Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

RFD: eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

fire_wings
Posts: 5,555
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:08:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Debate: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

http://www.debate.org...

Tejretics (Pro) v.s. nikhilworld123 (Con)


I: Intro

The Burden of Proof is shared.

I will give a 1-5 for the person who made an argument. Example: If there is an argument which was rebutted fully, 1 or 2 for the one who made an argument. If the argument is not rebutted, a 5 or 4 for the other side. If the argument was half rebutted, 3 or 2. If the argument was bad, or not right, like not to the topic, but not rebutted, probably a 3.

My conclusion is that I will give the debate to Pro, conduct and arguments

II: Conduct

Pro gets the conduct point because Con forfeited to rounds.

III: Pro"s arguments

Pro"s "plan"

Pro"s "plan" is, "The plan says that the United States federal government (i.e. the legislature and the executive) should pass legislation that requires the elimination of the nuclear-armed ICBM force of the U.S. The US currently has an arsenal of 4,760 nuclear warheads. [1] Currently, it operates Minuteman ICBMs from underground silos, Trident SLBMs carried by Ohio-class submarines, and multiple nuclear aircraft bombers. [2] I propose the elimination of those Minuteman ICBMs."

Argument 1: The ICBM force runs on outdated technology and has experienced severe security lapses

Pro"s first sub-point: Harms

Pro says that there was multiple calls of disaster, and many misbehaviour among officials responsible. He shows many different examples, and shows evidence which proves that they have failed security inspections.

Pro also show that there was criminal activity among the force. He shows that a launch officer was involved in a drug ring.

Sub-point 2: Inherency

Pro just says in this sub-point that the plan is the best way to solve nuclear terrorism.

Con"s rebuttal is that the chance is low. However, Pro says that Con"s rebuttal was weak because he did not give any evidence to prove this. Pro gets an 5 for a non-rebutted argument.

Argument 2: Maintaining the nuclear triad is incredibly expensive and may cause budget crisis

Pro says that almost everyone agrees the nuclear triad as a whole needs modernisation. He says that even President Obama agrees. However, he says that it cost about 1 trillion dollars.

Con does not even mention the argument when I was reading round 3, which means it is unrefuted. Another 5 points for Pro.

Argument 3: The ICBM wheel of the triad is the best one to eliminate

Pro shows that we have to eliminate at least something, and then eliminating the ICBM is the best choice. First of all, he shows that it can bring a risk of miscalculations, and also many other reasons. Pro shows that it is ineffective. He says that if there is ICBM then there could be less de-escalation which could make millions of deaths.

Con does not even mention this in his speech, or his argument, which means it is unrebutted, and Pro gets 5 points for this argument to.

Total: 15 out of 15: 100%

IV: Con"s arguments


Argument 1: Removing one of the wheels of the triad would weaken the triad considerably.

Con"s argument is that removing one of the wheels of the triad would weaken the triad considerably.

Pro rebuts this by saying that it is false, mention his Contention 3 and says, "The only purposes of the triad are deterrence and second-strike capability, for both of which the ICBM's aren't required." This is reasonable, and was in Pro"s C3, the argument is rebutted. I give Con a 1.

Con= 1 out of 5, 20%

Clearly, Pro wins the debate. Vote Pro/
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:32:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thanks for the vote, Fire.

As a sidenote, you shouldn't vote by awarding "points" like this and adding them up to decide the winner. You should do an actual impact analysis. For example, one argument might be worth more in magnitude and probability than four other arguments, but the four arguments still get more "points" by your standard.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,555
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:36:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 5:32:40 PM, tejretics wrote:
Thanks for the vote, Fire.

As a sidenote, you shouldn't vote by awarding "points" like this and adding them up to decide the winner. You should do an actual impact analysis. For example, one argument might be worth more in magnitude and probability than four other arguments, but the four arguments still get more "points" by your standard.

I thank you for the feedback. I just did that in some debates, I was giving the thing a try.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka