Are nukes good?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths.-https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
Because nuclear weapons deter our adversaries from attacking the United States, we are able to redirect our hard earned money to areas that allow us to better take care of our families.-https://www.businessinsider.com/3-reasons-why-americas-massive-nuclear-arsenal-actually-makes-the-world-safer-2017-7
As hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry, the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces. http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion-of-public-resources/
Globally, annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion – or $12 million an hour. (same source)
Nuclear bombs have killed 129,000 people.
We are talking about the present, not the past.
This was the cause of only two bombings (in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan). Imagine if all the nuclear bombs in the world were detonated. According to the site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein, if a modern day 150 kiloton North Korean bombs was detonated over NYC, over 700,000 people would die. This North Korean bomb is dwarfed by the current arsenal of the United States, with nuclear bombs that have a yield of 1.2 megatons, or 1,200 kilotons of TNT. According to the same site, if this bomb was dropped on NYC, over 1,800,000 people would die. A single bomb could do more damage than double the amount of casualties in the Civil War (which was the deadliest war in American History).
If a nuclear war happened there would be "two or three degrees of global cooling, a nine percent reduction in yearly rainfall. Still, such changes could be enough to trigger crop failures and famines. After all, these would be cooler temperatures than the Earth has seen in 1,000 years." according to https://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war. This will happen in a small war by India and Pakistan, with 100 nuclear warheads detonated. This is nothing compared to the massive arsenals of the USSR and the U.S. Also, according to https://www.theclever.com/20-shocking-facts-about-nuclear-winter/, the ozone layer would be massively damaged, causing a rise in temperatures after the nuclear winter. This will create a "nuclear summer", also drastically impacting the earth's environment.
We are talking about the present, not the past.
Imagine if a current nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would be hundreds of times more casualties and deaths. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just a fraction of the amount of damage a modern nuclear warhead could do. According to NUKEMAP, almost 2 million people would die if Tsar Bomba (the biggest nuclear bomb ever) was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You say 400,000-800,000 Americans would die. That is nowhere close to 2 million. Imagine seeing your dad die, but 2 million times over. That is the damage done by a nuclear bomb.
Nukes did not prevent a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the exact opposite happened. Nuclear bombs almost caused a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was the closest the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. ever go to a war. And what was the cause of this? Of course, nuclear warheads. The U.S.S.R. stockpiled weapons in Cuba, and the only thing that stopped it was luck, not deterrence.
Globally, annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion – or $12 million an hour. (same source)It's not cheap. $105 billion dollars is more than the entire military spending budget of Russia, more money than the budget of NASA, enough money to be the second richest person in the world. All in one year. We are spending more money on horrible things than useful ones.
Point 1 (Destructiveness) indicates how many people even a single nuke could kill. Pro attempts to argue that it wont happen because of how many people nukes can kill, basically saying nukes are so dangerous that therefore they are not dangerous, which completely undermines his own argument that they are safe. Its the equivalent of claiming that a crazy guy with a gun is so dangerous that everyone will avoid trying to interact with him for their own safety, therefore the crazy guy with a gun is safe, since he is so dangerous no one wants to find themselves in a conflict with him. That is incredibly nonsensical, as Con points out.
Point 2 (Environment) is entirely dropped by Pro who wrongly claims that a nuclear war has to be proven to take place for this argument to hold weight. That is blatantly false. A nuclear war does not have to actually occur in order for people to realize that it would be entirely devastating to the environment of the regional area, if not global community. It's the same as claiming that an oil spill from a tanker onto a coral reef cannot be proven to be bad for the coral reef until it actually happens so we can see for ourselves, which is a terrible line of reasoning to try to defend as Pro attempted to do.
Point 3 + 4 (Saved lives + prevents war) is the only argument by Pro that is somewhat defended, and con did a poor job of trying to rebut it, but the argument is undermined by the very next point in the debate mentioning instances where wars were almost provoked entirely because of the existence of nukes to begin with.
Point 5 (Cost) Pro completely drops the ball on by trying to argue that $105 Billion a year to maintain the nuclear arsenal is, somehow, not a lot. Con correctly points out that $100+ Billion on nukes is more than what some powerful countries spend on their entire military, which seals this argument in con's favor by a wide margin.
Of the 5 arguments made in the debate, Con wins nearly all of them in spite of the late round forfeiture. Spelling and conduct were fine on both sides, both sides utilized sources, so the deciding factor was arguments, where Con far and away won the majority of them.
