The Instigator
OLAN
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
mackoman_93
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points

Would the Atomic bomb be a useful weapon in the war on terror?

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/4/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,032 times Debate No: 11629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (10)

 

OLAN

Con

The atomic bomb has been the target of much controversy and argument. I intend to explore this question with facts and reason
mackoman_93

Pro

When faced with the question, "Would the Atomic bomb be a useful weapon in the war on terror?" the answer is really quite obvious. Consider the following...

The atomic bomb is, in all honesty, a useful weapon when dealing with anything.

The key word in the resolution is "useful". The turning point in the debate will be the fact that an Atomic weapons have the potential beyond being just useful. They could end all conflict with terrorists all together. If you consider the following evidence from a recent news article by Anne Penketh talking about how the 1,550 operational nuclear warhead that the Obama administration plans to keep operational is still enough to destroy the planet several times over.

If the atomic bomb was to be used in such a way, then there would be no more people. If there are no more people, then there are no more terrorists. Ultimately, we could completely end the war on terrorism with the atomic bomb.

As we are not debating whether or not the atomic bomb will ACTUALLY be used in this way (due to the fact that this is not what he resolution is asking), the answer to the question, "Would the Atomic bomb be a useful weapon in the war on terror?" is ABSOLUTELY.

Thank you and vote affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1
OLAN

Con

Think about this. The cold war which lasted 40 years was threatened by thermonuclear war between the US and USSR but it never happened why? because they worked it out like reasonable people so what im saying is use the A bomb as a last resort
mackoman_93

Pro

Does the United States negotiate with terrorists? Nope...
Are terrorists reasonable people? Nope...
Is this pertainent to the resolution, "would the atomic bomb be a useful weapon in the war on terror"? Absolutely not...

The uncontested fact still remains that the atomic bomb WOULD in fact be a USEFUL weapon in the war on terror. Thus, this resolution is upheld.

Please vote accordingly. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
OLAN

Con

My opponent is apparently agreeing with my resolution but I say there is no way to use the A bomb in the war unless we absolutely needed to. So why should we use it? As i said, it killed almost half a million Japanese civilians. So shouldnt we disarm nukes if they are that fatal? I say Yes but what do you think?
mackoman_93

Pro

My opponent's opening statement is (and I quote), "My opponent is apparently agreeing with my resolution". Under my picture you will see a three letter word (it should look something like this...) "Pro". Consequently, of course I am agreeing with his resolution (I'm actually suppose to be agreeing with the resolution). On the flip side under my opponent's picture you should see the word "Con" this means that he is suppose to negate the resolution. He is not debating his position.

In the end my opponent has strayed away from what the resolution ACTUALLY says. He insists on turing this into a debate about morality and practicality. This is not what the resolution asks (he should know this he WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE RESOLUTION). The resolution asks would the atomic bomb be useful. The resolution does not question the moral permissablitlity on implementing the atomic bomb.

I have upheld he resolution showing you how the atomic bomb would be WORLDS MORE than simply useful. I have shown how they have to potential to ultimately end terrorism altogether. My opponent has offerend no contestation for the points that I have produced therefore they stand. In the end my opponent is not debating his position, or resolution, he has ignored all of my arguments trying to make this somehow a debate about morality (which it's not).

With this I urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Yea, what better way to scare Stalin sh*tless? ;)
Posted by Anarcho 6 years ago
Anarcho
Oh I forgot about that. Thanks Jannah. ^_^
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
They wanted to use scare tactics on the Soviets too. :P
Posted by Anarcho 6 years ago
Anarcho
Yeah they should have. Japan was planning on surrendering in the first place and besides the point they had no right to bomb civilian cities, they just wanted to test out their bombs on land least damaged.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Nevermind that, the US should have been tried for dropping atomic bombs on Japan in WW II.
Posted by Officialjake 6 years ago
Officialjake
There would be to much colateral damage and the US would face war crimes.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Dude, the atomic bomb would AWESOME in the war on terror! Picture this: the US has declared a new foreign policy; the US will completely OBLITERATE any country that launches a nuke against them. Modern satellites are able to see the contrails of planes and missiles, so they'd also be able to see the contrails of an ICBM, and the US would trace them back. Can you imagine the effect? NO government leader would sell nuclear technology to religious zealots or terrorist groups anymore; because one of those terrorists might decide that it'd be worth dying to launch a nuke against the US, the leaders wouldn't risk their entire nation for an arms deal! The US would probably never have to launch a single nuke, but it would completely stop nuclear proliferation by rogue groups.
Posted by OLAN 7 years ago
OLAN
the war on terror
Posted by OLAN 7 years ago
OLAN
the war on terror
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
What conflict?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Officialjake 6 years ago
Officialjake
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 shlebear_94 7 years ago
shlebear_94
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Dandaman09 7 years ago
Dandaman09
OLANmackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 MCJazz77 7 years ago
MCJazz77
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 UnFascism 7 years ago
UnFascism
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by cactusbin 7 years ago
cactusbin
OLANmackoman_93Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
OLANmackoman_93Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06