The Instigator
utahjoker
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
MochaShakaKhan
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Should the United States allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon

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 6 votes the winner is...
MochaShakaKhan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,818 times Debate No: 27209
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

utahjoker

Pro

I will be taking the Pro side of this argument.

First round will be acceptance by the opponet, followed by 3 rounds of debate and a voting peroiod.

This is assuming that Iran is in the works of optaining Nuclear weapons.
MochaShakaKhan

Con

I think it would not be a good idea, but I'm open to your argument. I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
utahjoker

Pro

The country of Iran is in the works to have the ability to become nuclear able and this is most likely going to cause Ian to have a nuclear weapon. The United States should allow Iran to obtain the weapon instead of the going to war with them. The United States fought and still is fighting a ten year war against Iraq over the same idea of weapons of mass destruction. The problem in going and trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will indeed put the United States national security in risk of terrorist attacks. History has proven that when the United States is occupying and putting sanctions on Middle Eastern Countries like Iraq and soon to be Iran. Thousands of people die from these causing out roar in these countries from Terrorist organizations when the United States put sanctions on the country of Iraq half a million children died as well has thousands of others from bomb attacks. This would certainly happen again if the United States attacks Iran. Iran is no threat to the United States they don't have a strong enough air force or a navy capable of attacking the United States te only country that would be in danger would be the State of Israel such is speculated to have at lest 300 nuclear weapons.

In conclusion don't let the United States go into another war which would cost trillions of dollars, kill thousands of innocents, and let Israel fight its own fights.
MochaShakaKhan

Con

One thing Pro doesn't seem to know is that Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which makes it illegal under international law for Iran to produce nuclear weapons [1]. America has also signed this treaty and therefore has the right to oversee and assist in Iran's nuclear program, which would allow the U.S. to ensure that Iran does not produce nukes without having to resort to war.

In other words, America allowing Iran to produce nuclear weapons would be a violation of the NPT, a treaty with both countries have agreed to. As such, America should not allow Iran to produce nukes, but war isn't the only means of doing so.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
utahjoker

Pro

What Con doesn't seem to mention in the NPT the Second pillar: disarmament states that the countries have to give up and disarm themselves, yet the United States hasn't made any stride to with still 5,200 warheads.
If Iran does make a nuclear weapon they would break the NPT, but the United States would also break it if they o war against them.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.policymic.com...
http://topics.nytimes.com...
http://www.fas.org...
https://www.armscontrol.org...
MochaShakaKhan

Con

Pro's argument is a "non-sequitur", meaning it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if America is supposed to disarm all their nukes or not, that doesn't mean Iran should start producing nukes when they've agreed not to. This debate is on Iran's nuclear program, not America's.

Either way, what pro says is wrong. The U.S. has cut the amount of nuclear weapons it has had down to 1/3 of what it was in the 60's [1]. Also, President Obama intends on further disarmament [2].

Pro used a lot of sources last round, but he only needed one and the rest are just articles in favor of his position that he makes no reference to. He seems to be trying to artificially fluff up his source base.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
utahjoker

Pro

My argument is relevant the United States hasn't cut the amount of nuclear weapons they have just relocated and Obama has failed to disarm any nuclear weapons. My point was that the NPT the United States has broken the laws. As well as Iran and if the United States tries to stop Iran from there making nuclear weapons by force they will have broken the peace article.
The reason I used other sources I forgot to add them to my first argument so I just added them to show the viewers that I'm not making up anything from the past rounds.
The United States should allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon for three reasons
First, it would stop the United States from going to another war.
Second, it would give more balance with the nuclear program around the world
Lastly, they are no threat to the United States of America only the terrorist organizations that are in the are which the United States could defend against them better if they are in the United States and not in there homeland.

Sources
http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.aljazeera.com...
MochaShakaKhan

Con

My opponent once again ignores my argument that Iran has already agreed to not produce nuclear weapons. He also doesn't address the fact that the U.S. has the legal right to oversee Iran's nuclear development, which removes the need for war.

Once again, it doesn't matter if the U.S. hasn't destroyed enough nukes or not, that doesn't give Iran the right to go back on its word.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
so close just need a few more points.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
I would accept the hell out of this challenge if you weren't so new around here =/
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main point seemed to be that not letting iran get nuclear weapons means going to war with them. Con showed how america could not let them have nukes without going to war (using the treaty to let them oversee irans nuclear program). Pro didn't counter this, so arguments to con
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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:21 
Reasons for voting decision: "The country of Iran is in the works to have the ability to become nuclear able and this is most likely going to cause Ian to have a nuclear weapon. " Shaking head... "Thousands of people die from these causing out roar in these countries..." The arguments being made by Pro were barely legible. Although I agree with his position, I felt that the arguments presented were everywhere unsupported. These were assertions, and valid opinions... but no real arguments. I awarded sourcing to Pro, who attempted to support his opinions (again, I saw few real arguments) with well-written articles; this score was grudgingly awarded. Con was combative, but his aggression was entertaining to me - not worth a conduct point.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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: Pro's R1 arguments were never addressed by Con. NPT is not a very strong argument in the issue since it can be modified if needed.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con. Pro ignored many of the points provided by Con (including crucial ones like the fact that the United States is and continues to be dismantling the warheads and does not seem to realize that just because Obama is having difficulty doing so does not mean it is not happening). Spelling and grammar: Con. Pro had several noticeable spelling mistakes that made it hard to follow what he was saying at times.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure what Alex is talking about, I don't see why debating if Iran should have nuclear weapons "obviously" means we should ignore any treaties that prohibit Iran from producing said weapons. Should Iran have nukes? Maybe. Should the U.S. allow it? Not legally, no, which was con's argument. Pro responded by saying the U.S. is in violation of this treaty by not dismantling nukes, con showed that they have been and plan on continuing. Pro ignored the former and responded to the later by providing a source saying obama is having difficulty with said dismantling. Not exactly a strong counter. Other than that, Pro's only reason for why the U.S. should allow Iran to proliferate nukes is because going to war with them over it would be disastrous, which con responded to by pointing out that the U.S. is legally allowed to oversee Iran's program, removing the need for war. Pro ignored this. the rest of the points I'm granting are because Alex's vote was basically a VB.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
utahjokerMochaShakaKhanTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro could have done better with this but he did a good enough job. First of all, it doesn't matter if there is a treaty or not, the argument was about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons, which obviously means that any so-called "treaties" would have to be done away with. Con did not have a very well developed argument for why Iran is such a threat to the United States with nuclear weapons. Con also stated the treaty, and basically said it was okay that Iran follows the treaty, but it doesn't matter that the U.S. completely disregards the treaty and continues to develop weapons. This is obviously relevant to the debate and Pro had a much more developed argument. My vote goes to Pro.