The Instigator
Skynet
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Skynet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,591 times Debate No: 21869
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (7)

 

Skynet

Pro

I have heard much wishful musing over the years about the total elimination of the world's nuclear stockpiles. However, I contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found. I base this resolution on the state of human nature and historical precedent.

-I know of no effective weapon that was willingly eliminated from existence by its users without a suitable replacement. If my opponent can supply some examples, he may be able to build a case.

-As far as we can tell, armed conflict has been practically constant since 4000 B.C. [1]

-The reasons for conflict, and therefore war, are not anywhere near eliminated, and no foreseeable elimination is in sight. The main reasons, as we can see historically are:

Ambition/envy (includes ambition for resources in a territory)
Ideology/Religious conflict
Nationalism/Racism
Survival
Revenge

Unless all these reasons are remedied, there will always be conflict. As long as there is conflict on a personal level, and human leaders, there will be conflict between groups, which leaves war a possibility.

So the need for an upper-hand in case of war will always be around. What higher hand exists than an ultimate weapon or more effective strategy to apply force?

1 http://ask.yahoo.com...
2 http://original.antiwar.com...
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and intend to troll the sh*t out of it,

Prepare to be trolled

Debate Round No. 1
Skynet

Pro

Great...
Imabench assured me that he would at least include some serious challenges to my resolution.

I didn't restrict round 1 to acceptance only, and intended to get right to it, but it seems habit may have kept my opponent from responding with more than acceptance in the first round. That's Ok, I'll elaborate on round 1 in round 2.

Certain traits in humans have been constant through history, and so reasons for conflict between groups have been constant. To show this, consider these wars and how each motivation played key roles them:

Ambition/Envy- any war to do with Empire building.
-Alexander the Great's campaign
-Saddam Husein's invasion of Kuwait
-Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese Empire's territorial advances.
-Babylon's expansion
-Assyria's expansion
-PRC's plans to destroy RoC (There can be only one China)

Ideology/Religious conflict
-Crusades
-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
-South East Asia conflicts of the 1960's-70's
-Jihad
-PRC pushing RoC off the mainland
-myriad uprisings through history (Marxist, Muslim, American Revolution, French Revolution, Reds vs. Whites Russian civil war, American Civil war)

Nationalism/Rascism
-German, Italian, and Japanese expansion in WWII
-William Wallace against the British
-Persian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman expansion
-Tamil Tigers

Survival
-1948 Arab-Israeli war and War for Independence.

Revenge
-Ammonites vs. Jephthah (Judges 11)
-French Revolution
-Various Communist uprisings
-Trojan War
-Babylonians and Medes vs. Assyria

All other points extend from round 1.
imabench

Con

I will sprinkle in both actual and trollish arguments for this debate, I'll let you all figure out which is which.

Reasons Nuclear Bombs will be around: Empire Building
Empire Building used to be a common thing, there was the mongols, then the British, before that there were the Persians, Greeks, and the most famous of all, the Roman Empire. However these days wars are not being fought for territorial reasons or for empire building. Often wars are now fought between nations and the nations that lose still retain their independence without the need for ridiculous heavy or large bombing.... Nuclear bombs wont be here to stay because nuclear weapons were conceived and used in a time when wars were fought in a very different, obsolete, manner.

Ideology and Religious Conflict:
Religious wars are very rarely fought these days, and the only one currently being fought is only by the radical Arabs, and they arent a country or a place you can point to on a map..... These conflicts that nvolve religion and ideology in modern times are fought not between nations, but between nations and armed groups of individuals hiding within nations. Groups that cannot be fought through nuclear warfare....

Nationalism and Racism:
First of all ive never seen a racist old white guy threaten a balck guy to get out of a bar with a nuclear weapon... So that argument right there is pretty foolish.... On the other hand nationalism is a valid argument but nationalism goes hand in hand with empire building, which is an obselete form of warfare as I have showed earlier.

Survival:
In all wars one side is fighting for survival.... But no war has ever occurred between nations that have had nuclear capabilities since nukes fend off the threat of war.... Nukes are currently the biggest deterrent to war, however when the next weapon comes along that is even more lethal or accurate then nuclear weapons will be obselete and NOT here to stay

Revenge:
Because every time my neighbor's cat sh*ts in my yard the first thing I think of when it comes down to revenge is NUKING the house next to me....... Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time, meaning the more time that passes the less revenge there will be (remember how we nuked Japan twice, they didnt start firing nukes back the minute they got them)

" contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found"
- Pro admits that nuclear weapons are here to stay unless a far more effective weapon is found.

I argue that nuclear weapons are not here to stay since in the future a far more effective weapon will be found rendering nukes obsolete.

"I know of no effective weapon that was willingly eliminated from existence by its users without a suitable replacement."
http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com...
Leonardo Da Vinci invented a tank during the Renaissance Era that would have rued the battlefield. His invention was disregarded even though it was proven to work.... Nuclear weapons could face the same fate if they are shown to be too obsolete or if it was somehow proven that nuclear weapons kill an unnecessary number of civilians, but what are the odds of that?..... Oh right.....

"War will always be around, but the weapons that will be used to fight them will change as the people who fight them" - Tupac

Now my reasons of why Nuclear weapons will not be "here to stay"
- The sun will one day explode and consume the Earth as it expands, Nukes wont survive, so they wont be here to stay
- A polar shift will occur in the future causing nuclear weapons to technically be in different positions
- If World War 3 were to break out, all the nukes would be fired and then there would be none left...
- The US and Russia have been disarming stockpiles for years now, the trend could continue until there are none left
- There are already weapons more deadly than nuclear bombs, its called a woman soldier who is having her period and is armed with a machine gun and body armor (UNSTOPPABLE)
- Nukes are frowned upon in society
- A Meteor could destroy humanity and nukes would degrade

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY NUKES ARE NOT HERE TO STAY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There is little proof that Nuclear Weapons ever existed......

Think about it, how many times have nuclear weapons ever been used in war? Just two.... And those were 50 years ago too.... Other than that the only evidence that nukes exist are a few videos of large explosions and "documents" showing they exist..... Where did they keep these missiles? Underground in huge protective barriers? Ill call bullsh*t on that one too..... How many of these alleged death machines were built? Tens of thousands? I dont see any evidence of that either....

There is an inconclusive amount of evidence to prove that nuclear weapons ever existed. How could something be "here to stay" if it never existed in the first place?
Debate Round No. 2
Skynet

Pro

Empire Building

I would not count empire building as obsolete.

The Soviet Union and other Communist nations recently engaged in empire building,so much so that about a third of the Earth's population was under Communism.While the main strategy of Communism is ideological warfare, there came many points where people of a victimized ideology refused to capitulate, and actual warfare ensued.Nuclear weapons were considered at several points of open conflict during the Cold War. (Vietnam[2], Korea[1],Cuban Missile Crisis.

Other examples of modern empire building attempts are:

PRC's expulsion of Republic of China to Taiwan,and their desire to eliminate eachother.

Georgian-Russian conflicts over the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Falkland War

Iran-Iraq War [4]

these days wars are not being fought for territorial reasons or for empire building is an incorrect statement.

Often wars are now fought between nations and the nations that lose still retain their independence without the need for ridiculous heavy or large bombing

The perception of lack of heavy bombing in modern warfare can be cured by reading up on the conflicts I just mentioned.

nuclear weapons were conceived and used in a time when wars were fought in a very different,obsolete,manner.

The American Civil War was the last ancient war,and the first modern war.WWI proved the obsolescence of most ancient tactics,and it wasn't until modern tactics were fully combined with modern technology that the stalemate was broken.

WWII was the first fully modern war.Many things have changed since then, but too many advances that are the basics of current warfare were deployed during WWII to call it obsolete.The advent of the assault rifle, time-on-target artillery,guided rockets, aircraft carrier warfare,first over-the-horizon naval battle..I think the point is made.


Religious wars are very rarely fought these days

Religious and Ideology I lump into one.Religion is ideology.The two best known ideological conflicts of the last century have been

-the Cold War(Communism attempts to become religion of the state, a humanist religion),

-Resurgence of Jihad,as you mentioned.

However, it is important to regard the Pakistan-India conflict.Nuclear weapons have been brandished in that conflict[5,6]

between nations and armed groups of individuals hiding within nations.Groups that cannot be fought through nuclear warfare

It's true that the nuke terrorist scenario presents a huge problem for a nuclear power,as proportional retaliation is unthinkable to most.This does not mean that a lesser nuclear power would not be tempted to exploit this as a means of proxy attack upon a more capable foe.


Nationalism and Racism:

I've already answered the Empire Building argument.

Nukes are currently the biggest deterrent to war...next weapon comes along that is even more lethal or accurate then nuclear weapons will be obselete

My resolution states that a more powerful weapon would supersede the atomic,which would just as much bother those who wish the weapons to disappear.Nukes are primarily kept around as a deterrent,which is a reason for them to stay,not disappear.


Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time

See third sentence of[4].Iraq had already built chemical weapons, and was working on a nuclear program.

Pro admits that nuclear weapons are here to stay unless a far more effective weapon is found.

That's part of my resolution.The same people that think they can rid the world of nukes would focus their energy on the new weapon.In case someone hasn't read between the lines,this is philosophically about the ultimate weapon,not just atomic weapons.

every time my neighbor's cat sh*ts in my yard

My opponent does not take into account larger animals his neighbor could own.

DaVinci's tank..Nukes could face the same fate if they are shown to be too obsolete or if it was somehow proven that nuclear weapons kill an unnecessary number of civilians

His tank was never built until recently:it was not known to be effective at the time.

Civilian death is unfortunately seen as necessary by many combatants.(Fire bombing of London, Tokyo, Berlin.) Also see [5].War is horrific.If only my opponent were right on this.

If World War 3 were to break out

It is considered strategically foolish to commit all of one's forces at the same time in most situations. There would be a reserve of some kind just in case the other side retained a few,so you're not the only one without.

The US and Russia are disarming

Doesn't matter.Russian scientists are helping Iran build new ones.Syria and North Korea are also getting into the business.Just because the biggest players might be reducing,doesn't mean everyone is.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...

2 http://www.gwu.edu...

4 http://www.globalsecurity.org...

5

6 http://www.lewrockwell.com...

imabench

Con

Empire building
Pro claims that empire building is obsolete and then cites a number of wars that are either 30 to 60 years old or are not even empirical wars at all.
Vietnam War? = Ideological War between the communist north and democratic south
Korean War? = Same as above
Cuban Missile Crisis? = Communist country located at the doorstep of the most powerful democratic nation in the world, which is ideological
China and Taiwan? = If empirical wars were still around then China would have overrun them a long time ago, but it hasnt happened.
Russia and Georgia? = I dont think wars that last 9 days counts as empire building since empire building by definition is warfare that is waged just to expand the borders of one nation to include more people and resources.
Iran-Iraq War? = this is the one war that was indeed a empirical war, however that ended in a spectacular failure and it was also 25 years ago.

"The perception of lack of heavy bombing in modern warfare can be cured by reading up on the conflicts I just mentioned."
You mean those ones that were 25 to 60 years ago? Tell me then, if heavy bombing is used by warring nations then how come the US did not bomb Baghdad to oblivion when they invaded in 2003, or Kabul in 2001?

"The American Civil War was the last ancient war,and the first modern war."
List of things the American Civil War didnt have
Aircraft carriers
Machine guns
Bulletproof armor
Tanks
Missiles

The American Civil War is in no way as modern as other wars being fought today.

