The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

UN should make agreement to dismantle all 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 56250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Topic is my resolution.
Nuclear weapons would kill too much innocent people if they were used. It is better to dismantle them, then to risk by simply hoping no one will use them.
My opponent shall make counter-argument(s) in the first round.


there's problems with some countries hiding nukes. we'd want to have some handy in case russia didnt give em all up and we end up in a war or something. plus, it's possible to juts make more, so having them ready or not is somewhat of a minor point.
plus, how and why would you enforce this? if a north korea or another doesn't want to follow the rules, are we doing to start a war just to enforce it? might it be better to only go to war if it looks like they might try to use them, or start making more and more? as it is now, counties aren't doing much with making or using them, they just have them. the status quo is better than starting a war when it might not even be needed. and if it was needed, would be better done when it actually is needed. this way, if it's never needed we avoided an unnecessary war.
Debate Round No. 1


R1) Even if some countries hid few nukes, we still reduced a potential catastrophe.

R2) No country would declare war on vast majority of UN, because it is pure suicide, even if that vast majority had no nukes.

R3) Chances for WWIII to occur are high enough to be taken seriously. Two blocks are formed already (US + EU and India + Russia + China). US + EU has more military, and other block has better growing economy. There already is a small war in Ukraine between those 2 blocks, and it could easily escalate.


i suppose i can get behind it's better for everyone to have a lot less than we currently have. i dont think the USA should get rid of all its nukes and i wouldnt expect others to either,even if they said they were going to.

i dont know why con said something about invading UN natinos etc, as i didnt mention it. i am curious how itd be enforced though, and if con is getting at we put relentless anything goes pressure on them, why is that the best approch? why start a fight when one doens't exist?

i dont see a WWIII likely in the foreseeable future. everyone realizes it hurts everyone. but the prospect of WWIII i can agree should make us want to reduce the nukes everyone has. i guess the UN could make a resolution to dismantle them all, and people just not abide by it, but it could also just make a resaultion that says we're going to reduce the number. itd be mroe honest.
Debate Round No. 2


Since my opponent didn't give me something to respond to, and basically agreed with me, I will pass this round.


the UN should make a resolution that says we will reduce the number of nukes. it's more honest than saying we are going to get rid of them all, cause everyone shouldn't be expected and it wouldn't be likely that they'd get rid of them all.
i realize that i merely said it was preferable in the last post, but i did mention it.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by revic 3 years ago
I hope con truly argues here as so far he/she has not given any strong arguments: Pro has made clear why his case is the most logical, and therefore has fulfilled his BoP.

I hope con toughens up and makes a comeback in the next round. Con has merely touched the only big argument that really exists for this side: that it might prevent wars due to fear that a defeated nation can still use them as a last stand. However, pro can easily counter that if it is not elaborate so Con will have to be very careful and specific.

I believe pro can take this home, but I wish he had had a stronger opponent for the sake of this great topic.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
Would this be a General Assembly resolution or a Security Council resolution?
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Each country should say if they will sign it willingly or not, and only if vast majority says yes, then resolution should be forced.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
My thoughts exactly. The situation changes dramatically depending on the circumstance.
Posted by Gabe1e 3 years ago
Yeah, because if they force, some might leave the UN, if they present, some might not want to sign it.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
So, are you saying that all the members of the UN would automatically sign onto this, or are you saying that the UN should make said resolution and present it to those members?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins, because total potential deaths in Pro world are less than in Con world.