The Instigator
kbub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The United States Federal Government should eliminate their nuclear arsenal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,942 times Debate No: 52363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

kbub

Pro

Raisor will put up the link. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
kbub

Pro

The link is the above.
Raisor

Con

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 2
kbub

Pro

Indeed it was. You are an excellent debater. Do you have any final words?
Raisor

Con

When worst comes to worst my peoples come first.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 16 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 7 years ago
wrichcirw
"Kbub had an extremely difficult BOP to prove, because the resolution could easily be rephrased as "The USFG should willingly castrate itself." "

This is the most unbiased statement I have ever read...pause not.
Posted by ClassicRobert 7 years ago
ClassicRobert
Kbub had an extremely difficult BOP to prove, because the resolution could easily be rephrased as "The USFG should willingly castrate itself." This means that right off the bat, he needs to have extremely strong impacts to outweigh the obvious impacts like the removal of a huge international deterrence factor and the fact that it would drastically increase Russia's strength in comparison to other countries, which Con rightly pointed out. So Pro then moved on to point out what Pro thought the impacts would be- reduction of terrorism by reduction of neocolonialism, and removal of other countries' nuclear arsenals because of the USFG's new ability to have good faith diplomacy. Con rightly pointed out that this was extremely speculative and improbable. Relations between state actors doesn't have much of an impact on non-state actors like terrorists, and good faith diplomacy is not likely to have much of a positive impact. These impacts are weighed against the impacts of substantial weakening of the U.S., who's strength is exactly what's keeping a lot of the world from serious conflict, and the removal of mutually assured destruction, which is what's prevented nuclear war. The point goes to Raisor. That being said, Pro did very well for the resolution, and I'd like to see pro do another live debate with maybe a less extreme resolution.
Posted by ClassicRobert 7 years ago
ClassicRobert
Which format did you tend to do?
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
kbub
A little :)
Posted by ClassicRobert 7 years ago
ClassicRobert
Out of curiosity, kbub, have you done live debate before?
Posted by dtaylor971 7 years ago
dtaylor971
I wish I could've stayed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
whiteflame
kbubRaisorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 7 years ago
ClassicRobert
kbubRaisorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

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