The Instigator
BLAHthedebator
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Unilateral military force by the US is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

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 5 votes the winner is...
BLAHthedebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 68501
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

BLAHthedebator

Pro

This is part of Zaradi's prized debate tournament. First round acceptance only. No new arguments in last round.

Definitions

Unilateral:Performed by or only affecting one person, group, or country, without the agreement of another or others. [1]

Military force: A unit that is part of some military service. [2]

United States (US): A country in North America bordering the south of Canada.

Justified: Marked by a good or legitimate reason. [3]

Prevent: Keep something from happening or arising. [4]

Nuclear: (1b) denoting, possessing, or involving weapons using nuclear energy. [5]

Proliferation: rapid increase in numbers. [6]


I look forward to a great debate!

[1] https://www.google.com.vn...;
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
[3] https://www.google.com.vn...;
[4] https://www.google.com.vn...;
[5] https://www.google.com.vn...;
[6] https://www.google.com.vn...;
Ajabi

Con

I accept this debate, I am sorry I could begin it, I forgot. I hope Blah and I will have some good fun. So I leave you with these stanza.

Hum wahan hein jahan hum ko bhe,
kuch hamari khabar nahe ati.

We [I] are now there where even we,
have no news about ourselves.

Kaba kis moun se jao ge Ghalib?
Sharam tum ko magar nahe ati.

How will you go for the pilgrimage to Ka'bah Ghalib?
You have no shame.

~Mirza Ghalib
Debate Round No. 1
BLAHthedebator

Pro


Thank you, Ajabi. I would like to note the resolution does not specify nuclear proliferation in a specific country or area.


Also, justified, as shown above, means that it is marked with any good or legitimate reason. That does not make it right. Thus the BoP is shared.


==Contention 1: The US’ right to self-defense==


In the world, there are quite a few countries that pose a threat to the United States [1]. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are the top three countries to pose the biggest terrorist threat to the US, and there are other possible threats as well [1]:


Terrorism Threats Across The World


In regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Cold War, former President John F. Kennedy said both during [2] and after [3] the crisis that if countries that already pose a threat to the US, which are at quite a large number, acquire nuclear arms, the US could be at a critical state:


"I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons," he forecast. “I regard that as the greatest possible danger."” [3]


As of now, the US regards Iran as one of the biggest military threats to them [4]. Although its plan to create a nuclear weapon has been postponed, they do seem to have had such a program and are no capable of enriching their own weapons-grade uranium.” [2]


Literally if multiple countries, most or all of which are a threat to the United States, acquire nuclear weapons, the US will have no choice but to unilaterally use military force to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and weapons.


Really, countries like Israel are seen to pose a bigger threat on the US than Iran [2]. Even though protecting Israel is optional, however, it should be noted that the US should be obligated to protect the peace for both itself and the rest of the world, even if there is no or little threat.


==Contention 2: Preserving peace and the US as the only world superpower==


If the US were not to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons, obviously the result would be the possible rise in nuclear weapons.


P1) Lack of unilateral military force by the US helping counterproliferation against nuclear weapons causes nuclear proliferation to be POSSIBLE


P2) The US currently is not using unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons


C) Nuclear proliferation is possible


The Cold War was almost an all-out nuclear war due to the Cuban Missile Crisis [5]:


“It played out on television worldwide and was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.”


If we don’t use unilateral military force by the US to counterproliferate these nuclear weapons, chances are a nuclear war will start. As the world’s only superpower, the US should try to preserve peace in the world. Thus, it is justified for the US to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons.



==Contention 3: Owning nuclear weapons is immoral and unethical==


To many people, it is thought that unilateral military force is not justified as the US owns nuclear weapons themselves. However they never stop to realize that doing this would include counterproliferation of nuclear weapons in the US as well. If the US uses unilateral military force for nuclear counterproliferation because owning nuclear weapons is immoral, obviously counterproliferation would happen in the US as well and they would have to trash their stockpile of nuclear arms.


It is unjustified to own nuclear weapons. It is also unjustified to use military force unilaterally IF the country using it continues to possess them. However it is justified to do so if the US agrees to dispose of their nuclear weapons.


==Conclusion==


I have no more arguments to make since I am drawing a blank after contention 3.


However, I have shown exactly why unilateral military force by the US used to prevent nuclear proliferation is not necessarily right, but justified. Thus, the resolution is affirmed.


I pass the floor to con. Thank you.


[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...


[2]http://debatepedia.idebate.org...


[3] http://www.foreignaffairs.com...


[4] http://www.reuters.com...


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


Ajabi

Con

Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BLAHthedebator

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Ajabi

Con

Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BLAHthedebator

Pro

*Sigh*

Extend, please.
Ajabi

Con

Ajabi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BLAHthedebator

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the entire debate.

Extend my arguments, and vote Pro.
Ajabi

Con

Blah wins
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Dang, wassup with Ajabi forfeiting rounds :/ no bueno
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BLAHthedebatorAjabiTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
BLAHthedebatorAjabiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
BLAHthedebatorAjabiTied
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: How very unfortunate. Con forfeited the vast majority of the debate and didn't really engage in the rounds he DIDN'T just run the clock out on. As such, arguments to Pro for being the one who actually showed up, and conduct to Pro for not forfeiting. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
BLAHthedebatorAjabiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's stanzas almost convinced me, yet Pro's arguments that addressed the debate were slightly more appealing.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
BLAHthedebatorAjabiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: sigh....