fragment of peace
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Beane666
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/16/2016 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 488 times | Debate No: | 93829 | ||
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)
 Pro  Con I fail to see any benefit of such a strategy. It would be a dubious assumption to believe that those countries in possession of nuclear armaments would freely give them up in exchange for this key fragment. This agreement would give a distinct advantage to dishonest countries who withhold some of their arms from this locked place. I don't believe we would want the dishonest countries to be the only ones with a nuclear weapons when the place is locked. Eight soverign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapon technology [1]. Even if all the countries with nuclear capabilities gave them up freely, then they could just reassemble their arsenal. Conclusion: Fragment of peace has no likely benefit, and can potentially be exceedingly dangerous. [1] http://fas.org... |
 |
|
Pro yes the place is a bit weird, because if one goes of they all go of.. havnt thought about that one yet i dont understand why you minds are so blank.. second brainless take on this... it is for war to beg for peace.. maybe the nuclear bombs should stay where they are but build in some lock things that cant be touched having without all the keys your brain is exceedingly dangerous.. it infects people through words and lack of humanity inside.. how is that idiot |
 |
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
Report this Comment
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
| vi_spex | Beane666 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to defend his BOP, and gives no concrete reason as to why we need to lock nuclear bombs. Therefore, I give Con the win since he shows negatives to locking nuclear bombs. Con also had better grammar, and used sources.