The Instigator
ChristianM
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zetsubou
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,957 times Debate No: 14155
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

ChristianM

Pro

Greetings fellow debaters and my esteemed judges. Today, I debate with the user Zetsubou in Round 1 of the Johnicle Debate Tournament III. I first must thank you for taking the time to read this debate and allowing your time to be used on our behalf.

For the knowledge of the reader, the resolution is: Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT.

I will be taking the pro side of this debate. For further knowledge, the Nuclear NPT is: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will allow my opponent to introduce himself per the rules of the tournament, and our debate will begin in Round 2 with PRO's argument. Thank you so much for your time, and good luck.

-usafkid1121
Zetsubou

Con

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Articles
Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article V. In accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis.

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Articles VII. Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

Article VIII. 1. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments which shall circulate it to all Parties to the Treaty.

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Article IX. 1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).

Treaty PDF: [http://www.iaea.org...]

Debate accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianM

Pro

ChristianM forfeited this round.
Zetsubou

Con

Zetsubou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ChristianM

Pro

ChristianM forfeited this round.
Zetsubou

Con

(My name is Matt Smith - vwerp wverp. )

Members of the United Nations Security Council should strictly enforce the Nuclear NPT

- The members of the United Nations Security then are almost all developed democratic states. All of which atleast have a de facto parliamentary system when it comes to the declaration of war. An extreme, id est ‘strict’, foreign policy that forces a country to rash action is illegal in many European and 3rd world states as a war deterrent policy. [1]
- As well as being democratic states their rulers are subject to slander and criticism unlike that seen in other forms of government. The mere intervention in another country’s affairs by both corporate and military means invokes the wrath of journalist and opposition groups. The effects of this on the lesser, non permanent states of the Security Council would be considerably stronger. It need not be said the instabilities posed by revolution; Lebanon and Bosnia, both current member of the council are both states that have been involved wars on their own home fronts within the last decade. The anti war opposition is an opposition ever so easy to manipulate by ultra nationalist or religious militias active in both countries. [2] [3]
- The actions of a sovereign state are answerable to the will of its rulers or citizenry. The demands of a Xenos entity such as the UN are lesser commitments. If the rulers and the citizenry that compose of the state’s body politic oppose an action required by the Treaty then the state has no imperative to do so. [4] [5]
- The enforcement of the treaty has adverse effects on common citizenry. Nuclear weapons are a weapon of annihilation - weapons used when the aggressor has no regard for his opponent’s welfare. The intervention required by this addition to the treaty posses the threat of a war of nuclear war, the second most lethal form of warfare known to man. The demand and pressure on a state to involve itself in such a passive, non-immediate treat is insane.

[1] Post War, Tony Judt (Prosperity and Its Discontents, Diminished Expectations, 241-636)
[2] http://books.google.ca...... [see comments]
[3] http://www.un.org...
[4] Kant - Perpetual Peace (1795) http://drworley.org...
[5] Rousseau - The Social Contract(Book II, The Sovereign) - (1762) http://www.ruthdunn.org...'s%20The%20Social%20Contract.pdf

Debate Round No. 3
ChristianM

Pro

ChristianM forfeited this round.
Zetsubou

Con

Extend arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
I haven't the time anymore, private matters.
Posted by ChristianM 6 years ago
ChristianM
Do you want to restart our debate Zets?
Posted by ChristianM 6 years ago
ChristianM
Im more than likely going to have to forfeit because I'm out of town with the family and im on my phone. Im sorry and will accept defeat.
Posted by ChristianM 6 years ago
ChristianM
And maybe some acknowledgements, like good luck, would be good too...
Posted by ChristianM 6 years ago
ChristianM
5000 character? Rules. sorry.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Nice topic, make sure you send me a message when it's done in case i don't follow it, because i would like to read it. Good luck, although i should mention that i am really anti-UN (at least for the US).
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
5000 characters?

Coward.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
ChristianMZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit....
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
ChristianMZetsubouTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit.