The Instigator
kbub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The United States Federal Government should eliminate their nuclear arsenal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,057 times Debate No: 52363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

kbub

Pro

Raisor will put up the link. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
kbub

Pro

The link is the above.
Raisor

Con

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 2
kbub

Pro

Indeed it was. You are an excellent debater. Do you have any final words?
Raisor

Con

When worst comes to worst my peoples come first.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
This is a debate where I think I deserved the loss. Nice going Raisor!
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
This is a debate where I think I deserved the loss. Nice going Raisor!
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I'm with Raisor because his image is Tywin Lannister :P
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Both sides are chiefly concerned with nuclear war, and both sides weigh it most heavily. The other points only have weight in the debate in tipping the balance, which ends up hurting Pro chiefly. I agree that the cost argument can substantially affect lives, as can the environmental concern, but neither of those are nearly so substantial by comparison.

So effects on U.S. diplomacy, the center point of this debate, and on the international community are going to be the focus of this RFD. From the start of this debate, I'm getting two very different frames of reference on this, and it only gets more dramatic as we go on.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Pro tells me that the things I should care about are chiefly involved in fundamental perceptions of us abroad. We should care about the being viewed as hypocritical for wanting nuclear disarmament and not disarming. We should care about looking as though we're engaging in neocolonialism and xenophobic behavior. However, I didn't find a substantive way to weigh these within the debate. I buy that they are harmful to our interactions, but I'm not sure how they compare to direct changes in the ways our actions and views are perceived. The hypocrisy point holds some value in any case, however, as it does make logical sense that a country aimed at reducing the preponderance of nuclear weapons should not keep a large store of them for themselves. There is another perceptual point about nuclear weapons only being usable in an offensive manner and therefore every one that's still around becomes another opportunity for initiating such a war, and that factors in as well.

There were two main points that went beyond this perceptual level and still focused on nuclear war impacts. The first of these is that terrorists can steal nuclear weapons. I think Con effectively turned this by showing that proliferation will occur in smaller countries that have less secure holds on their nuclear weapons. However, Pro's most powerful point in the debate is that the U.S. nuclear umbrella creates a major likelihood of nuclear war by providing a huge and tremendously damaging response to any country that does use nuclear weapons. He's essentially saying that, since the U.S. is the only one capable of second strike capabilities, it is effectively the only country capable of turning any given conflict into a full scale nuclear war. I buy that.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
What am I comparing it to? I would have liked to hear more from Con about nuclear weapons as a deterrent without usage, since I felt that was a solid response to points about nuclear arms usage, but there were some solid arguments here. I buy that Pro's argument is a monumental shift from the status quo, and that therefore the main onus is on Pro to ensure that such a shift is not going to be damaging.

Con showed pretty effectively that not all countries will disarm, and that, in fact, many countries that are currently under the nuclear umbrella will proliferate. I buy that diplomacy happens no matter whether or not we unilaterally disarm, as shown by START. Con presents enough material that I don't believe Pro's credibility arguments, since I don't see a specific reason why unilateral disarmament is superior to bilateral or multilateral in terms of getting that credibility. I would have liked to have seen some arguments about how other countries would actually perceive our unilateral disarmament, though many of them were started (secret nuclear programs and alternate motives), but I see enough offense here to make the point stronger than Pro's broader, less specifically linked to impacts, analysis.

Moving past the perceptual, I am still confused by the end of the debate on nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, but I am buying Con's argument that we're caught between two bad situations: either we disarm all of our weapons-grade uranium, in which case these are unusable, or we don't disarm these specific uses, in which case no one trusts that we're actually willing to go the distance. I think that the former situation is more likely under Pro's analysis, which means a major reduction in hard power. I'd like to have heard more about why that matters on a larger level, but I can see how this would affect our military substantially and therefore our future actions.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Con's best argument appeared to be with regards to our ability to enforce our security guarantees. The example of China and Japan going to war " a nuclear war " was one that really spoke to me strongly. It was a solid example in a sea of uncertainties.

So what the debate comes down to is whether or not that war, which appears likely since I don't see much in the way of response from Pro, is outweighed by our capacity to incite full nuclear war from a second strike against someone who has already attacked.

I'm giving slightly more weight to the former. I find that Pro's argument is reasonable, but I'm left uncertain that the initial strike (which would likely be nuclear in order to incite a nuclear response) wouldn't breed a tremendous war in the absence of the U.S. That's not to mention that this requires such an attack to occur in the first place in order to breed this war, which is a large assumption considering that such a strike hasn't happened since WWII. Essentially, this just increases the likelihood of harms rather than creating new ones. I buy that nuclear disarmament in the U.S. would demonstrably alter our relationship with Japan and lead to conventional or nuclear war between them and China, and that's a certain enough outcome that I find its hard to beat with anything else in this debate. The rest do matter, but I think these are likely of lesser value and seem to be split closely between the two sides. So as long as Con is outweighing here, this is where I pull the trigger in this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"That was not a statement of bias, but a statement of fact. This tends to be the case with extreme resolutions that run counter to common sense."

It's a statement of extreme bias over an extreme resolution. Warranted? Sure, I largely agree with the assessment. Regardless, it is still extremely strong bias.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
A vote will be forthcoming as soon as I get the time to listen to this all in one sitting.
Posted by ClassicRobert 2 years ago
ClassicRobert
That was not a statement of bias, but a statement of fact. This tends to be the case with extreme resolutions that run counter to common sense. If I were judging a debate at an actual tournament, I probably would have given kbub some leeway because of the extreme nature of the motion. However, they mutually agreed to the resolution, so I judged the debate as was and acknowledged the extreme nature of the resolution. But even taking that statement out of account, it was clear that the impacts provided by con far outweighed the impacts provided by pro, which I spoke about in my RFD.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kbubRaisorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 2 years ago
ClassicRobert
kbubRaisorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments