The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points
The Contender
HoosierPapi
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Nuclear weapons should be used on Canada

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
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: 3/31/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,959 times Debate No: 3467
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (16)
Votes (24)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

I strongly believe that nuclear weapons should be used on Canada for the following reasons.

* Canada has milk in bags. This is clearly fishy. Why would anybody want their milk to be in bags? It's no more efficient, in fact, it's down right insanity. Do you want to support insanity?

* Canadian girls are often more attractive than American girls. Most Americans can see those girls, perhaps look at their photos over the internet, but they can not date them- however attractive they might be. This harms American productivity, and should be stopped.

* Canada is very cold, several nuclear weapons would, at least temporarily, rise temperatures in some regions- specifically the ones in which the bombs were going off in.

* Maple Syrup is very important for Canadians, while being highly overrated. Syrup tastes way too syrupy, unless it's in a soft drink.

* Their flag has a leaf on it. Enough said.

* They steal our jobs.

* Their heads look weird, just watch south park.

* They have no real army, so they're not much of a threat to us anyways

* New photos could be taken of the blast, which would look awesome in fine art museums.

* The blasts would melt a lot of the snow, this snow would melt into water- which could be collected and shipped elsewhere to help with the water shortages around the world.

* Nothing very big has happened in the news for a while, this would be some great entertainment.

I must reiterate my point that Canada should be completely destroyed VIA nuclear weapons.
HoosierPapi

Con

An interesting argument, DucoNihilum. Interesting indeed.

However, I would submit that your argument is faulty. Dropping nuclear weapons on Canada would prove to be counterproductive to the U.S.

First, nuking Canada would create a massive radioactive wasteland, replete with black rain (similar to that which fell on Hiroshima for over 12 hours in August of 1945), nuclear fallout, and nuclear winter throughout most of the northern half of the United States. At the very least, every single state that borders Canada would be destroyed; Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, etc . . . and likely at least the next level of states bordering those to the south. This would not be beneficial to our economy, much less our social and political structures.

Second, nuking Canada would destroy natural resources that we could otherwise use via more peaceful means; trees, fresh water, minerals, Canadian Bacon, farmland and rich planting soil, and similar primary resources. This would likewise be a significant detriment to not only the American people, but to other nation states that trade with and benefit from Canadian exports.

Third, the political fallout from the nuclear obliteration of Canada would be arguably as damaging as the physical act itself. The United States would lose every single allie it has in the world, and would likely expose itself to attacks by Canada's (and, prior to said nuclear attack, our) allies via invasion or similar nuclear exchange. So if the nuclear fallout did not destroy the U.S., the act would inevitably destroy the the country economically, politically, and socially in an international context. This is assuming the U.S. is not simply nuked in response instead.

So, my child, you must come up with a better rationale for nuking Canada.

I eagerly anticipate my opponent's next posture.
Debate Round No. 1
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Nope, not from Indiana, from Massachusetts originally.

I say we nuke Illinois. After we make its citizens fornicate with wild animals.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
I couldn't think of any very logical arguments for declaring nuclear war on Canada.
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
Are you from Indiana HoosierPapi, or did you go to school here?
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
I'm with ya Duco, those Canadians are way out of line.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
never mind, say your second post
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
sadolite, you realize that this was a joke debate right? its is april fools day after all
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
And Hoosier , why is it that you feel the need to insult me personaly on a joke debate. Were you just born an Ahole?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Hoosier, Your assumption that every square mile of Canada would be bombed is probably incorrect. I think pro was referring to the large population centers to get rid of the people who live in Canada. One would only have to detonate a few bombs to achieve this goal. This would cause no problems as I stated before. Maybe Duco could clarify what his intentions were, To wipe the people out or wipe the land out. Most of his arguments were about the people and their culture. I don't think Duco hates the land. A "nuclear winter is a theory and not provable. It is highly unlikely that there would be any damage to neighboring states more than 50 to 75 miles from the center of the blast and if one took into account the prevailing winds one could get all the fallout to go north instead of south there by not entering the U.S. at all.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
pro, thats a hilarious case, but have a little more logic next time (if done well it may increase the hilarity to falling out of chair levels)
con, you never rebutted pros case, so you must agree by default. all you had to say was "my opponents points are ridiculous", and you wouldve won.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Nuclear winter would stop global warming, another serious problem we have. You've just helped prove my point...! ;)
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 bookwormbill111 7 years ago
bookwormbill111
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Jenova 8 years ago
Jenova
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 chevy10294 8 years ago
chevy10294
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 Issa 8 years ago
Issa
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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 WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
DucoNihilumHoosierPapiTied
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