The Instigator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
quarterexchange
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be abolished in its current form.

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...
quarterexchange
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,383 times Debate No: 17639
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I want to debate saying that the NPT must be abolished because it is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no reason why some countries should have Nuclear Weapons and be allowed to trade Nuclear energy whereas the other countries are not allowed to have Nuclear weapons. My main reasons why NPT should be abolished are:
1) It creates an imbalance of power between countries that have them and those that don't.
2) Saying that only states which created nuclear weapons before 1965 should be allowed to keep them is completely arbitrary. It could just as well have been 1975 or 1990.
3) It could possibly be argued that only stable governments should possess nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists but who are we to decide whether a government deserves to have nuclear weapons?

I propose that the NPT be abolished and one of two options be considered:
1) Either a new treaty is made which prohibits nuclear weapons entirely and asks all states to disarm themselves without exceptions.
2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states.
quarterexchange

Con

I will be taking the stance that the NPT is a necessary and important treaty that we should continue to uphold

I may add additional arguments as the debate carries on.

Argument: The NPT prevents irresponsible nations from possessing nuclear arms.

Nations such as North Korea, Iran, or various other 3rd world nations are not as stable as the current governments that posses nuclear weapons.

The U.S., China, UK, Russia, etc all have strong safeguards in place to prevent nuclear weapons from being used irresponsibly.

For example, the president of the U.S. cannot wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'.

That order has to be unanimously approved by fellow political leaders and then has to be approved by multiple military leaders, go down the chain of command all the way down to the Air Force officers that are in possession of partial launch codes (since no one holds the complete launch codes).

There is no doubt that such a complex safeguard will NOT be implemented in autocratic and poor nations that reside in the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, etc

Refutations:

First off, let's get rid of the option of a treaty banning nuclear weapons from every nation assuming neither of us don't believe in fairy tales.

That only leaves the option of allowing every nation to posses nuclear arms.

NPT creates an imbalance of power

My opponent says that the NPT creates an imbalance of power between nuclear states and non nuclear states.

My response is: GOOD.

There should definitely NOT be a balance of power between the United States of America and North Korea or Iran, etc.

If there was the U.S. as well as other western nations would be competing militarily with nations that have clearly evil purposes such as Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map or North Korea's continuing threats against the United States and South Korea.

Currently, if Iran where to try anything against Israel, the U.S. and Israel could bomb Iran back to the stone age, granted they wouldn't have far to fall at least we'd have the upper hand in a justly fought war.

With my opponent's only realistic alternative after abolishing the NPT, Iran would have a nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting millions of casualties on Israeli citizens as well as military personnel (Perhaps U.S. personnel as well).

The NPT only allows state that created nuclear weapons before 1965 to keep them

I concede this point. I say that stable states with strong safeguards should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons such as Russia, India, Brazil, etc.

But this only means that the NPT should be slightly revised, not abolished completely.

Who are we to decide who should have nuclear weapons?

We are the responsible powers who don't have outright destructive intentions of instigating a nuclear holocaust or starting a genocide or expanding our territorial claims in a bloody war that could quickly deteriorate into a nuclear confrontation.

Even if you're an anarchist/anti-american/libertarian/liberal/etc or a member of any other group that opposes U.S./Western foreign intervention, you must believe that the chances of the U.S. or the UK ACTUALLY using its nuclear arsenal in a war are very slim to none.

Do you honestly think Iran or North Korea or some fanatic leader of a banana republic will show the same restraint?


Back to you PRO.


Debate Round No. 1
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I am going to argue two different things in this round:
1) My original arguments that my opponent attempted to refute
2) My opponent's arguments

1) Original arguments
(i) Banning all nuclear weapons
My opponent dismisses the banning of nulcear weapons as "fairy tales". However, many countries have signed treaties to limit the production of nuclear weapons and are working towards an all out ban. The comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments for military and civilian purposes. [1] A total of 182 countries have signes it and 152 have ratified it. [2]

(ii) Imbalance of power
My opponent calls Iran and North Korea "evil." However, he does not provide sources to back up that claim. If this debate were taking place in Iran or North Korea, I'm sure that some people in those countries will call the US "evil." I don't believe that calling them "evil" is a legitimate argument. However, if my opponent provides sources in the next round, I am willing to argue this point further. But for now, there is no reason that there should be an imbalance of power.

(iii) Responsibility of the US
The only country that has used Nuclear weapons in the past is the United States. We used them for extremely destructive purposes against Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [3] Keeping that in mind, it is hard to understand Con's assertion that "we are the responsible powers" when no other nation has ever used nuclear weapons. Not even the nations that my opponent conveniently calls "Banana republics."

2) My opponent's arguments
(i) "Irresponsible" nations with "Autocratic" leaders
My opponent calls Iran and North Korea "irresponsible" but doesn't explain why. The Japanese would call the United States much worse than irresponsible after the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I am not an anarchist, anti-american liberal but it seems like the US is the only nation that hasn't shown any restraint. Also, provide at least one source which says that a nation is autocratic. In 2011, nearly all countries have a democracy.

(ii) Revising the NPT to allow India, Brazil etc to join
My argument was that the NPT in it's current form should be abolished. Obviously, there are ways to make it better, such as allowing new states to join if they meet certain safeguards but that would actually make the treaty fair and in this debate, I am only looking to argue against the current, unfair treaty.

(iii)"For example, the president of the U.S. cannot wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'. "
Okay, in which country can the leader wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'? Almost all countries have their own safeguards which protect their nuclear arsenal. They may not be the same as the United States but they exist.


Sources
[1] http://www.un.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://history1900s.about.com...

quarterexchange

Con

Refutations:

Banning all Nuclear Weapons

I dismissed the notion of banning nuclear weapons, because it's never been done before. We banned nuclear testing, but that is much different from banning the possession of nuclear weapons all together.

As a result of having nuclear weapons, countries have the most destructive weapon known to mankind and they aren't willing to give them up. Sure they may decide not to test them anymore, but they won't agree to destroy them all.

There is no reason to believe a ban on nuclear weapons can be accomplished unless you think the U.S, UK, Russia, and China are all run by upfront and honest leaders who are willing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals out of good will towards one another.

Imbalance of power

I thought it was widely known that North Korea instigated a 3 year long war that resulted in the deaths of millions of North Korean, Chinese, South Korean soldiers and civilians after they launched a dastardly surprise attack on South Korea in order to unite Korea under communism.[1]

They have since been responsible for multiple violations along the DMZ, an assassination attempt on the SK president, the sinking of a SK destroyer and a bombing of a SK military base, all translates into thousands of casualties.[2][3]

Iran is an anti-Semitic nation bent on “wiping Israel off the map”. [4]

Additionally, Iran has been supplying terrorist groups such as the Taliban with munitions such as explosive compounds which have caused the deaths of hundreds British and American soldiers. [5]

This is ignoring countless other unstable regions around the globe

In short, aggressive countries are threatening our allies and we should make it certain that we can defend them.

Responsibility of the Nuclear Powers

The U.S. only used two nuclear weapons in combat during the largest war in human history. Since then they have not been used again even though several generals and leaders have pushed to do so. [6][7]

We used them on Japan because the Big Six of Japan ignored our surrender terms. [8]

Nuclear bombs were not used by the U.S. in the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, The Gulf Wars, the Invasion of Afghanistan, etc.

I also did not say that it was solely the U.S. that was the responsible power.

Russia, China, UK, India, Pakistan, and France all have nuclear weapons and have not used them.

It is also very fallacious that my opponent points to the fact that no other nation on the planet has used nukes, including poor "Banana Republics".

He avoids the fact that currently the NPT prevents them from owning any.

Defense of my argument :

Irresponsible nations will be able to possess nuclear arms

My opponent says that since the U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons that means the U.S. hasn’t shown restraint using nuclear weapons.

If this was true then we would have used them in Korea when Macarthur asked to use them against China. [6]

We would have used them in the Vietnam when several military officials wanted to use tactical nuclear devices to block supply routes. [7]

The U.S. has been in several fierce "wars" over the span of 60 + years and hasn’t used a nuke in any conflict after WW2.

Regarding the pre 1967 time limit

My opponent wrote, "I propose that the NPT be abolished and one of two options be considered"

I am against this, not minor revisions.

Other nations will not have nuclear safeguards

Notice how my opponent suggest that we should allow every country to posses nuclear arms and then states, "Almost all countries have their own safeguards"

This is clear admission as a concession that even my opponent isn't certain that every country will have good safeguards in place, largely because it is a ludicrous notion that countries run by dictators or other authoritarian figures in poor and unstable states will have something to restrict their power.

[1]http://bit.ly...
[2]http://bit.ly...
[3]http://bit.ly...
[4]http://nyti.ms...
[5]http://bit.ly...
[6]http://bit.ly...
[7]http://bit.ly...
[8]http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

Responses to refutations

Banning
Banning Nuclear weapons has never been done before but the world is moving towards it now. Four of the NPT nuclear weapons states are decreasing the number of nuclear warheads that they have and only China's stockpile is still increasing. They have already signed Partial bans and Test bans and are now moving toward a complete ban. Therefore banning is a realistic solution that my opponent can't just dismiss as unrealistic.

Imbalance of power & Responsibilty
My opponent says that there should be an imbalance of power because North Korea attacked South Korea, Iran may possibly attack Israel, and that Iran allegedly supplied the Taliban with weapons. First, I must explain that according to Con's source, it was suspected not proved. Secondly wars happen. The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain and France colonized many countries in Africa ans Asia and enslaved the populations there. It is not accurate for any nation to say that they are "the responsible powers" and that their enemies are irresponsible. "Responsibilty" is highly subjective.

My opponent says that the U.S. has only used two nuclear weapons. I would like to point out that "only" two weapons caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians. The fact remains that no country has ever used nuclear weapons besides the USA. So, the USA can't really take credit and say "only two weapons were used" and "since then they have not been used again."

My opponent says that the only reason poor "banana republics" (his words, not mine) did not use nuclear weapons is because the NPT prevents them from owning any. This does not negate the fact that they have Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is an open secret that Israel does too. Iran and Syria are suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons before [2]. None of these states used their nuclear weapons to kill innocent civilians so argument that "we are the responsible powers" is weak.

Refutation of Con's defense

US has shown restraint by not using Nuclear Weapons in North Korea and Vietnam
Same point as above.

Abolition of treaty vs minor revisions
One of the two options that I considered was "2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states" (emphasis added). So, equal restrictions means a fair treaty, that is what I am arguing for. My options include a provision for revision. The whole point of the NPT was to prevent non Nuclear Weapons states from making them. So, allowing India and Brazil to join would be a pretty major revision, not a minor one as my opponent says.

Nuclear Safeguards of other nations
My opponent says that I conceded this point. I absolutely did not concede this point. Let me restate: Almost All countries have their own safeguards. My opponent attacked the word "almost" and said that it means I believe some states don't have nuclear safeguards. My opponents is actually saying that an actual sovereign country with a government may not have nuclear safeguards to protect their nuclear weapons. This is impossible as whoever manufactures nuclear weapons will want to protect them. My opponent's assertion that states could just manufacture something as powerful as nuclear weapons and not safeguard them is unfounded.

Sources

[1] http://www.rerf.or.jp...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

quarterexchange

Con

Refutations

Ban on Nukes

It is very unrealistic because the U.S., UK, China, Russia, and France all have long "rap sheets" of violating international laws, agreements, treaties, etc.


The U.S. violated international law repeatedly by sending U-2 spy planes over the USSR.[1]

Russia violated the START treaty by developing new ICBM's.[2]

The U.S. violated international law by producing biological weapons.[3]

Russia violated international law by attacking Georgia in the South Ossetia War.[4]

Some of these violations are minor, but others are rather horrifying.

Regardless, Russia and the U.S. have already outright violated international laws and treaties by producing nuclear and biological weapons. This just goes to show you how ineffective these bans regarding nuclear weapons are when they are already in the hands of those that have them.

So I will dismiss the notion of banning all nuclear weapons as unrealistic seeing that the signatories have trouble following bans on Bio weapons and ICBMs.

Balance of Power

My opponent has no rebuttal to the fact that North Korea attacked South Korea with no justified reason or in response to the threat Iran poses to Israel. He makes no attempt to defend the point that they are irresponsible and have malicious intentions.


I've already shown that the U.S. bombings of Japan were in response to Japan's refusal to accept the Potsdam declaration (surrender terms), and therefore would have required more time, lives, and money to end the war. [5] In this case the bombs were used responsibly.

The colonization of foreign powers by the UK and France does not show that they are responsible with nuclear weapons. They would have no need or motive to use them irresponsibly against their colonies especially with firm governments in place. North Korea and Iran are currently aggressive to nations that mean them no harm and would have motive to use them in a war they may instigate if they were being beaten in a military confrontation.

Israel is a stable country with a firm government in place and has not been aggressive towards other major powers.

Belarus, Ukraine, and South Africa were simply places were the U.S. and USSR kept nuclear weapons to be used in the event of a war. Just because the USSR kept nukes in Ukraine does not mean Ukraine could fire them. This point is moot.

North Korea has crude nuclear weapons that have less yield than 1,000 tons of tnt.[6]

To give you an idea of how ineffective that is I have posted a video link that shows the explosion of 100 tons. They have "nukes" in the most liberal sense of the word.

South Africa was only able to create 6 nuclear bombs and only in response to the communist presencce in Africa. They quickly destroyed them showing that they were responsible. [7]



Defense

U.S. restraint

The U.S. has considered using nuclear weapons in large conflicts but refused to. That shows restraint.

Minor Revisions

Allowing nuclear states to be legitimate under the NPT is a minor revision. India and Israel already have nuclear weapons. Revising the NPT to allow stable states with proven safeguards is minor since every state that has nuclear weapons worth reckoning with is currently under a stable govt. Revising the NPT to include them would change nothing.

Nuclear Safeguards

The NPT does not simply oppose the production of nuclear weapons in unstable states, it also opposes the exchange of nuclear weapons between other countries.

Sure the countries who manufacture nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, etc all have complex safeguards.

But say Russia decides to hand a few over to Iran. Then Iran decides to give a handful to Palestine and so on.

The point is is that countries obtaining nuclear weapons will not always be the ones building them, they could simply be the buyer or allies of those that posses them.


Sources
[1]http://bit.ly...
[2]http://bit.ly...
[3]http://bit.ly...
[4]http://reut.rs...
[5]http://bit.ly...
[6]http://bit.ly...
[7]http://bit.ly...

bit.ly/KjcKM <-- YT link
Debate Round No. 3
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

In this closing round, I will adress all the points that were brought about in the debate (Note: Some arguments were dropped in the comments section with both sides agreement and will not be part of this round or the debate).

My arguments

(i) Banning all nuclear weapons
As I have mentioned before the world is moving towards a ban. Four of the NPT nuclear weapons states are decreasing the number of nuclear warheads that they have and only China's stockpile is still increasing. They have already signed Partial bans and Test bans and are now moving toward a complete ban. My response to my opponent claim of it being unrealistic:

Firstly, nations that are not part of the NPT nuclear five have nuclear weapons anyway, so it is just as unrealistic to expect that the NPT works as intended as it is to ban Nuclear Weapons entirely. My opponent can hardly say that bans are unrealistic when the NPT itself is not working as intended. In fact, as my opponent points out, South Africa dismantled its Nuclear Weapons program, so bans are possible.

Secondly, if the U.S., UK, China, Russia, and France all have long "rap sheets" of violating international laws, agreements, treaties, as my opponent argues, why then are they entrusted with Nuclear Weapons and called "responsible states?"

(ii) Imbalance of power
My opponent says that North Korea attacked South Korea. If only South Korea had nuclear weapons, North Korea would have exercised caution. Also South Korea would be able to defend themselves accordingly.

(iii) "Responsible powers"
The UK and France which colonized and enslaved many countries are not more "responsible" than Iran. The colonial people never did them any harm but they enslaved people in Asia and Africa anyways. My opponent says

"The U.S. has considered using nuclear weapons in large conflicts but refused to. That shows restraint."

Doesn't negate the fact that the US used Nuclear Weapons that caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians because Japan ignored the unfair "surrender terms" by the US is hardly a justified reason.

Con's case

(i) Proliferation
Con argues that NPT opposes the exchange of NW's. This argument does not stand on its own but is dependent on the argument that the big five are "Responsible powers" who can be entrusted to have NW's and should not give NW's to "irresposible" nations.

(ii)"Rap Sheets"

I don't know if my opponent realizes that he is shooting himself in the foot by pointing out the long "rap sheets" of the Nuclear Five. These are the reasons why the Nuclear Five are not "resposible nations" and should not have exclusive power to make nuclear weapons. In my opponent's words:

The U.S. violated international law repeatedly by sending U-2 spy planes over the USSR.

Russia violated the START treaty by developing new ICBM's.

The U.S. violated international law by producing biological weapons.

Russia violated international law by attacking Georgia in the South Ossetia War.

Some of these violations are minor, but others are rather horrifying.

Regardless, Russia and the U.S. have already outright violated international laws and treaties by producing nuclear and biological weapons.

Therefore, The big five cannot be trusted to uphold international law.

Conclusion
The NPT is an unfair treaty which only allows the big five to use Nuclear Weapons and has a completely arbitrary time limit that only states which made weapons before 1967 can have them. It appoints these big five as "Nuclear Weapons states" and does not allow any new nations to join even if they meet UN safeguards. The big five are by no means peaceful or responsible states and entrusting them with Nuclear Weapons while other countries go without them is irresponsible. The NPT should be abolished in favor of a completely different treaty which either bans Nuclear Weapons altogether or has an objective UN specified method of allowing any state to join as long as they safeguard their weapons.
quarterexchange

Con

Refutations

Nuclear Weapons Ban

The world also moved towards banning chemical weapons and limiting the development of ICBM's by signing pacts and treaties which prove to be ineffective.

It's also highly misleading to point to the fact that the U.S. and other various nuclear powers have decreased their nuclear stockpiles. This is simply because instead of 50,000 Hiroshima bombs we only need a couple thousands "Bravo" bombs with accurate guidence systems.

Nuclear weapons have proggressed rapidly in terms of accuracy and delivery methods, we don't need as much.

The nuclear 5 are not responsible when it comes to limiting their own nuclear stockpile because they already have nuclear weapons which gives them a lot of destructive and political power they want, but they are responsible when it comes to proper nuclear weapon usage by having complex safeguards and not using nuclear weapons no matter how many large conflicts they become involved in.

Inbalance of power

North Korea attacked South Korea when the U.S. had sent a large amount of forces to fight them with the U.S. being a nuclear power at the time. The U.S. was dedicated to defending South Korea perhaps even moreso than the South Koreans themselves and that didn't force North Korea to the negotiating table. South Korea was able to be defended without the help of nuclear weapons.

It is also likely that if South Korea had obtained nuclear weapons with U.S. assistance then why wouldn't the USSR help North Korea obtain nuclear weapons as well during the war? The Korean war would have been much more disastrous had both sides possesed nuclear weapons.

Responsible Powers

My opponent provides no legitimate reason as to why the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified or why the surrender terms were "unfair".

In my previous sources I've shown that the Potsdam Declaration was more than fair, simply asking that Japan turn over it's war criminals, disband it's military, and allow an allied occupation, all of which is customary when a nation is defeated.

Japan wasn't forced to give up anything beyond that. They ignored the terms and due to the fact that an invasion seemed more costly to the civilians of Japan and the soldiers of the U.S. than the bombings nuclear weapons were used. The U.S. used nuclear weapons to save more lives and quickly end a time, life, and resource consuming war.


Proliferation/"Rap Sheets"

The Nuclear Powers wish to keep to themselves the ability to produce and develop nuclear weapons at the cost of violating international treaties and law.

Each of the Nuclear 5 have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world at least one time over.

The Nuclear 5 have no interest or desire in letting other countries have the same ability to be able to wipe out the planet on their own terms.

This gives the Nuclear 5 a clear incentive to uphold the NPT regardless of their decietful behavior. If China gives nuclear weapons to North Korea, the U.S. will nuclear weapons to South Korea and vice versa and son on.


Conclusion

The NPT is a necessary treaty that avoids too many states from acquiring nuclear weapons. A ban is unrealistic, as nuclear bans get in the way of the interest of the Nuclear 5. However the NPT is very well within the interst of the Nuclear 5 to enforce it to avoid various countries which may or may not be stable and may or may not have nuclear safeguards. When dealing with nuclear weapons you can't be too sure.


While the Nuclear 5 may not be peaceful or honest, there is no doubt that they are responsible when it comes to owning nuclear weapons. They refrain from using them in war despite being "by no means peaceful". My opponent weakley attacks the bombings of Japan but gives no reason as to why the Potsdam Declaration was unfair or why a costly invasion wasn't needed.

Nevertheless despite being in large conflicts and a long history of being deceitful, the Nuclear 5 have definately shown restraint and responsibility, making them fit to enforce the NPT
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Yeah, i realized that after I posted the comment lol
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
The 152 that ratified it are part of the 186 that signed. So 186 signed, and 152 of those 186 ratified it. You need to sign a treaty before you can ratify it.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
"A total of 182 countries have signes it and 152 have ratified it"

Impossible! There are less than 200 countries in the world. lol where did you get this information?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Awesome! Funny how we have 26 comments back and forth.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Okay and I conceded the 1967 point in the first round. I suppose we're all cleared up then.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
We are not arguing whether "stable" states should join. All I'm arguing against is that the 1967 limit is arbitrary and unfair and is a contention for abolishing the treaty and my options being considered instead. Note that my options make no mention of a stable state at all.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
So what was dropped if we are still arguing over whether or not changing the 1967 limit to allowing stable states was actually a revision or what not?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
That's not all. I will also argue balance of power, proliferation etc but since we don't have any confusion there, it shouldn't be a problem.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Yes, except that Nuclear Powers and UN are not the same thing. UN includes hundreds of countries. So, I will be arguing
1) Global ban
2) 1967 limit
3) Nuclear Five is unfit to determine who should be a stable state
4) New treaty (not a revision) should be made with states meeting objective UN safeguards should be allowed to join. (Of course, this is regardless of whether the big five consider them "stable" because big five have no right to decide)
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
So you'll be arguing that in addition to the 1967 time limit, that the other UN nuclear powers are not responsible/unfit to determine who is a stable state along with the option of a global ban on the production and use of nuclear weapons right?

I will be arguing against all that except that I conceded that the 1967 time limit should be done away with.

Is this correct?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
F-16_Fighting_FalconquarterexchangeTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's rebuttals were often weak and simply dismissed con's arguments without concretely explaining why they were wrong. Con referred to facts more often whereas pro often referred to opinion.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
F-16_Fighting_FalconquarterexchangeTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Core of the argument was discrimination and F-16 was unable to defend the idea that discrimination wasn't a positive in this case. In terms of sourcing, quarterexchange nice job on the sources!