The Instigator
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
DrySponge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

there are circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 43774
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

theta_pinch

Con

pro has burden of proof.
DrySponge

Pro

Scenario:
Alien war no pity we survive or them bombing there ship with nukes is a good response .
We wouldn't have to deal with radiation.
Scenario: Nuclear weapon attached to a comet 1000 light years away not a single living speacis around blowing the comet up for the sake of science .
Scenario the humans grows imune the radiation , fire and other things that make the explosion harmless to humans .
Lets make it even better human need radiation to survive in this scenario.
This are circumstances were the use of a nuclear weapon would be justified.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Con

Scenario:
Alien war no pity we survive or them bombing there ship with nukes is a good response .
We wouldn't have to deal with radiation.

However; if there is some other alien planet near there, because of space being a vacuum all the radiation and waste products would move away unimpeded at relativistic speeds. So any planet within a few light years would be irradiated.

Scenario: Nuclear weapon attached to a comet 1000 light years away not a single living speacis around blowing the comet up for the sake of science .

Nuclear weapon is supposed to mean it being used as a weapon, so this scenario isn't applicable.

Scenario the humans grows imune the radiation , fire and other things that make the explosion harmless to humans .

NOTHING can survive the heat of a nuclear explosion; not even diamond.

Lets make it even better human need radiation to survive in this scenario.

There are other ways to get radiation without annihilating everything within 30 km.
DrySponge

Pro

Fine.
Scenario:
God is real and will destroy everything in existence if we don't use 1 small tactical weapon on the moon.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Con

Scenario:
God is real and will destroy everything in existence if we don't use 1 small tactical weapon on the moon.

That is completely unrealistic. This debate was supposed to be about realistic scenarios. Anyways if God did exist he probably wouldn't ask us to use a nuke on the moon. Please try something slightly more down to earth(in a literal sense.)
DrySponge

Pro

Sorry you didnt deny my circumtance if god was real a asked this from us for what ever reason it would be appropiate to use the nuke.And god works in misterius ways.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Con

Sorry you didnt deny my circumtance if god was real a asked this from us for what ever reason it would be appropiate to use the nuke.And god works in misterius ways.

Okay here's the real reason why it's invalid: because this was supposed to be about circumstances where nuclear weapons being used as WEAPONS are acceptable but that is not a use as a weapon. Therefore you used the irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

CONCLUSION
This was meant to be a debate about realistic scenarios where nuclear weapons being used as weapons is acceptable. All pro has done is provide unrealistic scenarios and some where the nuclear weapon isn't being used as a weapon. Therefore pro has not given a valid circumstance/scenario.
DrySponge

Pro

Yes it is used as a weapon god asked in my senario to bomb the mon it is used as a weapon since in my scenario i forgot to mention that the moon is actualy the house of satan and he wants to bomb it and is going to kill us all if we dont.
Anything else to add?
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Well fine but I still have a valid argument that you have to counter.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
But you did use that logical fallacy.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Nope put it how ever you want my scenarios are circumtances and enter into the contract agreements.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
You are using the argument from silence; that is a logical fallacy!
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Well you didn't specifie so it counts.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
So much problematic grammar..... *wince*
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Basically the scenario needs to be realistic.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
No; circumstances shouldn't be that hypothetical.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
It counts as a circumstance doesn't it ?
Posted by michaelperry13 3 years ago
michaelperry13
aaannnddddd someone went hypothetical on you. sorry dude. I'll vote con on grammar, but none of the others.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
theta_pinchDrySpongeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: OK! So, conduct was fine, no points there. I understand that DrySponge is Spanish, so I do understand the mistakes in grammar and spelling that he made. However, those are still mistakes and I must give the S&G point to Con, for this reason. Arguments: Pro's arguments were, simply, ridiculous and nonsensical. His scenarios seemed to be a last ditch attempt to redeem the debate in his favour. Sorry to say, that didn't work, as Con destroyed the arguments that he presented. Sources are tied, due to the lack of them. Good debate, guys!
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
theta_pinchDrySpongeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't give arguments for this. PRO's style was erratic, and his S&G could use some work.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
theta_pinchDrySpongeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted any of the neccesary scenarios to refute. Pro did a poor job of coming up with any sensible scenarios to justify the use of nukes.
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
theta_pinchDrySpongeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was just trying to create scenarios that could never happen. The God and moon scenario has never happened before, never at all likely to happen. Pro must have proved the probablity of this scenario, or atleast have given some logical explanation of the probablity of his scenario to establish it..because the BoP is on Pro. His alien invasion scenario was acceptable, and Con actually gave a well response to that that went unrefuted.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
theta_pinchDrySpongeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has the right of it, and Pro is just trying to create scenarios that could never happen. Yes, in a world where God makes it very clear that we are all going to die unless some of us bomb the moon, the use of a nuclear bomb is probably acceptable. Since that scenario stretches the bounds of the imagination to its limit (it's never happened before, never at all likely to happen), it doesn't suffice as a logical circumstance. In fact, few of Pro's scenario's do. The one that comes closest is alien invasion, and Con actually gives a decent response to that that goes uncontested. It's just a disappointing debate given how Pro took it.