Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD tejretics VS nikhilworld123

Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is an RFD for the debate:

tejretics (Pro) VS nikhilworld123 (Con)

The United States federal government should eliminate its nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile force.


Pro has to show that this call to action, to completely remove the US's international ballistic missile force, is a salient one.

Con just has to cast doubt on that call to action.

*Pro's Case*

1. These ICBMs are unsafe, because there have been close calls, security failures, misbehavior of officials, failed inspections, not safe.

-Con does not refute the security risks and instead concedes them by claiming these risks to also be true of the other "legs of the triad" so Pro's security argument is affirmed by Con, ICBM's poor security majorly impacts whether or not it is salient to remove them, because I personally don't want to be blown up by some unsecured nuke that could have been prevented and Con agrees to these risks.

2. Nuclear terrorists can easily breach such security failures-->horrific potential disaster.

-Con even bolsters this argument by claiming pirates may hijack our submarines, which Con already equated to the other two "legs of the triad"
Again, horrific potential disaster impacts the res.

3. Air force says ICBMs are unnecessary.

-Dropped by Con.

4. It's expensive to maintain ICBMs and repubs and dems agree it needs to be modernized = one trillion $

-Dropped by Con

5. Resulting budget crisis-->removal of ICBMs anyway, inevitable.

-Dropped by Con

6. Budget crisis-->loss of nuclear deterrence-->hostile nation nuclear war.

-Dropped by Con

7. ICBMs are not a deterrent and can be seen by satellite, SLBMs are where it's at.

-Con points out that our military credibility sans ICBM is not a deterrent, same security problems with ICBMs apply here and that ICBMs are more efficient and proven than SLBMs, Con gains a smidgen here.

8. ICBM's use = more miscalculations = less de-escalation = likelier nuclear war

-Con never addresses the accuracy of ICBMs nor its impact on de-escalation or an eventual nuclear war. Dropped by Con.

*Con's Case*

1. Weapons =/= weapons platforms

-Pro never directly addresses this, but because Con already agreed that all three parts of the triad use the same platform, this becomes irrelevant.

2. ICBMs, SLBMs, and missile launchers all require the triad launch pad.

-Again not directly addressed by Pro, but this argument from Con just negates the relevance of the "weapons =/= platforms" argument and Pro's response that ICBMs are not necessary per the air force claiming they are unnecessary and that ICBMs are not used as deterrent/second strike is never addressed by Con thanks to forfeit.

3. Enemies still have these, so we should match to maintain military credibility

-Pro drops the credibility argument, and Pro's argument that ICBMs have been deemed unnecessary does not refute whether or not other countries view us as credible/not someone to mess with. A little bit here for Con, but we're talkin' a little bit.

4. removing 1/3 "legs of the triad" weakens the other 2 remaining legs, SLBMs and missile launchers.

-Pro points out that per the air force calling them unnecessary, ICBMs are not needed for deterrence or second strike so removal of ICBMs would not weaken the triad.
Con forfeits, so can't rebuttal, and thanks to Pro's sources being legit and Con's negligence in refuting the sources' legitimacy/relevance, I buy Pro's argument outright and I'm given no doubts from Con.

5. If ICBM's security is at risk, so are SLBMs and missile launchers...subs can be hijacked by pirates.

-Pro should have left this one alone, because it is actually a concession from Con that there are security risks for ICBMs (Con said risks are = among triad), but since Pro points out that pirates have not been shown to be a significant threat, this nullifies Con's particular concession.

6. ICBMs are easy to operate, efficient and proven defense, replicating this would be difficult.

-I loved the way Pro handled this, kudos Pro. Pro pointed out that by having easy-to-use weapons increases the chances of nuclear conflict, it can more easily occur, and decreases de-escalation when countries know that catastrophe is contingent on an easy trigger.
Also, Con forfeits so Con does not give me any doubt on this point either.


This is a clear vote for Pro, not only because of the forfeits, they didn't help Con of course, but because Con never refutes, and in fact agrees, the security risks associated with ICBMs currently, which are a cause for alarm and suffice this particular call to action to have them completely removed.

Con also dropped all of the budget and money arguments from Pro, which were well sourced, and the sources' credibility/relevance went uncontested by Con which has me buying the argument.
Trillions of dollars and a budget crisis are also a cause for alarm and suffice a call to action to have ICBMs removed.

Con also had a missed opportunity to point out Pro's obvious hyperbolic/slippery slope argument of budget crisis-->nuclear war, but because of the forfeits and neglect by Con, I'm left buying that if we don't affirm, I'm going to be blown up either by an insecure nuke via nuclear terrorist or as a result of a nuclear war from a budget crisis initiated by all this ICBM maintenance.

Pro's sources were great and Con, along with not refuting any of Pro's sources, didn't provide crap for all of the "triad launch pad 1/3 removal = ruined triad" arguments.

I know there are no point allocations, but Pro did really well with sources and Con did not.

I vote Pro.

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