"Religious and Ideology I lump into one.Religion is ideology"
Yeah but there is still a difference between the two because ideology encompasses political systems, economical systems, perceptions based on human rights and freedoms, and then it includes religious differences. Now as for the wars you listed about ideological and religious wars,
Cold War? not an actual war since Russia and the US never openly fought each other and that ALSO ended 20+ years ago.
Jihad? Used by one force in one place for one war who do not have nuclear weapons to begin with and are currently getting their a** whipped
Pakistan + India? All three of their wars ALSO ended a long time ago and those wars were fought over the Kashmir region, not over ideological or religious differences...

Nations against Terrorists
I argued that the US cannot use nukes against terrorists sicne it would be ineffective, the Pro completely ignores this argument and then focuses on if these people somehow got their hands on a nuke that they might use it....

"My resolution states that a more powerful weapon would supersede the atomic.... which is a reason for them to stay,not disappear."
When something becomes obsolete you dont just leave them around, especially when the obsolete weapon is radioactive and costs billions of dollars to maintain and guard. If a new weapon were to come around more powerful than a nuke then nukes would be disbanded since they are now obsolete.

"Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time"
The Pro responds to this argument by citing ONE war, 25 years ago, where it didnt happen, was not used for revenge, and was considered while the war was still going on. For nukes to be used as revenge it would have to be after the conflict already ENDED ...

".In case someone hasn't read between the lines,this is philosophically about the ultimate weapon,not just atomic weapons."
Then the resolution would be "Ultimate Weapons are here to stay" not "Nuclear Weapons are here to stay" because the next weapon might not be nuclear at all.

"Civilian death is unfortunately seen as necessary by many combatants"
Yeah, 60 years ago it was, but these days with precision weapons able to minimize civilian casualties countries can now spend a couple thousand dollars to put a cruise missile in a base in the middle of a city with minimal civilian casualties, the need for million dollar weapons designed to just blow everything to hell and kill as many people as possible is OBSOLETE

"It is considered strategically foolish to commit all of one's forces at the same time in most situations."
It would be foolish but still possible...

"The US and Russia are disarming, Doesn't matter.Russian scientists are helping Iran build new ones.Syria and North Korea are also getting into the business.Just because the biggest players might be reducing,doesn't mean everyone is."
So the fact that the US and Russia alone have disarmed several hundred nuclear bombs while Syria and North Korea have over the past 10 years combined to build not even 10 does NOT imply the world is disarming?

List of dropped arguments;
Nuclear Weapons dont exist
Sun will one day explode and destroy all nukes
Another super weapon could make nukes obsolete
Women soldiers having their periods who are armed are more effective weapons then nukes
Sudden extinction of people would cause nukes to degrade into nothing
Nukes are obsolete since they kill too many civilians
Debate Round No. 3
Skynet

Pro

Starting with dropped arguments:
I've limited this to 5k characters to make reading this debate more palatable, so I chose to remove some clever responses to trolling.

I didn't drop legitimate arguments:

Another super weapon could make nukes obsolete
The title can't always be the resolution because of space restraints. My title is a simplified version of the resolution meant to convey the idea in simplistic and attractive form. The resolution is relatively complex, takes up the entire first round, and takes into account the obsolescence of a-bombs by the means of a nastier weapon.

I have heard much wishful musing over the years about the total elimination of the world's nuclear stockpiles. However, I contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found.

I thought I made it clear that this resolution is a response to unrealistic peacenicks.


Nukes are obsolete since they kill too many civilians

That's the goal of terrorists.


Empire Building


Many times my opponent seeks to discount many conflicts I cited as too old to matter. If a large number of world leaders during the time of the conflict are still today world leaders, I do not think it is too old to matter. Those current world leaders certainly don't think those conflicts are irrelevant. In fact, WWII still has two nations technically at war. [1]

Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missle Crisis, PRC vs. ROC
These were all in part empirical wars. They were all part of the Cold War, Communistic nations vs. non-.
Communism has always had as it's goal the overthrow of all other powers.[2,3] This may not always have been stateless socialism, but whenever practical, the Soviet Union exercised what control it could over a new communist country.[4] Where USSR wasn't so involved, such as Vietnam, Imperialist motives still apply, as Communism is always a vehicle to take from one group to empower another for thier own gain.

