The Instigator
AWEEESOME
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

States ought not use 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 10/12/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,495 times Debate No: 13359
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

AWEEESOME

Pro

This is my first debate so bear with me please.

"The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nation."

I agree with Robert McNamara and so I affirm the resolution: Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Definitions from dictionary.com :
States:The territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
Ought:Used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like

Value: Morality

Morality is the study of right and wrong or good or bad behavior.

Value Criterion: Humanity

Humanity is being civilized and being aware of how certain actions affect other people.

Contention 1: Security:
Secret terrorist could hack into that states nuclear systems and set the nukes off or somehow smuggle some into enemy hands.

Contention 2: Economy:
It would be too expensive for anyone, including the U.S., just for one nuke, it is over $20,000,000,000!

Contention 3: Safety:
Something may go wrong in the nuclear system, and it most likely will endanger not only the innocents lives of that state, but some of the border of a neighboring state.

To conclude my opinion, there is no reason as to why states should have nuclear weapons for it brings great danger to the lives of many.
I now stand open for Cross Examination.
m93samman

Con

This debate only has one round, and unfortunately my opponent won't really get to debate. I'll just do what I can though.

Very plainly, it is easy to see that this is a Lincoln-Douglass style debate [1]. In Lincoln-Douglass, the debater must provide a value and value criterion, or a standard, and then provide contentions to uphold those values after justifying why their value is best. I'm taking the con position; I'll begin with the affirmative case and then provide a few negative contentions, although my opponent won't even get to refute them. It wasn't me who set this up.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________VALUE/VALUE CRITERION DEBATE______________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The value of morality isn't supported or upheld by my opponent; she merely defines it. I'll provide an alternative value by which to judge this debate later.

The value criterion I accept; humanity seems to ultimately be a good method to achieve the value that I'm looking at. Although, my opponent's definition of humanity I disagree with.

hu�man�i�ty   
[hyoo-man-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. [2]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________REFUTATION OF AFF CASE__________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Overview: Notice how my opponent failed to provide any sources. To begin, none of the arguments can be accepted. But let's address them one at a time.

C1) Security
"Secret terrorist could hack into... nuclear systems and set the nukes off".

Consider a few responses:

1) This is unwarranted, and hasn't happened since the invention of nuclear weapons. It is improbable.
2) Nuclear weapons are highly secure, and rogue organizations don't have the ability to penetrate their security. The following article explains. [3]

C2) Economy
I found my opponents source. She is absolutely misinterpreting it; that number is the price of the manhattan project. More realistically, consider this (according to the same source) [4]:

___________________________________
2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)
__________________________________

C3) Safety
Totally unwarranted argument. I could say "Something may go wrong [without] the nuclear system, and it most likely will endanger not only the innocent lives of that state, but some of the border of a neighboring state." I am just as believable.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________CON CASE___________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

As an alternative value, I provide maximizing human life. Nuclear weapons are a threat to human life, and this resolution would seem to be addressing that issue prima facie. I provide one argument;

Contention 1) Mutual Assured Destruction Theory [5]. MAD naturally deters states from using nuclear weapons and promotes peace; I contend that the threat of nuclear retaliation dissuades all states from launching to begin with. Therefore, the possession of nuclear weapons will only deter their usage when publicly proclaimed, thus upholding my the value criterion my opponent advocates; meanwhile, my preferable value of maximizing human life is maintained.

Vote Con

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________SOURCES_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://www.defense.gov...

[4] http://www.brookings.edu...

[5] http://history.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheParadox 6 years ago
TheParadox
If you're posting a value & value criterion, Pro, you need to impact/link back by explaining how they uphold your criterion and ultimately your value. Otherwise, the entire infrastructure of your case falls apart. Just a FYI.
Posted by Vitreous 6 years ago
Vitreous
Hard case to judge since there aren't any rebuttals...so i negate based on the fact that Pro provide little supporting information. All his claims seem to be theories rather than facts. Pro failed to validate or expand his arguments while Con clearly negated Pro's case efficiently. Yet, i think Con should add another contention to harden the blow to Pro's case. Too bad there's only one round. Pro could have argued the fact that Con clearly stated Nuclear Arms are a threat to human life, thus upholding Pro's VC.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Pro obviously can't win against the mutually assured destruction argument because there is only one round. Preventing nuclear war is going to be the biggest impact in the round.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
It's very hard for the instigator to win a one round debate because the instigator's arguments are rebutted, but the opponents arguments are not. Pro did not meet the burden of proof in this debate.

Note that the title says "use nuclear weapons" while Pro affirmed "have nuclear weapons" and Con assumed the resolution was about having them. One might argue that MAD would work to deter, even if the weapons were not used.

The opening quotation by Pro doesn't make much sense as written.

Pro's arguments of security, economy, and safety were weak. There is ample evidence that nuclear weapons have proved safe and economical enough in the hands of a major power like the United States. I think arguing that the resolution is a total ban on nukes, and that conventional weapons could not "destroy the world" as nukes could. con had references, so wins that category.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
LD topic?
Posted by AWEEESOME 6 years ago
AWEEESOME
This is my first debate ever.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Ooh.... only 1 round. That could be bad.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 6 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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 Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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 Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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 bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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 fisher 6 years ago
fisher
AWEEESOMEm93sammanTied
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