AFFIRMATIVE CASE Introduction: Nuclear Weapons have proven over the years that they are deadly, dangerous,

destructive, and hard to manage. This is why I am for the resolution, States ought not possess nuclear weapons. The value I will be upholding is: Security The criteria I will be using are: Consequentialism The terms I will be defining are: States- "States", as defined by Merriam Webster, is a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory. I would also like to point out that the resolution implies that by using states plural, it is referring to ALL STATES in the WORLD. Possess- To have and hold as property: to own also defined by Merriam Webster Ought- used to express obligation, logical consequence: also defined by Merriam Webster Nuclear weaponsan explosive device whose destructive potential derives from therelease of energy that acco mpanies the splitting or combining ofatomic nuclei.

Contention one is: Before I begin, I would like to point something out. Realistically, there is no way that we would be able to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons. The states that currently have nuclear weapons arent going to get rid of the ones they have, and countries that dont have nuclear weapons arent necessarily going to stop trying to get some. Now with that being said, we cant argue as if this were a realistic world. Now we must argue like its in an ideal world. In an ideal world there is no way that we could say that we WANT nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that they are dangerous and deadly so why would we WANT them. It would make more sense for them to have never been created and for us to never have them, in an ideal world. Now with that in mind there are reasons that since we DO have them we need to get rid of them so that we can have the ideal world we want. One of those reasons is that according to the FAS (or federation of American scientists) A nuclear weapon is 50% blast, 35% thermal radiation, and 15% nuclear radiation. What this means is that with nuclear weapons its not just an explosion but it is also different types of radiation that spread out over a large area. Another point as to how dangerous they are is that you can become blind, or have severe eye damage just by looking at a nuclear explosion. So you dont even have to be near it to experience pains, and

lasting problems. There is also always the threat of exposure to radiation, which can cause cancer and other health problems years later. As many of you know it is the States moral obligation to protect mankind, and we can do that by getting rid of things as dangerous as nuclear weapons. The resolution says that States OUGHT not possess nuclear weapons. Ought in definition is used to express duty or moral obligation. This means that it isnt only a bad idea for states to possess nuclear weapons, but it is their MORAL OBLIGATION not to. Contention two is: Whereas some countries have nuclear weapons currently, what is the real purpose of them? As shown in history before aka. The cold war, even though two countries have nuclear weapons and were ready to use them, they would never actually use nuclear weapons. They went for years with everyone in the paranoia of the possibility of a nuclear attack. They just sat there and posed threats, but no one would ever actually do anything. Throughout this whole time it ended up costing the U.S. over 8 TRILLION dollars from getting the nuclear weapons just so that they could just sit there and do absolutely nothing. Instead in your ideal world with no nuclear weapons whatsoever, you wouldnt have ever had this war, and you wouldnt ever have used this money and put people in the paranoia of a possibility of a nuclear attack. With that in mind everyone knows that if anyone fired a nuclear weapon the world would be destroyed because of the war it would throw us into. Seeing that we know that no one would ever actually use nuclear weapons why do we even have them? If nuclear weapons are just going to sit there and take up space and give off harmful chemicals to the world, wouldnt it be easier to get rid of them? There is no real use for nuclear weapons in todays world Contention three is: Now I come to my third point. Seeing as though countries unnecessarily have nuclear weapons, it gives terrorists, other countries, and other nuclear powers more chances to steal nuclear weapons or illegally buy them. Just having the possibility of nuclear weapons around increases types of terrorism. For instance, September 11, 2001, do we really need another 9/11? If we were to completely get rid of nuclear weapons, that means stop making them, throughout the entire world, and begin to carefully dispose of the weapons that the world has now, then there will no longer be the threat of nuclear destruction. Conclusion: Throughout this case I have showed that they are dangerous, deadly, and hard to manage. Plus there really isnt any true need for them because no one will ever even USE them against anyone else, because everyone knows the dangers of what that could bring. Besides throughout all of

this, in your IDEAL world you wouldnt have, need, or want nuclear weapons, so why have them? NEGATIVE CASE Introduction: It seems as though people always think of nuclear weapons negatively, but its not necessarily always a negative thing. Throughout this debate, I will argue why I am against the resolution States ought not possess nuclear weapons. The value I will be upholding is: Security The criteria I will be using is: Social Contract The terms I will be defining are: States-countries Possess- to own Ought- moral obligation Nuclear weaponsan explosive device whose destructive potential derives from therelease of energy that acco mpanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.

Contention one is: People think of nuclear weapons as bad things, as destructive things. Whereas this may be true, they are also protecting us now as we speak. They have been protecting mankind for over two generations now, and if we were to get rid of them we would be destroyed. When you think of states, as countries, you can see that if we as America got rid of our nuclear weapons then other countries would just use theirs and destroy us and we would have nothing to protect ourselves. And the same goes with if another country got rid of theirs than another one would go and destroy them. As you can see we cant get rid of nuclear weapons or we will be destroyed. Nuclear Weapons could possibly be one of the only things that are holding this world together. Let me explain, The cold War, it was a stand-off, America vs. Soviet Russia and both powers were threatening to attack the other with nuclear weapons. But did anyone? No, the government saved everyones lives, which goes back to my criteria, by threatening back and protecting us. We showed them that we had nuclear weapons as well and we stopped them from firing upon us. As you can see where people get worried is us actually USING the nuclear weapons, but instead we really dont need to. We only need to possess them. Thats what the resolution is really all about. It isnt whether we use them or not, its just possessing them. And possession in and of

itself isnt dangerous. In fact, possessing them, it secures us, it keeps our citizens safe and secure and protects the entire human race.

Contention two is: My second contention is that there IS such thing as a JUST WAR. There are reasons that we have wars, and they arent just for no reason. For instance, the American Revolution, The civil War, World War 2, they were all JUST WARS. If you think about it, in these wars it wasnt a crime, or a wrong doing to be shooting, or to be killing your enemy, but it was wrong to NOT be shooting and killing your enemy. So what is the difference in these cases from shooting to win? Or Firing nuclear weapons to win? They both achieved the same thing. Many people have heard of the Social Contract, but if you havent, its a contract between you and your government that says that they will protect you. I believe, no, I KNOW that the government NEEDS to possess nuclear weapons to do that. Imagine with me for a second. Imagine America actually got rid of their nuclear weapons, which by the way, realistically wouldnt ever happen. Do you HONESTLY believe that we would still be safe? I believe that people would be more afraid of not having nuclear weapons to protect us and have to live with the fear and danger of being destroyed. As you can see, there is NO WAY that we could get rid of nuclear weapons unless you wanted to die, destroy the human race, and cause a gigantic nuclear war. ARGUE THEIRS.

Cross Examination Questions: (negative) Q: Is it not true that because of nuclear weapons we were protected through the cold war, and other nuclear attacks throughout the years? Q: Do all states have the same morals? Q: Is it possible that some states find it moral to keep their country safe by possessing nuclear weapons? Q: Is it true that the bills for nuclear weapons have been going down now that we no longer really use nuclear weapons? Q: Is it true that by possessing nuclear weapons, states are afraid of firing nuclear weapons? Cross Examination Questions: (affirmative)