"Russia and Georgia? = I dont think wars that last 9 days counts as empire building since empire building by definition is warfare that is waged just to expand the borders of one nation.."

Duration doesn't matter. Russia added South Ossetia and Abkhazia to it's empire this way.

"Iran-Iraq War? = this is the one war that was indeed a empirical war, however that ended in a spectacular failure.."

Success does not negate motive.

"..if heavy bombing is used by warring nations then how come the US did not bomb Baghdad to oblivion when they invaded in 2003, or Kabul in 2001?"

I've provided examples of how recent conflicts involved heavy bombing. Just because 2 recent wars have not used it does not mean it is obsolete. What major countries that have the ability for heavy bombing have abandoned thier bomber fleets because thier role is obsolete? We still have plenty of B-52s.

The American Civil War is in no way as modern as other wars being fought today.

It doesn't have to include all the newest tech to be modern, as opposed to ancient. The Civil War is widely considered to be the first 2nd generation war.[5] Everything before that to 4000 BC is 1st gen: Ancient.

"Yeah but there is still a difference between [religion and ideology]"

Not always. Religion is always an ideology, and some ideologies attempt to replace religion. They're close enough to combine.

"Cold War "

No, not a normal war. But people died. It didn't turn into all out war many times because of nuclear deterrent. A reason for nuclear bombs to persist.

"Jihad? Used by one force in one place for one war who do not have nuclear weapons to begin with and are currently getting their a** whipped"

My point in mentioning all these wars is to show the motives for war are persistant, not to show nuclear war exists. Nonetheless, Muslim extremists refer to the atomic bomb as the Islamic bomb.

Pakistan + India

2010 was one of the bloodiest years of the conflict[6]

"Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time"
The Pro responds to this argument by citing ONE war..."

See [4] in last round. It didn't have to happen. Iraq attempted to develop nukes during a war of revenge.

So the fact that the US and Russia...does NOT imply the world is disarming?

Nope, just them. And if we get a conservative president next time, START probably won't stand.

Lastly, if WW3 breaks out, all nukes will be eliminated because it is possible, but foolish, to commit all of ones forces in a single deployment? I do not see the logic in this.

While I think there are a few good arguments that could be made against me, he hasn't used them yet.

[1] http://en.rian.ru...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://soviet-awards.com...

[4] http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk...

[5] http://wiki.answers.com...

[6] http://www.aljazeera.com...

imabench

Con

Sorry it took so long

"I have heard much wishful musing over the years about the total elimination of the world's nuclear stockpiles. However, I contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found. I thought I made it clear that this resolution is a response to unrealistic peacenicks."
Yeah but you cant just omit one of the biggest reasons why nukes may be done away with just because you want to. Thats like making a debate about how the courts never convict innocent people but your not allowed to cite cases where somebody was actually later found to be innocent.

Point is that One day there will be a more effective/accurate/deadly weapon then nuclear bombs, and when that weapon comes it would sooner or later, along with other more advanced weapondry, lead to the disarmament of all nukes.

"Nukes are obsolete since they kill too many civilians. That's the goal of terrorists."
And how much of the worlds population do terrorists make up percentage wise? like .01%? Just because .01% of the world still sees nukes as the best weapon to kill civilians it doesnt mean those people will have the means or ability to even use such a weapon. Also once the next big weapon comes along even terrorists will move on from nukes

Empire Building
"WWII still has two nations technically at war. [1]"
Yeah, the war ended in an informal ceasefire 60 years ago...

"Communism has always had as it's goal the overthrow of all other powers.[2,3]"
Not in either your wikipedia source or your source leading to some random Russian military awards website says that communism's goal is to overthrow all the other powers....

"Duration doesn't matter. Russia added South Ossetia and Abkhazia to it's empire this way."
" Russia began pulling most of its troops out of uncontested Georgia. Russia established buffer zones around Abkhazia and South Ossetia and created checkpoints in Georgia's interior. These forces were eventually withdrawn from uncontested Georgia"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Russia has supported South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, as quasi-satellites since the wars in the 1990s ended in stalemates"
http://topics.nytimes.com...

Point is, they are independent and not under Russian Rule

"Success does not negate motive."
If you get your a** kicked hard enough it will certainly deter other nations from trying

Use of heavy bombing in warfare
"I've provided examples of how recent conflicts involved heavy bombing."
None of which are less than 30 years old....

"Just because 2 recent wars have not used it does not mean it is obsolete"
It certainly makes it look that way. If a very highly used tactic in many wars is not being used in other more modern wars, then it means it is becoming obsolete.

"What major countries that have the ability for heavy bombing have abandoned thier bomber fleets because thier role is obsolete? We still have plenty of B-52s."
You realize that B-52's are used for way more than just huge bombing runs right?

"in a conventional conflict, the B-52H can perform air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. It is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance, and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. Two B-52s, in two hours, can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface."
http://www.fas.org...

Cold War
" It didn't turn into all out war many times because of nuclear deterrent. A reason for nuclear bombs to persist."
And when the next big weapon comes along, then it will serve the role of deterrent of war while nukes get scrapped

Pakistan and India
"2010 was one of the bloodiest years of the conflict[6]"
Your source only shows that 117 people died in 2010 as a result of clashes between protesters and police, it surely was not the result of clashes between the two powers.

"I know of no effective weapon that was willingly eliminated from existence by its users without a suitable replacement. "
South Africa got rid of ALL its nukes back in 1994, meanwhile the US and Russia have continually disarmed over the years
http://allafrica.com...

My point is, Nuclear weapons came at a time where they were designed to kill as many civilians as possible. However war has evolved to be more precise and minimize civilian losses, so the heavy bombing seen in the days of WWII and Vietnam are long gone. Nuclear Weapons are a relic of destruction in an age where accuracy and precision define how wars are fought, and nuclear weapons dont fit into this new style of war. Nukes havent been used in decades, the biggest nations are disposing of them, one already has gotten completely rid of them too

Nukes are NOT here to stay

Thanks for the debate :D
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
Thanks, bud.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
There ya go :)
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
He's been doing that to a lot of people, someone will go around countering his votes sooner or later
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
mee2kool4u369 merely put a "-" in the reason for vote field, usurping a requirement to vote on this debate. He's not accepting messages or comments at this time. If he does not do this, could someone please counter him?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
im for con but i cant vote yet bummmer.....lol
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Oh, wow.

I saw the debate in the FF section and assumed that the opponent had forfeited. Let me retract my vote.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
I left a comment on her profile letting her know to change her vote skynet.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
A forfeit
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
What's an FF?
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
royal this debate wasnt a FF.....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SkynetimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: counter mee2
Vote Placed by mee2kool4u369 5 years ago
mee2kool4u369
SkynetimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: -
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
SkynetimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: no reason to counter anymore
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
SkynetimabenchTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
SkynetimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to pro for imabench's trolling arguments. I do not count those as dropped arguments. I feel Con won on Detterence, as he proved that nukes are a preventive measure to war, which shows that they probably won't be around too long, as humans are naturally prone to war. I felt like the Pro went a little abusive on the resolution as well, talking about atomic weapons over nuclear weapons. I fail to understand the difference in having something worse than a nuke.Con's sources were were better
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
SkynetimabenchTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won due to con conceding, "until a better weapon is found."
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SkynetimabenchTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set up up the debate with the caveat "unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found." thus con inadvertantly conceded when he admitted that nukes would be around until a more destructive weapon was found. that affirms the Pro contention. Con admits injecting trolling in what was proposed as a serious debate, a conduct violation. Joke arguments are okay in a joke debate, but not when the intent is serious.