Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que)

I will be giving my final rebuttal, thank you once again for acepting this debate. On my value, he claims i make no attacks against life. This is false. The only way lives could possibly be protected is through detterence, so therefore as i have said several times before, disproving detterence disproves his entire case. On my Contention one: You can read my contention one i clearly link possession to use. The MAD theory essentially states that no nukes will be fired offensively because of mutually assured destruction. Therefore, if detterence is false, then we can only conclude nuclear use is inevitable. He can't use the "side note" attack, this is simply a desperate attempt to garner offense. Contention 2: If i can successfully defeat contention 4, contention 2 is dropped as well. Contention 2: He attacks utilatarianism using food,water and houses as examples. Since he did not mention these specifically, i am allowed to refute this. His arguments make no sense. Sure, everything can take lives, but food and water are prerequisites to life so he cannot use those examples. True, houses can kill but the probability of a house itself killing is extremely low, for if perhaps a hurricane knowcked the house down it would be nature's fault, not a humans. He also claims the public has no knowledge of nuclear weapons. My argument against this is "Why should they have any?" The concept of detterence is so debatable it would be utter bias to state it as it as fact. Detterence is a theory, not a proven fact, the only evidence to support the effectiveness is past examples, but it does not look toward the future. If nuclear detterence do not exist, the only other purpose is usage, which the public would deem immoral since it would inevitably take lives. contention 3: he makes no attacks against the categorical imperative, which is essential to deonthology, al he questions is the intent part. He says i don't give a time when we would reach the stage of failed detterence. I do not need to accomplish this, I only need to prove the probability of failed detterence exists. If the probability exists, the theory is false. contention 4: The fact he is saying smuggling is impossible is not true. This is the same as detterence, there will always be a probability, however low. I agreed the probability was low, not impossible. My opponent is being highly abusive in this instance. He is simply assuming when i affirm i expect states to destroy nuclear weapons. This is not true, an alternate solution is the formation of an international organization. We cannot get rid of the probability of a terroist state assebling a nuke, which the neg agrees to, but we can make the resources needed to achieve this virtually unattainable, or make it to a point where it would take incredible innovation to create an effective weapon. Defending my case: Valiue: he states terroist think it is moral to kill themselves. First off he cannot extend this arguments. Second, terroist view suicide as a necessary evil. example: In the bible, does not god give orders for men to kill others to exact the vengeance? Necessary evils can exist, it does not mean terroists think it is moral. Third, he himself admits life is a prerequisite to morality so obviously if life creates morality is it always going to be moral. Contention one: He is basically making the argument that because i am condemning earth and the corruption of humanity i cannot win the round. This is utterly not true. Basically every major religion such as christianity, islam ,judaism, and buddhism state the world will end in some way, for better or for worst. in a scientific approach, there is significant evidenc of dinosaurs becoming extinct due to a meteor. 90% of all species have become extinct. When the sun dies out, or when a comet hits, the probability of extinction will increase dramtaically. although the time frame is long, we cannot deny the inevitable possibility. twilight of the bombs: His source is false, there have been more detonations than 1984. in fact, how could south africa and north korea obtain nukes if not for testing them, which requires detonation. i advise the audience to google or youtube search it. In order for successful detterence, we must have nuclear testing to ensure the weapon has the power to achieve the so called "MAD theory" Voting issues: I have successfully defneded all of my contentions He never refuted my terrois state attacks and his only reckless ruler attack was that i was condeming mankind. I successfully disproved detterence, my evidence obviously outweighed his. My value is more universal My criterion is more achievable and more directly linked to my value He admitted we live in a changing world where political tendencies can change. Therefore, that is why i urge an affirmation ballot. thank you, opponent, and may i ask, what level of Ld are you in at your school?(novice or varsity) Contention 2: Contention 4: