The Instigator
armychick
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/23/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 19,750 times Debate No: 2112
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (18)

 

armychick

Con

Inventions, they are all around us. Some have worked and some simply haven't. Others may have worked, but failed to help us at all. One example of this is weapons of mass destruction, in other words nuclear weapons. It's been proven that nuclear weapons are a huge harm, but also a great resource. With that, is the invention of nuclear weapons a good or bad invention? I would have to say it's a bad invention for the following reasons.
First of all we all know the definition of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, and we probably all have to agree that it's definitely not a good thing at all! If we know this, why don't we get rid of them? The reason we haven't is because once nuclear power was invented there was no way to get rid of it. Even prevention hasn't yet to help. The United States is big in preventing nuclear weapons, or so we think.
As we know the United States is in a war for nuclear deterrence, but unfortunately the war is now one big lie. A man named Mr. Wilson investigated the war and came back with information to believe that Iran did not have or try to purchase yellowcake, a type of nuclear substance. Wilson later reported this to the CIA saying that the administration had lied about the reasons for going into war. This of course got to the White House and later Dick Cheney blew Valerie Plame's cover with the CIA to punish her husband for exposing the information. By doing that it gave us information to believe that the information is true.
Second of all nuclear weapons are creating disputes between countries. Like I stated before the United States is in a war for nuclear deterrence. Now, this could go many ways. Other countries can look at the United States and say, this isn't fair… they have nuclear weapons also. This could cause other countries to rebel and soon our allies can become our enemies.
Third of all the United States should stop working towards nuclear deterrence. Even though it's a nice thought it's never going to happen. Like the creator of nuclear weapons stated, "Once the secret is out there's no stopping it". Unfortunately that statement is true. Not all countries want to be pacifist, more want to dominate or in other words be world leaders.
Overall there are 30,000 nuclear weapons remaining in the world. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it's enough to eliminate all mankind. When thinking of an invention that is harm to human life I have to say nuclear weapons for these main reason. One, it causes disputes between countries. Two, it harms our environment. Three, it destroys life.
Johnicle

Pro

-To start out my first speech, I would first like to point out that my opponent never gave any better inventions. Therefore, I would contend that all we are debating is that nuclear weapons are a good invention.

-I will first start with my case...

1. Nuclear Weapons stopped WWII.
-When looking to nuclear weapons as being good or not, we must first see what it has accomplished. The only time that nuclear weapons have ever seriously been used was back in WWII against Japan. As a result the war was over which more than likely saved many lives. Therefore, you must see that nuclear weapons are effective in stopping and preventing wars.

2. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevents wars.
-One of the big things that is always overlooked is that countries use MAD to gain an advantage in war. Since other countries gain the capability of being just as strong as every other nation, we then become scared to attack other nations because they will more than likely just nuke us back. Therefore, mutually assured destruction is established. In other words, MAD prevents unnecessary use.

3. With nuclear weapons comes useful nuclear power.
-With the study of nuclear weapons, we can then become familiar with the use of nuclear power, which is extremely useful in a time of dire need of power. We must acknowledge the creation of nuclear power by first acknowledging the creation of nuclear weapons.

-Let's move to her case...

>off her first point where she said that we can't stop nuclear weapons.
-All I really have to say to this is that this does not prove it's a bad invention and also the reason that we can't prevent it is because of MAD which is a good part of the "nuclear weapon invention."

>off her second point where she said that it causes disputes between countries.
-What you have to see here is that the amount of disputes caused by nuclear weapons is VERY few. However, nuclear weapons SOLVE more disputes than it creates. MAD is an extremely useful tool to stop countries between nations of all sorts. Therefore, the amount of disputes solved by nuclear weapons when compared to the amount of disputes started by them is highly outweighed.

>off her third and final point where she said that the United States should stop working towards nuclear deterrence.
-I actually agree with this point. Working towards nuclear deterrence usually not a good idea. However, all we are debate is if it is a good invention, not a method of stopping it.

-In the end- Nuclear weapons solves more disputes than it causes because of MAD. It stopped WWII and helped develop nuclear power, because of that, it is a good invention and is a better invention than any that my opponent provided since she did not offer any. Therefore, I urge a Pro vote.

-Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
armychick

Con

Luke stated that I didn't give examples of better inventions - against that, it's common knowledge. If you think about it there ARE CERTAINLY better inventions.

Off to Luke's case...
Arg 1
He stated that Nuclear Weapons stopped WWII --> off that it was stopped in an inhumane way many innocent people were killed! I'm sure my opponet values like ... (that distroys the meaning!) Also he said in that argument that it stops war when really it created it. (refer back to my case)

Arg 2.
I'd as for some examples with evidence on the MAD stuff.

