The Instigator
TheWheel
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
PalinFan
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/28/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,458 times Debate No: 12854
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

TheWheel

Con

I look forward to whomever accepts this debate. If possible, I ask that my opponent goes on LD Debate format. I anticipate a well-done debate.
PalinFan

Pro

Definitions:
states- a division of a federal State (such as the states of the United States of America).[1]

States ought not possess nuclear weapons as it would force individual states to develop foreign policy, as they would have possession of weapons of mass destruction that are not the property of any form of federal government. Since historically foreign policy has largely been the responsibility of federal governments.[2] This would cause unnecessary tension between the two entities, and may even result in a civil war. The possession of nuclear weapons best belongs to federal governments.

I thank my opponent and eagerly await his response in the next round.

Sources
[1] http://geography.about.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TheWheel

Con

State -- "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory"

A division of power in the states, leaves all with separate voting power in the Election for President of the United States. Voting booths for power inside each state lay there for similar seats of power, such as Governor, or even Mayor? They are elected like Presidents, who get things approved before doing it. States ought possess these "Nuclear Weapons," which may opponent falsely labeled as WMDs.

States possess a branch of foreign policy. They do their actions with approval, and have the checks and balances from the voting public. If it was an enemy of the state, it would be an enemy of the country itself, having no tensions formed between the country and state.

The States are PART of the Federal Government. The Governors of the states act as the Federal Government of each state, and all others with power as "Advisers." If the choice was truly bad, the checks and balances would kick in, with people voting against the action.
PalinFan

Pro

In this round I will attempt to interrupt and disprove the arguments my opponent made previously in R2.

"A division of power in the states, leaves all with separate voting power in the Election for President of the United States. Voting booths for power inside each state lay there for similar seats of power, such as Governor, or even Mayor?"

It is true that governors and mayor are representatives of the executive branch in their level of government. It is also true that governors have similar powers to that of the president such as: the ability to veto legislation, the ability to pardon, the power to appoint officials and budgetary control.[1] However governors do not have the ability to create foreign policy. The ability to declare war resides with the congress and the ability to sign international treaties rests solely with the President of the United States and the Senate.[2][3] Since states and governors have no ability to declare war it would be counter productive for states to possess nuclear weapons and would only create tension between the federal government and state governments.

If a state were to come into possession of a nuclear weapon, declare war, and use said weapon it would be a violation of the tenth amendment and could easily lead to a civil war of sorts.[4]

"States ought possess these "Nuclear Weapons," which may opponent falsely labeled as WMDs."

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, and it is in no way inappropriate to label them as such.

"States possess a branch of foreign policy."

Incorrect.

"They do their actions with approval, and have the checks and balances from the voting public. If it was an enemy of the state, it would be an enemy of the country itself, having no tensions formed between the country and state."

I ask my opponent to clarify this statement in the next wrong as it does not seem to make sense.

"The States are PART of the Federal Government. The Governors of the states act as the Federal Government of each state, and all others with power as "Advisers." If the choice was truly bad, the checks and balances would kick in, with people voting against the action."

The federal government and state governments are separate levels of government and are not part of one another. Governors act on behalf of the executive branch in any given state, not on behalf of the federal government. Please clarify the last portion of this argument as it is not a coherent argument.

I will end the round by saying this:

As state governments do not have the ability to create foreign policy (such as the power to declare war and the ability to create treaties) it would be pointless for states to have possession of a nuclear weapons, and would only serve to create tension between state governments and the federal government.

I would like to thank the reader at this point, and I eagerly await my opponent's response in R3.

Sources:
[1] http://www.smccd.net...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://www.ehow.com...
[4] http://civilliberty.about.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheWheel

Con

'Since states and governors have no ability to declare war it would be counter productive for states to possess nuclear weapons and would only create tension between the federal government and state governments.'

This claim is irrelevant to the resolution, as it only discusses the holding of Nuclear Weapons ONLY. It never said we had to use them, let me make that clear for the voters, before the debate is finished. The resolution only entails, ignore what my opponent said, "The possession" of Nuclear Weapons. We are not obligated to use them, simply hold them. Even if we can't use them under only the state, it's illogical as to how only the capitol, or whichever place can hold the Nuclear Weapons. They could hold them, and use them under the country's foreign policy if it be necessary.

