or impossible for a terrorist group to carry out these activities, at least without host government support. Even with government support, such activities are likely to be detected from abroad." [3]



------------------------------------------------


Pro cited:
"Various experts estimate the chances of a nuclear detonation in the next 10 years at somewhere between 10 and 30 percent."

Rebuttal: That estimate is Global, not local. Additionally, the estimate favors a nuclear showdown between Iran and Israel, not Al Queida and Manhattan. The tension between the two states is so profuse, the CSIS performed a strategic analysis on several nuclear scenarios involving these two middle-eastern states. Israel, in case you are wondering, is estimated to survive the nuclear scrimmage with far less casualties. [4]


------------------------------------------------ 

Conclusion: My opponent has furnished an excessive amount of illogical arguments, some of which where direct appeals to emotion, while others are flat out untrue. If my opponent seeks to fulfil his burden, I would urge him to seek substantial evidence to support a direct nuclear threat against Manhattan.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [1]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2]

http://iis-db.stanford.edu... [3]

http://www.ynetnews.com... [4]

Debate Round No. 2
dylancatlow

Pro

dylancatlow forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

Opponent Forfeits. All arguments extended. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
If you not agree with me bad thing will happen! -makhdoom5's logic
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Well I can't disagree with that logic!
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
dear the terrorist are not GOD. they cant do what they are not capable of.
ALLAH protect this world.
and nothing is going to happen to it.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
the science brought bad upon us.
what if there would be whole world agnostic or atheist.
the world will end up within secs.
they do not believe on ultimate reward or punishment or justice or equity.
they think this world is one and only place they are gonna live.
if the world would be full of this kind of peoples. they would now there is nothing ultimate.
poor will feel unsatisfied on his birth among poor.
they would become jealous on powerful. ugly would be saying if this world is curse for us and we are not going to get good from it any way than whats the point for it to be existed.
lets get rid of this unjust place unpleasant place. unequal place. etc.
try to understand what i am saying. its there only because of religious peoples coz they know whatever wrong here happen with them they will get justice in front of ALLAH. who us ultimate in every respect.
that is the reason we bear your hate. wrong accusation. wrong invasion. death of our children, rape of our women. and still labeling us terrorist only because of some hairs or a piece of cloth.
sorry i took the point some where else.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
the science brought bad upon us.
what if there would be whole world agnostic or atheist.
the world will end up within secs.
they do not believe on ultimate reward or punishment or justice or equity.
they think this world is one and only place they are gonna live.
if the world would be full of this kind of peoples. they would now there is nothing ultimate.
poor will feel unsatisfied on his birth among poor.
they would become jealous on powerful. ugly would be saying if this world is curse for us and we are not going to get good from it any way than whats the point for it to be existed.
lets get rid of this unjust place unpleasant place. unequal place. etc.
try to understand what i am saying. its there only because of religious peoples coz they know whatever wrong here happen with them they will get justice in front of ALLAH. who us ultimate in every respect.
that is the reason we bear your hate. wrong accusation. wrong invasion. death of our children, rape of our women. and still labeling us terrorist only because fo some hairs or a piece of cloth.
sorry i took the point some where else.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Uhh, what makes you think terrorists care about anything you said there? They WANT destruction.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
loll.
next 10 year the nuclear attack.
the nuclear attack would not happen again in this world. only America was that much fool who did this on japan.
the consequence we still bear.
this is planet not a star.
atomic reaction desperately destabilize the planet and even the solar system.
this global warming the one part is also that. or the on going testing nuclear reaction. or some for power. indeed they are very much controlled. but every body know the water absorbs the radiation and that goes into sea any way.
through rain cycle or if disaster happens. like happen in japan.
and i don't know before nuclear attack was the amount of earth quake same the amount was after.
this world will end in a way the creator wanted not this way in near future. you will see there will be cure for this curse.
the more easy and on large scale the method to control fission.
even it could be like that the reaction would not go much where initiated. there could be way.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
But I'm a le tired
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
I think you should argue that in your next round. :-)
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Also, a dirty bomb is MUCH easier to make and can still kill hundreds of thousands. Terrorists don't have to necessarily make their own highly-enriched material. North Korea and Iran are definitely possible suppliers. And remember if you think it would be hard to get the material into the states, they could always hide it in a barrel of marijuana.

Nuclear terrorism = number one threat. Not only because of the intrinsic destruction, but also complete and utter political turmoil and possible nuclear war.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
dylancatlowHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
dylancatlowHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for pro's forfeit. Arguments to con because pro displayed many fallacies, and not having the BoP, con successfully defeated them.