Arg 3.
Enviorment is very important. Today over enviorment isn't doing so good. Nuclear Power plants don't help. there are other inventions that are more benificial liek for example. The huge fans we see in the plains, they genorate power..

off to my case..

1st point.
MAD) Id like some examples w/ evidence. Also I'd liek to restate my 1st point. I said that Nuclear Weapons are not a good thing because of the distruction it does. Yes we can't get rid of nuclear weapons which causes a problem. Also prevention causes more problems. Altogether that proves nuclear weapons are bad!

2nd point.
He said that disputes between countries are very few. That is not true. There are disputes more then Pro realizes! Therefore that is a problem! Again.. some evidence and examples for MAD.

3rd point.
That card basically shows the problems with nuclear weapons. Obviously Pro didn't understand that.

Thank you Vote CON! :)
Johnicle

Pro

First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent is forgetting what exactly we are debating. Specifically in the resolution, there is the word invention. Hardly ever, does my opponent talk about nuclear weapons as being some sort of invention. All Amanda does is talk about nuclear weapons as being bad, but under the resolution, all we are talking about is the invention, or the capabilities if you will. For example, if we were to name hammers as being a good invention, it would be obvious as being a good invention, but it has the capability to kill someone, but a hammer is still a good invention even though it can kill someone. In other words, you must see nuclear weapons as a capability. Under appropriate use, it can stop wars. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, would we still be in WWII? No one knows. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, how many more countries would be at war now? No one knows. Nuclear weapons have stopped more wars than can be imagined. MAD is one of the greatest things to exist today, something that must be acknowledged as a capability (that has been accomplished) from the nuclear weapon invention.

Let's move to the arguments on the flow... (First to my case)

>Where she said that WWII was stopped only in an inhumane way... off that I am going to say that it stopped a greater evil.
-When we used nuclear weapons against Japan, we did stop a greater evil. If we were not to use the nukes, there would of been more deaths and a worse solution to the war. When you really think about it, more people survived WWII because of nuclear weapons because they were used appropriately and with warning.

>I actually don't know what she was trying to accomplish with this second argument so I would like her to clarify here.

>Onto the third argument where she said that the environment is important. Off that I am going to state 2 arguments...

1. All nuclear waste is necessary.
-Basically what I mean by this is that when there is nuclear waste, it is necessary to develop this invention. Pretty much all nuclear waste has some sort of purpose just like gasoline wastes only when necessary.

2. Nuclear waste is minimal when compared to other forms.
-One problem that the American society has when perceiving nuclear waste is how minimal the effects are. I challenge my opponent to show stats of how much damage nuclear waste has created and weigh that with the benefits we have received from that waste. If you would like to look into it, I am sure you will find minimal damages to society especially when you look to other forms of waste such as gasoline.

Let's move to her case...

>Where she asked me to provide some MAD evidence, I will show you this quote from: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
"MAD, of course, is an evolutionary defense strategy based on the concept that neither the United States nor its enemies will ever start a nuclear war because the other side will retaliate massively and unacceptably. MAD is a product of the 1950s' US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for well over three decades."
-Basically what this is saying is that MAD protects from "first strike" of nuclear weapons. It AT LEAST forces countries to rethink their use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it protects from necessary use. Also, when you look to this evidence card, you can see that it has been around since the 1950's. When is the last time a nuclear weapon has been used?... Right before then... which proves that nuclear weapons is the product of safer countries.

>Group her second and third point together, basically she re challenges me to provide MAD evidence as I just did while assuming nuclear conflicts. If there are so many nuclear conflicts, I challenge the Pro to come up with a mere 5 major conflicts.

-In the end of this round, you have to see that Pro provides the benefits of the INVENTION while Con basically just says it's bad. I have proved all of the benefits that nuclear weapons contain and have proven that it is a good invention. No where has Con argued another better invention or that nuclear weapons are a bad invention, so please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
armychick

Con

1st Statement --
Pro is forgetting that Nuclear Weapons were invented. So the debate can be debate as Nuclear weapons --> Invented --> effects of nuclear weapons --> bad! --> thus bad invention.
He gave the example of the hammer as a good invention but still capible of killing someone... First off the hammer doesn't kill people, people kill people. Now, I know Luke is going to say against this that, you need people to launch the nuclear weapon. That isn't always the case. One little thing goes wrong millions could be effected. Therefore, nuclear weapons... are still a bad invention.
Also he continued to say nuclear weapons prevent and stop war. No it doesn't! Like I stated before, if we didn't have nuclear weapons we wouldnt be in the war we are in now! Nuclear weapons cause disputes between countries!!! Not peace...

Pro's Case --->
Against the whole WW2 nuking.... look where that put us. Now everyone is striving for nuclear power and starting wars over it... war right now..

