The Instigator
Googlemage
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

States ought not possess nuclear arms

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: 8/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,840 times Debate No: 12759
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Googlemage

Con

Hey, I'm going to start Lincoln Douglas debate during school since I'm part of the National Forensics League. I would love to hear everyone's arguments, values, value criterion, etc. Thank youl
Grape

Pro

Definition:

Ought - Used to indicate duty or correctness OR used to indicate a desirable or expected state (1)

I am going to be arguing it would be a desirable state if States did not possess nuclear weapons.

Value - Utility (2) (3)

I am referring to "utility" in the utilitarian sense, as a measure of happiness or relative satisfaction.

Value Criterion - Increasing Utility

By this I mean, the value utility will be supporting by outcomes that increase the likelihood of or potential for utility and it will be damaged by outcomes that decrease the likelihood of or potential for utility.

States ought not possess nuclear weapons because no one should possess nuclear weapons. No sane person should even support the existence of devices capable of causing such widespread destruction. Weapons of mass destruction differ from conventional arms in that it is almost inconceivable that they could be used for the greater good. Consider the following:

Argument 1: Conventional Weapons

Conventional weapons, such as firearms, can be used in self defense. If a dangerous criminal breaks into a school, it would be more utilitarian for a police officer to shoot him with a gun and prevent him from harming the children, teachers, and other innocent people. In cases of national self defense or human rights intervention, even heavy artillery and combat vehicles be used to destroy hostile military forces. My intent is to prove that the damage caused by nuclear weapons reaches such a threshold that they can never be used in a utilitarian way; the damage caused will always exceed the benefits. My opponent cannot argue that my case does not allow for the existence of any weapons because this is not the case.

Argument 2: Use of Nuclear Weapons

Historically, nuclear weapons have only been employed twice (against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan). In both instances, the intent of the weapons was intimidate a military enemy into submission through the mass slaughter of civilians. The American military could have defeated the Empire of Japan through a prolonged blockade as the Japanese naval and aerial strength was crippled and Japan lacked the resources to sustain itself. However, in order to advance their political goal of keeping the USSR out of the Pacific war, the United States government used the atomic bomb against Japanese civilians and their own prisoners of war. August 6th, 1945, and not December 7th, 1941, will surely live on in human history as a day of infamy.

It is impossible to believe that nuclear weapons could ever be used for any other purpose than the slaughter the population of enemy States en masse. The destructive potential of these weapons far exceeds what would ever be necessary to destroy military targets. The sole use and intent of nuclear arms is to massacre innocent people. This can only decrease the overall happiness and satisfaction of people. I find it extremely doubtful that the use of a nuclear weapon in this way could ever possible have positive side effects sufficient to outweigh this damage. Nuclear weapons are intrinsically wrong; they are build and used solely for evil. It is in the best interest of the human race as a whole that they not exist at all. (4)

Argument 3: Potential for Damage

The potential damage that nuclear weapons could cause if used in a large scale war far exceeds the net damage to utility that could be caused by any given single usage of nuclear weapon. A full scale nuclear war between two states would, under the most optimistic predictions possible, a full scale nuclear war would result in hundreds of millions of deaths. Least optimistic predictions do not rule of the possibility of the extinction of the human species. The damage to the environment and human life caused by a nuclear war would be unimaginable. The possession of nuclear weapons by States creates the potential for a disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

Conclusion:

It is a desirable outcome for those who value their lives and the lives of their fellow humans that States not possess nuclear weapons. They are only used to cause widespread destruction to infrastructure and to massacre civilians, and they possess the potential to bring about the extinction of the human race and perhaps all life on Earth. It is the duty and moral obligation of States, and all human beings, to insure that such devices do not exist.

Sources:

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Googlemage

Con

Googlemage forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

Extend my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Googlemage

Con

Googlemage forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Googlemage

Con

Googlemage forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Googlemage

Con

Googlemage forfeited this round.
Grape

Pro

Grape forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I could give you a much better debate on this if you're interested. Once you're done with the tournament of course.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
GooglemageGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by danny9696 6 years ago
danny9696
GooglemageGrapeTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
GooglemageGrapeTied
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