While the four-category system may not apply, it still is relevant to a winner selection debate where the criteria all can be applied.
Conduct Pro - 1: R3 forfeit by Con and Con strangely trying to say history can't be used in the debate to turn things to his favour makes me tilt this to Pro.
S&G - Neither - 0: Pro had more errors but they didn't reduce understanding. The most strange one being spelling Sepukku as Sepuka despite the point not only having nothing to do with the debate but being in the link he used as his only remotely would-be reliable source if it had been relevant.
Reliability and Relevance of Sources - barely tied, Pro did worse- in fact I'd say 1 point to Con if I could give 1: Let me explain something, Pro had a YT video which basically never counts as reliable and was only to back up that Nukes apparently can be attributed to a decrease in warfare (without himself expanding on the how and why). Pro's only actual would-be reliable link was something to explain that the Samurai committed Sepukku... What does this have to do with the debate?! Using Nukes that killed so many civilians in an Era where the Samurai were long gone has nothing to do with the debate at all, it was a bad use of sourcing by Pro. Pro's business insider source was the only one used correctly to explore the cost of Nukes and risk vs reward. The other source while reliable again was solely about a war where the most horrific example of Nukes gone wrong was used... This is not a smart think to bring up.
Conversely, Con's science-backed sourced supported actual statistics of what would happen post-Nuclear war and also how expensive Nukes are (and what that money could be used on instead).
Both users need to learn to put a '- source' UNDERNEATH the quoted thing. You don't quote with the URL in your quotation unless you're quoting your opponent quoting the source...
Tip: ctrl (or cmd for Mac) + ] and [ help to make many layers of quoting, fast. Use the Enter/Return key to split parts up in the quoted text and rank them with the [ and ].
Arguments - Con - neither side defined 'Good' in the entire debate:
There was never ever a given definition of 'Good' provided in the debate. This means that in my eyes even if Con FF'd Pro would win (but I'd vote Pro if this was the case as the Code of Conduct demands us to ignore logic in such scenarios). Neither side explained what Good is, no dictionary was referenced and no real concept of Good was provided. Pro automatically loses because of this as if nothing is able to be shown as Good the default is nothing is proven good, including nukes. Con also showed that Nukes take away money and would cause catastrophe, Pro argues 'but that will never happen unless we are against Samurai types who commit Sepukku'... Well, okay, I guess Con didn't reply saying 'so it only takes one nation to be suicidal and BOOM' but even without Con arguing that, how does this prove it's Good?
This felt like a debate that was "Nukes are Evil." with the sides swapped. Pro clearly felt he was Con to a topic where the other side had the burden of proof and Con clearly felt that he had to prove they were sinister, rather than playing more defensive and exploring what Good is/isn't relative to nukes. Neither side was clashing in the correct dynamic of the debate but because Pro never proves Nukes are Good, only that they can maintain peace in the absence of suicidal types, thanks to mutually assured destruction, Pro loses by never meeting his burden of proof. Con successfully cast some doubt on how Good nukes may be and again, Pro shot himself in the foot but Con didn't capitalise on it when Pro said but a war will never really happen. If a war will never really happen, why then did you just admit that it not only can happen but be very necessary such as with these "sepukku types"? Con didn't retort that, but instead said history shouldn't be brought into the debate... This was all very strange.
Cons case is that Nukes are bad for the environment, and are devastating weapons.
Pros case is that their only documented use in warfare ended up saving lives overall, and the existence of nukes essentially help maintain the balance of power and prevent a more devastating conflict.
Pros case is dependent on a nuclear war never happening: if it could happen, cons case would take precedence.
Pro argues that the nuclear war is unlikely because of the inherent dangers and destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Cons case here breaks down a little - as he argues that nuclear weapons have almost caused a nuclear war. My issue is the almost, and con points this out: nukes can be thought to be a precipitating reason for the stand down.
My view of the two sides here is mainly that pros argument is that in balance nuclear weapons help reduce deaths by preventing wars. While there could have been more arguments surrounding whether that is necessarily true over a long enough time line: con doesn’t really raise or justify that.
As a result, the idea that nukes prevent deaths and are unlikely to be used is better justified by pro imo, thus pro wins.
Based on the resolution being a question, I am going to assume split BoP. To answer the question favorably to their side, pro needs to show they are good or better, con needs to show they are outright not good or worse. ... Apologies if I have reversed pro and con on anything, the weird debate setup still catches me off guard sometimes.