Points one and two --->
Okay first off. Nuclear power plants bad idea. It creates the nuclear waste causing a problem for society and the enviornment. Thus, we shouldn't have nuclear power plants. No nuclear power plants.. no nuclear weapons, which I've proven to be bad for society.

On to my case ...
Against the "MAD Stuff"... I'm guessing this is like a treaty right? Well North Kora signed a treaty saying they would not acquire nuclear weapons, later they backed out. There's more examples like that also. So hun stuff like that don't always work like we would want them to. Also, there's a flaw in MAD. No one will start nuclear war with eachother.... Then why the heck is the United States fighting for nuclear deterrence? That's a little odd. Shouldn't we trust our enemies? Thats what the MAD plan says to do.

Clarify what you want me to clarify... flow got messy not sure what 2nd you want. Thanks :)

In the end MAD doesn't work like he says it does, and con shows that nuclear weapons are turely the worst invention ever made.
Thank you Vote Con!
Johnicle

Pro

Where she started out by saying that with bad results equals bad invention. This is not true. (Back to the hammer example) You have to see that the hammer is a great invention but has had some bad results. A good example is from Marietta Georgia... "A man remains in the Cobb County Jail today charged with killing another man with a hammer... He says Brown became enraged when the lot's owner asked him to stop. Witnesses told police Brown walked away and came back a few minutes later with a hammer. Authorities say Brown hit Freeman over the head and killed him." http://www.13wmaz.com...

-Basically you have to see that a good invention can still be used in bad ways to get bad results. It's the same way with nuclear weapons. They have been used well and they have been used bad... but it is still a good invention both because it supports MAD and because it helps the basis of nuclear power.

-->Off where she said that WWII was bad to for the world because now they are striving to protect themself.
-What you have to see here is that they are striving to get nuclear weapons to protect themself and support MAD. That is not a bad thing but actually a good thing. With MAD, it puts all countries on a equal military level. That's right, the invention of nuclear weapons supports world wide equality through MAD. Not to mention that since MAD has been created, no nuclear bombs have been dropped, therefore, it is effective and it does stop countries from going to war.

-->Off where she said that nuclear power plants are bad and she says that she has proof saying that they are...
-First off, you must look back to her other speeches. I have not seen ANY evidence proving that this is true. In fact, I once watched a professional orater give a speech on how nuclear power is underrated and the LEAST killing type of power EVER CREATED. Less people have died from nuclear power and it is effective, therefore, it is a good invention.

-->Off of where she said that MAD is a treaty and treaties fail...
-What you have to see is that MAD is a treaty which is one protection that MAD has and has worked ever since it was created. Secondly, the biggest amount of protection that MAD has is fear. Fear that if I nuke country "A", that country "A" will nuke us right back. Therefore, it is very effective.

-Nuclear weapons is a major equalizer which is why it is a good invention. Since my opponent has not provided any other inventions especially by now in the debate, all I have to prove is that nuclear weapons are a good invention, so please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
armychick

Con

Luke and I both agree we will skip fourth round due to our debate turnament today and tomorrow. We will continue to argue in the 5th round.
Thank you!!

and luke if you deny this!!!! your dead! :Paq
Johnicle

Pro

we have had a mutual agreement to skip to the fifth round becase we are both a little busy for the weekend and 5 rounds is a little too much.
Debate Round No. 4
armychick

Con

okay luke lets just have 3rd round be our last because 5 rounds are way to long!!!!!!!!!! and im so tired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so lets just do that :)

Vote Con!
Johnicle

Pro

ok I agree, the first three rounds are the only rounds too look at but I would just like to point out that she never has offered any other inventions that are better, therefore all that we are debating is that it is a good invention, please take this into consideration as I have proven it is a good invention and a better invention than all of the ones that my opponent has offered which has been none.

Thanks for this round Amanda, it was fun.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Hmmmmm fascinating ...

8 people voted for someone who
a) didnt know what Mutually Assured Destruction was
and
b) Nuclear Energy harms the environment.

amazing ...

(oh and by the way, Nuclear Energy does harm the environment in many ways besides nuclear waste ... but still ... anyone who says nuclear energy hurts the environment is either very well informed or completely uninformed. Wanna make a guess where I put her?)
Posted by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
Nukes prevented millions of deaths due to MAD between any country with nukes. War would have occured between Russia and the US without them. Now they are a problem though due to nationless terrorism.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Looks like a random Morgan in your profile picture....
Posted by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
Ops yeah i realize that. Sorry.
Posted by Loofa 9 years ago
Loofa
Nuclear weapons are (not is)
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JpoteetDebateNN 6 years ago
JpoteetDebateNN
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
armychickJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
armychickJohnicleTied
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 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 9 years ago
shaqdaddy34
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
armychickJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03