WW3 will not be a nuclear war.

Thanks for this debate. --- 1C0A: Definitions WW3: A world-spanning industrial war, the third of its kind. will (1): 1: expressing the future tense. (Applicable; WW3 has not happened and is not happening.) 2: expressing inevitable events. (Applicable; belief in an inevitable non-nuclear WW3 is possible) 3: expressing a request. (Non-applicable; Pro is not requesting Con to make WW3 non-nuclear.) 4: expressing facts about ability or capacity (Non-applicable; the resolution isn't about whether a nuclear war will be possible at the time of WW3 (I think).) 5: expressing habitual behavior (Non-applicable; WW3 isn't a habitual behavior.) 6: expressing probability or expectation about something in the present (Non-applicable; WW3 is not in the present.) Nuclear War: A war involving nuclear weapons. As such, the resolution means "A world-encompassing war, the third of its kind, not involving nuclear weapons, is inevitable in the future." --- 1C0B: Burden of Proof The burden of proof (BOP) is solely on Pro, because Pro must assert something while Con doesn't have to assert anything. If Pro fails to fulfill Pro's BOP, Con wins. --- 1C1: Uncertainty Pro is asserting the inevitability of a non-nuclear WW3. In order to disprove this, I must merely show the possibility of an alternative or alternatives. (Because if something is inevitable, it has no posssible alternatives.) 1C1A: Possibility of Non-Existence of WW3 The non-existence of WW3 is entirely possible, because it is possible for any non-necessary thing to not exist. Until Pro proves that WW3 is necessary, the resolution is negated. (If WW3 doesn't happen, then obviously it can neither involve or not involve nuclear weapons; hence, Pro could not fulfill their BOP and Con would win.) 1C1B: Possibility of a Nuclear WW3 Nuclear war is entirely possible, because it is possible for any non-contradictory (internally or externally) thing to exist, and a nuclear war is not readily contradictory to itself or the universe. It is furthermore possible for a world war (such as WW3) to be or include a nuclear war, because a world war is not in contradiction with a nuclear war. Until Pro proves that a nuclear war is impossible or contradictory with world war, the resolution is negated. 1C1C: Lack of Perfect Knowledge In order for Pro to assert inevitability, they must additionally have perfect knowledge; otherwise, it is possible that they have missed something, and inevitability does not hold. (Or at least perfect knowledge of all relevant details; in order to determine what is relevant, they must know what it is.) Pro must prove that Pro has perfect knowledge, or else Pro loses the debate. --- 1C2: Nuclear War Probability Pro may accuse me of resolution-sniping; while I can neither confirm nor deny this, I'd also like to defend my case outside of inevitability. Senator Richard Luger's survey of 85 national security experts puts the probability of a nuclear attack in merely the next 10 years at an average of 29 percent (2). This gives a reasonable likelihood that nuclear war will occur, regardless of WW3. Furthermore, consider what events could possibly start off a war the scope of WW3. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of wars have occurred since WW2. Yet WW3 did not start. It has been 69 years since the end of WW2, while WW2 was only 21 years after WW1, and WW1 was preceded by decades of enmity. Clearly, this peace is more durable. What could shatter it? Not Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan, all major proxy wars. A nuclear strike would do just the trick, however, and might be the only thing big enough to upset the balance of power. Also consider the possibility of a nuclear regime, such as future Iran or North Korea or Israel, which believes that a nuclear strike is its only hope at survival. This could start a major war, and paranoia is all too common. --- References: (1) google.com/search?q=definition_will (2) nuclearrisk.org/3likely.php