The Instigator
RevL8ion
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Cermank
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Super Tiny Debate (STD) #1: Are Nuclear Bombs Necessary For Warfare?

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 1 vote the winner is...
RevL8ion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 61539
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

RevL8ion

Con

Yes, I am aware of the the acronym of Super Tiny Debate, and I decided to keep it in the title because it was partially amusing. Anyway, first round is acceptance only. Con must prove that nukes are necessary in war in a minimum of 500 characters over 5 rounds. In return, I must prove that nuclear bombs are unnecessary in a war. Sources are unnecessary for this STD (XD). Only 24 hours are given for each round. No trolling allowed.
Cermank

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
RevL8ion

Con

The definition of nuclear bomb is "a bomb whose force is due to uncontrolled nuclear fusion or nuclear fission." These weapons have been used primarily in World War II by the United States to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. They respectively killed 80,000 and 40,000 people, with thousands more later due to radiation. The United States already possessed the technology and manpower to make Japan surrender. Therefore, this warcraft and the deaths of hundreds of thousands were unnecessary.
Cermank

Pro

According to the debate, I must prove that nuclear bombs are necessary in a war. Nowhere in the resolution is it stated that *using* them is essential.

But their mere presence is necessary to ensure that wars do not happen. The modern world looks horrible because of wars that occured in pre-nuclear history. US attacked Japan because Japan didn't have nukes. India Pakistan haven't had a war since both acquired nukes.

I would contend that EVERYONE should have nukes so that there are no wars.
Debate Round No. 2
RevL8ion

Con

I strongly reject Pro's suggestion. Nuclear bombs cost millions of United States dollars to make, with the Manhattan Project alone requiring 22 billion USD. In addition, if one country was to slip up and launch a nuke, the whole world would be destroyed under an all-out, global nuclear war. This is one of the reasons why the UN itself has begun to promote the disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Cermank

Pro

There's no cost that can possibly be too high for a world with no wars. Plus, a peaceful world is better for everyone. I'm sure the richer nations can contribute a little more to ensure that the poorer countries get nuclear weapons. Peaceful cooperation is one of the objectives of UN, after all.

No country 'slips' up and uses a nuke. It is a very deliberate decision. And nuking a nuclear power is disastrous, which is why US- Russia had a cold war and not a full fledged war.
Debate Round No. 3
RevL8ion

Con

It's an unnecessary cost. I didn't mean "slip up" as an accident; I meant if one country commited an unlawful, international act, then the nukes would be pointless as using them would immediately destroy the entire world. The nukes can't be used at all, so they're just bluffs. And using weapons to end war? That's like fighting fire with fire. In addition, what if the cost for world peace is a price we can't pay? Nuclear arsenals would consume a huge portion of any government's economy.
Cermank

Pro

Cermank forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RevL8ion

Con


Pro has failed to submit his second-last argument in time, or he has been unable to refute my arguments, and stayed silent. To support my argument that the cost of nuclear bombs is excessive, most countries don’t have access to or can’t afford the materials for nukes. Billions of dollars would be wasted (I’ve already stated why the “threat” of nukes are pointless in my previous argument), while they could be spent elsewhere. Pro has failed to show how nukes will validate world peace. Vote Con.


Cermank

Pro

Cermank forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mharman 3 months ago
Mharman
Maybe you should change the acronym for this type of debate...
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;ஜ۩۞۩ஜ`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;
A316;A313;A325;A326; A332;A320;A321;A331; A315;A327;A325;A325;A317;A326;A332; A321;A331; A318;A313;A326;A315;Y
`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;ஜ۩۞۩ஜ`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;`44;A279;

nac
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
lol, you're crazzy.
kids these days... tut tut tut
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
Super Tiny D___ (there are three missing letters) I hope you can figure it out now. ROFL
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
no?
is it that rude?
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
I know. :3

Did you figure it out? :D
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
you're a crazzy kid
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
what words that?
Posted by RevL8ion 2 years ago
RevL8ion
Lmao, I chose it purposefully because of the acronym. XD

Oh dear god, I just thought of another word you could substitute "debate" with. It's even more sexual than this one. >.>
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
haha... std...
OUt of all the options, you chose "super tiny debate"... lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
RevL8ionCermankTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture