Resolved: All nations should have a right to nuclear weapons
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
"nation": a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status, with defined borders accepted by the majority of the international community
nuclear bomb: explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb)
"a right to": something to which one has a just claim
burden of proof is shared
Con1: Nukes are destructive, they are dangerous to have.
Pro1: Countries should know when to use a nuke and when to not. What is a civil country without it?
Con2: Nukes are considered destructive and there are examples of so.
Pro2: Wars will happen whatsoever, so what is the difference with and without? Countries should be rightful to own weapons.
Con3: *whatever said earlier*
Pro3: *whatever said earlier*
Overall, Pro proved only that Con is incorrect and that wars will come. However, he did not prove that every country should have the right to have nuclear weapons. Pro dropped Con's destructive argument and responded with a nihilistic viewpoint(Wars will happen with or without.). Con is the only one presenting any evidence of anything at all while Pro gave no reliable sources throughout the argument.
Arguments:
Deterrence
Con says that nuclear deterrence doesn't solve the problem of mistrust and fear. He also says that it causes leaders to judge whether other countries are sufficient threats. He also points out that the UN has decided to ban nuclear weapons. Pro replies that conflict will come. Thus, why should should countries deliberately weaken themselves? Con replies that international tensions with nukes are worse than without. He claims that if countries like the US and Russia gave up their nukes, they could convince rogue states to give up their nukes without having to use nukes. He also claims that the possibility that a country might break the treaty and secretly keep nukes merely proves that such countries have no right to have them. Pro replies that nukes are a necessary evil. "To expect countries to to lay down the greatest weapon they can achieve, to leave themselves defenseless, is folly." Con counters that nukes are WMD, violent, and unnecessary. He says that if rogue states keep their nukes, other nations should not lower themselves to use nukes. Pro reiterates his previous assertions that nukes are necessary and nations should not leave themselves defenseless.
Neither side does a good job of addressing each other's arguments on the question of deterrence. Both drop some of the other's points here. This point seems to be a wash.
Cost
Con also brings up the issue of how expensive nukes are. Pro doesn't address this. However, I'm really failing to see how a price tag relates to national rights. This is also a wash.
Accidental Detonation
Con claims that there are 32 instances of accidental nuclear detonation. Pro's only response is a comparison to powder cartridges, which seems to be to much of a stretch to be analogous. Con has an advantage here, but fails to press the issue after R1. Also, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by also bringing up the passage of safety policies meant to prevent future accidental detonations.
Sovereign Rights
This is Pro's strongest point. If a country doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons, how can it truly be sovereign? Con counters that "Pro's case is also self-defeating as the country secretly keeping weapons is violating our trust and further supporting the idea that it shouldn't have the right to nuclear weapons." This is one of Con's stronger points as well. If a country violates trust, why should it have the right to the most powerful weapons in existence? On the other hand, if it doesn't have that right, how can it be a truly sovereign nation? Neither debater really advances this point any further and instead merely restate their points.
Overall, arguments are tied. Neither debater did a good job of directly addressing the other's arguments or developing the points they made themselves. There were points of interest, but there isn't anything to make me award argument points either way.
Sources:
Con had sources, whereas Pro did not. However, Con fails to utilize them convincingly. He only uses them in R1. A good source-based argument could have won this debate, but Con just doesn't even try to source anything after the first round. No points awarded here.
No issues with S&G or Conduct.
Skimmed a little.
32 broken arrows does not seem to imply they were all detonated (as per the source). Con however missed this.
Thanks for the thought in your second round, my mistake though, still getting used to site.
Also apologies for my second round being a bit. . Villainous? Insane?
Just the way that it worked out.
Note, nothing Lemming says in comments should be used against him in voting process.
I don't think your stance is that 'no countries should possess nuclear weapons though, is it?
You could make that case. But it’s still tough to overcome the ban, and agreeing on specific countries holding power is tough
Darn, I thought I was Con somehow. . .
Well, finish what you start I suppose.
Hm, clarification on 'right?
One could say all Americans have a right to guns, but what's meant by that is Americans who aren't mentally crazed, Americans who don't have a criminals past banning them from guns.
So if I made the argument that all nations had the right to nuclear weapons, but then clarified it by countries of significant power or trust, would that meet your title of,
All nations should have a 'right to nuclear weapons?
If not, I'll go the every country has a right to nuclear weapons route, never mind their past or present,
But then make my arguments based on those countries not having a right to exist or that nuclear weapons should be allowed to all, never mind their past or present, in order to achieve some sort of objective.