Instigator / Con
3
1458
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1015

Are nukes good?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
3
2

After 5 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Gatorade
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description

The issue of nuclear bombs and non-proliferation has been brought back up, because of North Korea, and the state of its recent nuclear bomb testing. Even though, in 2018, Donald Trump declared that North Korea wasn’t a nuclear threat, there are still many possible occasions that a new nuclear state might emerge and total nuclear war could break out.

-->
@Club

Its fine it doesn't count

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Yeah, I believe so too. I just reviewed the debate, and I feel as if I should've gave you more points/

BULLLLLLLLSHIT

-->
@Barney

Atleast its unrated

-->
@Dr.Franklin

We voters are an inherently subjective measure. If you feel you won or lost, a few outside opinions need not change that.

Plus nukes are scary, expect voters to be biased against them. Had your R2 arguments been a little stronger, I suspect people would have voted differently.

unbeleivable,I CAN NOT LOSE THIS DEBATE,CON SUCKED

-->
@RationalMadman
@Imabench

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman/Imabench // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards
************************************************************************

Cons arguments were average at best but you dropped the ball on such a massive scale that even with his late round forfeit, his arguments were still clearly superior to yours

cons arguments were atrocious

bullshit

Bump
u u
m m
p p

-->
@Club

ok

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Well Gatorade disagrees too, let's just see how this plays out...

-->
@Club

ok sure,Rganar diasgress

-->
@Dr.Franklin

If you don't get it, than you don't get your concession and you don't get the topic.

-->
@Club

I dont get it

-->
@Dr.Franklin

That doesn't mean anything
it's like saying
What's so good about debateart?
oranges

I'm happy to clarify any point on my vote. The process of weighting the three contentions pro won against the zero con won, lead to the conclusion that pro won the debate.

-->
@Club

Nuclear Detterance

-->
@TheAtheist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Winner to pro

>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would happen in the first place. Pro, on the other hand, proved that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war, which means that nuclear weapons actually save lives. Con also forfeited a round, which is bad conduct and means he had no more arguments left.

>Reason for Mod Action: this vote is insufficient - the voter doesn’t appear to sufficiently assess the main arguments and points raised by both sides.

To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************

-->
@Dr.Franklin

MASSIVE GENOCIDE, is not bad? Just give me a reason, just a little bit's enough, why this is not bad.

-->
@Club

No its not

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Dangerous is bad in a way. Nuclear dangers mean possible genocide and massive destruction at risk, is that bad?

-->
@Club

The resolution wasn't its dangerous but bad

-->
@Trent0405

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to pro

>Reason for Decision: Con never proved that a nuclear war would be feasible. As a result, many points he made can be made pointless. Also, when con said it wasn't nukes that prevented war between the USSR and America, he never said what the reason in which he believes the two largest superpowers didn't directly fight each other for half a century. Great debate though

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Why is nuclear deterrence good? Because nuclear weapons are dangerous. Conceding again, fine sir.

Club mistook my statement about nukes being devastating, I used to claim Nuclear deterrence is good

-->
@Barney

Your reminder to vote :)

-->
@Club

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: club // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.

>Reason for Decision: see vote.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is borderline and as such is deemed sufficient.

What is sufficient: the voter surveys pros main arguments, and appears to weight them.

What is insufficient: the voter only implicitly surveys cons points, and appears to reference them only once indirectly.

Why this vote is borderline: the voter spells out one side’s arguments were conceded, implying that they’re accepted without referring to them. While the voter could have done more to list the individual points, I feel that to make the vote sufficient the voter needs to merely list the arguments rather than add reasoning.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Caleb

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Caleb // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point to con

>Reason for Decision: Pro presented a much stronger argument and gave more logical points, also Con forfeited which is poor conduct.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Finally, "To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************

someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote. Started an analysis tonight, but sleep beckons.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I gotchu

-->
@Ramshutu

Ok, will it count for the record?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Unrated means it will not earn you Ranking points

-->
@Ramshutu
@Pinkfreud08
@Speedrace

Should be an easy vote. What does it mean by unrated,it doesn't count??

-->
@Gatorade

it's ok

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Nevermind, I just didn't read through the debate thoroughly

-->
@Dr.Franklin

During the debate, you have never debated why they were good, but only defended that a nuclear war wouldn't happen. If you look down on nuclear wars, than why do you suppose they are good?

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I didn't post because, SOMEONE was hogging the computer all night

-->
@Gatorade

We have avoided nuclear war by chance however the technology with detecting nuclear attacks has since then I imagine it's gotten better so you won't wrongly guess if a country is going to attack you. In many if not all examples where we got lucky, the technology wouldn't be state of the art now. It's better to gradually reducing the supply of nukes to turn them into nuclear power. If we remove nukes all at once for the US or Russia, that is how you get the other side to nuke the other country many times. I would say to use 1 nuke per year for electricity sources, which I think is enough to power the US for a year under current conditions.

@Dr.Franklin
Sorry about that
I didn't realize it

-->
@Gatorade

But people can troll vote

@Dr.Franklin,
I want some new people (like me) to vote. The more votes, the better.

@Alec, according to an (I researched this topic for my thesis, but then I somehow got into being a Financial Manager?), interview I did with Dr. Tara Drozdenko of the Outrider Foundation, she stated " Most countries with nuclear weapons rely on them to intimidate other countries into not attacking. This is called "deterrence" because you are deterring your adversaries with the threat of nuclear retaliation. Deterrence works for the most part. But, the problem is we have had many times where we almost accidentally stumbled into nuclear war. In those cases, we didn't avoid nuclear war because our adversaries were deterred. We avoided it by chance. It was just luck that kept us from war...the only way to be sure to avoid nuclear war is to no longer have nuclear weapons."

-->
@Gatorade

As long as no more nukes actually detonate, we'll be fine. If you remove the nukes from the USA, Russia would obliterate the US. Nuclear power removes nukes from the arsenal and is good for the environment, at least compared to solar.

Every day that passes by is another day without nuclear war.

ok why is this not moderated

-->
@Gatorade

Nukes are at this point a necessary evil at worst and a source of energy at best. Nukes exist to defend against other nukes. They also can be used for nuclear power, which can gradually deplete the amount of nukes on the planet's surface. I think they are gradually being dwindled for power.

meh fuck it

@Ragnar and @Michael_Hastings, I am supporting the side that is against nukes.

-->
@Gatorade

Please clarify which side of the debate you are taking.