States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons (Ld)
“I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
Ronald Reagan spoke these words in office and not for the fact that he was in office, but for the fact that these words are true do I agree with him. We used our nuclear weapons once, merely one time, saw the cause and effect, yet we keep them in our possession to potentially attack again. We not need these weapons laying around, but to be dismantled and done away with entirely, which is why I affirm the resolution that states:
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
For clarity, I present definitions and observations; States; independent nations. Ought; used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence Observation One: To have possession of a weapon is signifying the ability, preparation, and willing to execute their use, because taking lives is immoral then possession for something of that same cause is immoral.
Within today’s round, we must recognize what the main goal of nuclear weapons is, to protect the nation that controls them. Because of this, we must value Societal Welfare above anything else in this round. The winner of this round must be able to recognize a world where Societal Welfare, being the maximization of a country’s wellbeing by increasing the economic, political, physical security, and prosperity of its people, are improved. For this reason with costs, consequence, and benefits of an action, we must do this through Utilitarianism, which emphasizes doing the most good for the most people.
Contention One: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Improve Lives “Nuclear weapons represent a structural and existential trap, of which there are only two ways out: with bombs being exploded, or bombs being dismantled. Either we disarm, or we perish.” Jonathan
Ronald Reagan spoke these words in office and not for the fact that he was in office, but for the fact that these words are true do I agree with him. We used our nuclear weapons once, merely one time, saw the cause and effect, yet we keep them in our possession to potentially attack again. We not need these weapons laying around, but to be dismantled and done away with entirely, which is why I affirm the resolution that states:
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
For clarity, I present definitions and observations; States; independent nations. Ought; used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence Observation One: To have possession of a weapon is signifying the ability, preparation, and willing to execute their use, because taking lives is immoral then possession for something of that same cause is immoral.
Within today’s round, we must recognize what the main goal of nuclear weapons is, to protect the nation that controls them. Because of this, we must value Societal Welfare above anything else in this round. The winner of this round must be able to recognize a world where Societal Welfare, being the maximization of a country’s wellbeing by increasing the economic, political, physical security, and prosperity of its people, are improved. For this reason with costs, consequence, and benefits of an action, we must do this through Utilitarianism, which emphasizes doing the most good for the most people.
Contention One: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Improve Lives “Nuclear weapons represent a structural and existential trap, of which there are only two ways out: with bombs being exploded, or bombs being dismantled. Either we disarm, or we perish.” Jonathan