The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Nuclear Weapons Should Be Abolished

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 108264
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Nuclear weapons are an issue that needs to be addressed. They are a threat to both humanity and our biosphere. Nuclear weapons are a literal bomb waiting to go off. I can not stress the importance that our massive stocks of WOMD be downsized significantly.


Nuclear weapons should not be abolished. The very act of abolishing nuclear weapons would result in a long and lengthy process--and ultimately, an ineffective one. Countries in conflict with others would resort to alternatives to nuclear weapons that could ultimately lead to devastating effects, and furthermore, if a country were to disagree with the abolishment or break its terms, the rest of the world would be vulnerable. (Jaramillio 2017) Additionally, most countries are already aware of the devastating effects of an all out nuclear war, and therefore have them as symbols of power and a means of defense by offense. The "balance of terror" we see in the world today prevents any one country from from pressing down on their shiny red nuclear buttons--regardless of its size--because a global war is not in the best interest of any country. (Taubman 2009) On an environmental standpoint, destroying nuclear weapons would lead to far more environmental hazards than leaving them in their facilities where waste is kept to a minimum. While the idea of a nuclear-free world is a commendable thought, the reality is very different. For these reasons, I negate.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, as he brought historical examples to prove that arms are not always disposed and that the weapons will not be used because of the threat of retaliation. For arguments, Pro claims nuclear weapons are a threat to the environment and to mankind. Con refutes, arguing that if nuclear weapons are abolished, countries would find different ways to dispatch others, and that nuclear threat may be the best way to keep peace between nations (balance of terror). Con also addresses the issue of the environment by stating that disposing of nuclear weapons would create more nuclear waste than keeping them in their silos. Since the instigator (Pro) chose only one round, it is not a violation of conduct to bring in sources on the final round. No major spelling errors. For these reasons, I vote Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.