Gist:
Con's best point could have been men like Curtis LeMay having access to nukes (how dare we not have nuclear airplanes!), but he never got that deep into the topic. As is, nukes were shown to improve our quality of life. The extreme what ifs deal with probability, to which every year without nuclear war shrinks the probability. If we take the estimated death toll multiplied by the probability, it gives us a lower expected death toll than the number of lives saved per year (neither debater did this analysis, but it’s the logical conclusion missing from their arguments). This becomes precisely zero if pro’s insistence that you can’t use past data on this.
1. death toll (pro)
Con references the death toll, which pro counters with the greater number of lives saved.
Similarly, con references potential deaths if massive numbers of them went off, which pro counters with the decreased number of wars we’ve experienced for fear of them. In R2 pro tries to counter that the very death toll he cited from Japan doesn’t matter anymore, which feels like a betrayal of his own R1 argument; it was the basis for his estimating how many more people would die if more nukes went off (for which con expertly mocks him).
2. the environment (pro)
This felt a little tacked on, given that the first point was basically we’d all be dead, so no one would care about crop failure… So con argues USA and Russia would ruin the ozone layer, but con countered with a nice short video explaining why those two specific countries do not war with each other (and why most countries do not war with each other anymore).
Con asserted against reason that nukes only increase the number of wars we’ve experienced… No, just no, the data we've been shown here directly contradicts this. The Cuban missile crisis was a close call, which could have been leveraged to a real case on the death toll, but it was wasted here (not that it can't cross lines, but the point did not have enough built up around it for such).
3. Economy (pro)
pro argued that it additionally saves us money. Because I like numbers, I’m pulling a quote from his source: “the average American taxpayer spends about $225 per year on the nuclear arsenal (sovereignty insurance), while at the same time they spend an average of about $1325 on auto insurance and $12,000 on health insurance.”
Con's counter that this adds up to a lot for any individual if he or she could receive a check for this much (not how it works...), but it fell flat as a sum applied to everyone. (peak spending during the cold war, would have served him much better here)
Well both sides had good points but in my POV con won.
First Round
One of the only statements Pro made that was good about nukes was about how it saves lives. Yes, in some cases it does but not all. The rest was just saying how a nuclear war would never happen.
"No one wants to declare war. This is simple. When a big country has nukes it would only make sense that the other big country wouldn't have fought with nukes because nukes are SO devastating."
Pro concedes with most of cons points right here, saying how nukes are "SO devastating". How is this a point that proves nukes are good? It doesn't. Saying there is no possibility of a devastating nuclear warfare is dissing nukes itself.
Second Round
Most of Pro's responses had to deal with how A DEVASTATING NUCLEAR WAR WOULDN'T HAPPEN... AGAIN DISSSING NUKES
"This is of course IF a Nuclear War happened. A nuclear war will never happen. Nuclear deterrence is the key. No side wants to use nukes do you know how many "close calls" we have had but NONE OF THEM TURNED INTO A NUCLEAR WAR. The fact is that if America had nuke sin the 30's WW2 would never have happened. Germany would never take the risk. Unless you can prove this war will happen these argument is invalid"
Third Round
Con forfeited the round, and Pro makes good points, but still not enough to convince me to make him/her win, because he/she conceded.
Its fine it doesn't count
Yeah, I believe so too. I just reviewed the debate, and I feel as if I should've gave you more points/
BULLLLLLLLSHIT
Atleast its unrated
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
*******************************************************************
>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
ok
Well Gatorade disagrees too, let's just see how this plays out...
ok sure,Rganar diasgress
If you don't get it, than you don't get your concession and you don't get the topic.
I dont get it
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.
Nuclear Detterance
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
MASSIVE GENOCIDE, is not bad? Just give me a reason, just a little bit's enough, why this is not bad.
No its not
Dangerous is bad in a way. Nuclear dangers mean possible genocide and massive destruction at risk, is that bad?
The resolution wasn't its dangerous but bad
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
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
Your reminder to vote :)
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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.
I gotchu
Ok, will it count for the record?
Unrated means it will not earn you Ranking points
Should be an easy vote. What does it mean by unrated,it doesn't count??
it's ok
Nevermind, I just didn't read through the debate thoroughly
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?
I didn't post because, SOMEONE was hogging the computer all night
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
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."
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
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.
Please clarify which side of the debate you are taking.