The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Weapons of Mass Destruction have done more good for society than bad.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
VisualLocket007 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 98700
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is acceptance
Round 2 is Constructive
Round 3 is Rebuttal/Secondary Constructive
Round 4 is pure Rebuttal


Weapon of Mass Destruction: a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Society: Every person in the world, as well as the cultures those people maintain.

This isn't a debate about what would happen to society if such weapons would be used, it is a debate about how the existence of those weapons has shaped society in regards to warfare, ethics, etc..

Please keep profanity out of this debate. I do not require some weird form of logic or verbatim sources for every argument, pure logic is fine by my standards although if a source would help your argument you are welcome to post it.

If necessary, comment with questions before accepting the debate. I would be more than happy to answer.


I agree to argue this topic with you, VisualLocket007.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


This argument is based upon the premise that the number of deaths in wars that are convened between two nations has been decreasing on average since the end of World War 2.

People are the building blocks of society and ever since the creation of Nuclear weapons, the most powerful weapons of mass destruction there are, fewer of them have been getting killed in wars.

Here is a link that proves the statistics are related.

The knowledge that a war will not lead to good on any side leads to there being fewer wars. When there is no war, there are fewer deaths.

Not only have there been fewer deaths, but the lack of state on state wars causes the prolonging of nations.

As can be seen from this source, most nations that have been lost to time were either lost before the end of World War 2, or when the Soviet Union collapsed. The cultures of areas around the world tend to last longer when the nations that contain the culture maintain their sovereignty.

So, the two reasons why Weapons of Mass Destruction have been good for society are that they prevent war between powerful nations saving lives, and the lack of war allows the survival of cultures.


Premise: Weapons of Mass Destruction, both by their usage in the past, and their mere existence in the present, have dealt more damage to society than they have prevented.

My first argument that I will present in this block is the overall doomsday presence of nuclear weaponry.

Nuclear weaponry was first beginning to take its shape during WW2 into the Cold War. The catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare was more than apparent with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wherein 200,000 casualties were suffered. This was merely with two nuclear bombs on two population dense areas. With modern nuclear technology such as MIRVs and ICBMs being at the disposal of all world powers, the fact of nuclear annihilation in the event of warfare is more than apparent.

The trend of nuclear holocaust continued into the Cold War, where the standoff reached a halting point between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. At this time, enough bombs existed to annihilate every city and military base of each of the participating countries, and many more. Even with the key signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, enough bombs still exist between all nuclear armed countries to annihilate eachother and the planet.

Now, there is a simple response to these contentions, and that is the concept of mutually assured destruction. This is the idea that, if two countries possess a weapon powerful enough to destroy the other (i.e. nuclear missiles), a counterattack would occur equal to or exceeding that of the other country. Simply put, it's the tactical idea: "If you hit me, I'll hit you."

Except it's with warheads with the explosive equivalent of several million tons of TNT.

Now, my counter to this argument would be that, with both the failings and advancement of technology in the past and present, nuclear missiles are more than prone to bringing the end.

There have been many "nuclear close calls". Ranging from when a radar malfunctioned and read several tens of nuclear weapons heading towards the US, to when a nuclear war simulation accidentally plays over official monitoring terminals, in the past, and possibly present, there have been many times where WW3, and subsequently, the apocalypse, almost started.

It gets worse, in fact.

With the computer age advancing past infancy to transcendency, it is no surprise that hacking methods have become many times over more efficient and elaborate than they were in the past. If push comes to shove, or the final door is lockpicked in a security system, it's possible that countries or the world can be ended without any pre-knowledge.;;
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.