The Instigator
james_mole
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should we renew Trident?

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 2 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 103039
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

james_mole

Pro

It has defended out the country for god knows how long and you want to get rid of it?
dsjpk5

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate on such an important issue.

REBUTTAL

My opponent's entire argument is a logical fallacy formally known as Argumentum ad antiquitatem (argument to tradition). Basically, it's an argument that says we should continue to do something because we've always done it this way. Such an argument should be dismissed out of hand as the logical fallacy that it is. The age of a practice in no way gives credence to whether or not it should be continued. [1] There are many practices that were done for decades in our history that were proven to be bad ideas. For example, tobacco was for years considered to be good for teeth, when in fact we later found out its bad for teeth. [2]

NEGATIVE CASE

Theres two very good reasons why we should not renew Trident (our nuclear weapons program):

1. It's illegal

According to the International Court of Justice, the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates the Geneva convention. [3]

2. It's immoral

According to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, nuclear weapons are, ""qualitatively different from any other type of ordnance. Their first use, under any circumstances whatsoever, would be . . . a crime against God and humanity." [4]

With all of these considerations in mind, it seems clear that we should NOT renew Trident.

The resolution has been negated.

Sources:

1. http://www.csun.edu...

2. http://www.businessinsider.com...

3. http://www.newstatesman.com...

4. Ibid
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
james_moledsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was ripped to shreds (not to mention compareable to a magic rock that keeps the tigers away). That it was just a single logical fallacy was called out, and as a bonus a negative case was offered and not refutted. Sources were clearly in cons favor, backing up claims, not to mention explaining the subject of the debate which pro had failed to do.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
james_moledsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has very little argument, which Con points out is Appeal to Tradition, therefore rendering it null. Con makes the uncontested arguments that Nuclear Weapons violate the Geneva convention, and they're immoral. Since only Con has arguments left standing, they win by default. Only Con used any sources, to Source points to him by default.