'The ability to declare war resides with the congress and the ability to sign international treaties rests solely with the President of the United States and the Senate.'

My opponent only discusses the U.S.A., so there is a possibility the other countries with states don't have only the congress handle foreign policy. For, if they can all the things my opponent agreed to, why can't they act out their own foreign policy, yet under orders?

'If a state were to come into possession of a nuclear weapon, declare war, and use said weapon it would be a violation of the tenth amendment and could easily lead to a civil war of sorts.'

I REPEAT, non-explicit for other countries. Tenth Amendment? That only covers the U.S.A. states. And I REPEAT again: it makes no sense as to how one state holds all the Nuclear Weapons and the other states none. The States can follow foreign policy, and hold them until necessary attack with them is needed.

'I ask my opponent to clarify this statement in the next wrong as it does not seem to make sense.'

If a country attacks a state, it's an enemy of the targeted country, so utilizing Nuclear Weapons shouldn't cause a Civil War, nor tensions inside the country. It's an enemy of the country, so there is no reason for a Civil War.

I'll end my side with a Summary:

* The word "possession" should be used mostly when deciding this round. Not "use."
* There is no plausible issue worth having a civil war, or any inner-fighting about "possessing" a Nuclear Weapon. They (U.S.A.) use it under the American Federal Government's orders. So there's no clear reason why possession is bad; most of my opponent's arguments were meaningless. The Federal Government would control the Nuclear Weapons, and the states would hold them.
* And I urge a Negative vote.
PalinFan

Pro

I am going to keep this brief:

My opponent's entire arguments steams from an unawareness of what the term possession means. Since he is the instigator of this debate I assumed he realized that possession meant "the act of having and controlling property."[1] It would appear however that I was wrong. The fact that the resolution states "States Ought Not POSSESS Nuclear Weapons" makes claims my opponent made in the previous round, such as, "The Federal Government would control the Nuclear Weapons, and the states would hold them" inaccurate because in order to possess something you must have both ownership and control of said property.

Furthermore, my opponent has made no argument as too why state possession of nukes would be more beneficial than federal ownership or any other kind of ownership, thus failing to reach the burden of proof.

I heavily urge a Pro vote.
Thank You.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
why does it sound like PalinFan is debating sectionalism and to think states was meant as states like virgina is preposterous i dont really like this debate because of that
Posted by ReginaldJeeves 6 years ago
ReginaldJeeves
I whole heartedly agree with Mr. RoyLatham. In the context of this resolution the word "state" means the same as country. So the resolution and the arguments in the round are not supposed to be nevessarily centered over the powers of the 50 states in America or the rights of the federal government but the powers and rights of all countries.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con should have attacked Pro's definition of a "state" to mean a political subdivision of a nation. The context of the debate resolution makes it clear it is about nations, not about Massachusetts and the like. When an opponent takes an unusual reading of the resolution, the semantic issue cannot be dropped. It has to pressed right to the end. Not only assert the correct definition, but take a little time to argue the resolution as properly understood. Go on record, for the sake of the judges, as having made a prima facia case.

In this debate Con accepted the definition and tried to debate on that basis. That's hopeless. Arguments go to Pro. As Pro maintained, the principle of states ceding foreign policy to the nation is accepted worldwide, not just in the U.S.
Posted by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
This is the first time I've seen this resolution argued with "states" meaning states in the US. e.g. New Hampshire, Oregon, New York.
Posted by jmull9495 6 years ago
jmull9495
This is a real LD topic That I have to debate so thank you for any help!
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Semantics lol
Posted by TheWheel 6 years ago
TheWheel
Uh, no. Palinfan is the Pro, so they're for the resolution. That's why they're saying Nuclear Weapons shouldn't be possessed by States.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
...Palin is arguing for the wrong side of her position.
Posted by TheWheel 6 years ago
TheWheel
Fair enough, Grif.
Posted by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
I would debate you on thi but I've already debated this topic twice here. Im getting sick of it already and I havent even been to my first tournement!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Lafayette_Lion 6 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 
Vote Placed by marvinlibra44 6 years ago
marvinlibra44
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
TheWheelPalinFanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05