Preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons is Just (full resolution in 1st argument)

DEFINITIONS: The great thing about this resolution is that I can prove that the use of military force by either definition. It isn't morally right because you are creating unnecessary violence, AND nuclear weapons don't cause the dehumanization of humans unless they are used which is a HUGE uncertainty. But by using military force, you CREATE the dehumanization of humans by invading a nation (and as my case said) risk the provoking of a revengeful attack. Therefore, military force is proven unjust by BOTH definitions. I. VALUE OF JUST DESERTS: This is the best way to weigh this round. If you want to see who dehumanizes more humans, use just deserts. Whoever gets their just desert was not dehumanized, therefore, by HIS definition, we must use just deserts. Furthermore, you must see that negative gets more just deserts because I don't GUARENTEE the dehumanization of humans. My opponent seems to be debating that we are preventing the use of nuclear weapons but that isn't true. What IS true is that we are preventing the acquisition… no more no less. When we prevent the acquisition we don't know if we prevent any dehumanization but what I DO know is that military force dehumanizes humans AND military force may provoke a revengeful attack. When he says, "THERE IS NO WAY TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE", he must re-read the resolution, we are ONLY preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons AND there is a way to use nuclear weapons that is not destructive, and that is not using them at all. But when you use military force, you simply push the idea of using nuclear weapons. Thus, using military force actually has a greater chance of having a nuclear weapons used. II. CRITERION OF PACIFISM: This criterion is not abusive whatsoever. It truly puts the round into perspective. The more pacifism that you get, the more people that get their just deserts, thus the more just you are. BUT, when you use military force, you lessen the amount of pacifism there is and therefore are less just. He continues by saying that if we keep pacifism then SOMETIMES it leads to a greater injustice. I agree with this but I also agree that you can't see when these are going to happen. We can't use the ends to make the means just or unjust. SO, if we look to where the time in this resolution is, it's in the MEANS that we must determine what is just and unjust and what we see is the simple action of acquisition of nuclear weapons (not use)… Therefore, it is UNJUST to go against the idea of pacifism by preventing a mere capability. Furthermore, if we are pacifist, we give more people their just deserts (at least the ones in the hands of the United States)… Also, you have to see that the "dire moment of time" may not be what is smart… but the resolution does NOT ask us what is smart but rather what is just, and what is just is using military force when you KNOW you are doing good rather than just a guess. Therefore, pacifism must be upheld in order to meet up with either one of our definitions. III. REVENGEFUL ATTACK: His first argument against this is pretty funny. He says that the U.S. and Israel are two different countries and that they would react TO them differently. It's sort of like if person A and B punch person C… Do you really think that person C would react much differently to the two punches? It just doesn't make any sense. He then goes on to say that Iran is a major threat. But what you have to see is that he is calling military force use just ONLY after Iran is a major threat (when they have already acquired nuclear weapons)… but that is not what we are debating, instead, we are trying to prevent nuclear weapon acquisition which hints that the use of military force is BEFORE they can even be this "major threat"… Onto the "4" argument, I'll take the first one where I believe what Iran is saying… BUT as I've previously stated, Iran can't attack us with nuclear weapons UNTIL they have them. Not to mention that the evidence only says that Iran will attack us when 1) We attack them (which affirmatives doing only) AND 2) Iran GETS nuclear weapons (which they currently do not have and if you don't believe me I'll bring evidence up in next round but even if they don't it doesn't matter because they have already acquired nuclear weapons thus not making them a part of this resolution)… Finally, onto "5", what you have to see is that I only agreed to the observations so that we can debate what CAN happen rather than what will happen (since we don't know for sure what will happen). This evidence thus can still be accepted as it points to a good chance that this can happen. IV. UNCERTAINTIES: When you are dealing with peoples LIVES, you simply should not have this many uncertainties (just too quickly not that these uncertainties are ONLY on the affirmative side)… It's not like being uncertain on a question on your math test… this is people's lives. It is unjust to put people's lives in risk when you are so uncertain about if you are doing anything. He says that these aren't backed up by anything, but you have no backing up that these nuclear weapons will ever be acquired (if they are when) AND if they will EVER be used in ANY form whatsoever. In the end, these uncertainties are upheld at the end of this round… FRAMEWORK: My opponent has yet to show HOW nuclear weapons are dehumanizing AND if it is just to use military force to prevent this dehumanization. Furthermore, my argument here is that nuclear weapons ARE dehumanizing but ONLY when they are used which is a huge assumption, and a stretch, and a MAJOR uncertainty, but what isn't an uncertainty is that military force is dehumanizing. This debate comes down to an unjust action (military force) TRYING to stop a POSSIBILITY of an unjust action (nuclear weapon acquisition/use (use is the unjust part)). 1: Fine, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear weapons (as far as this debate goes but they are nothing when compared to the nuclear weapons of the current age)… but when this claim is made, then you have to see that since the they were the ONLY nuclear weapons ever used, then the more countries that get nuclear weapons, the stronger M.A.D. is… No one would dare nuke anyone else with nukes because there would inevitably be a revengeful attack of nuclear weapons by the country itself OR EVEN an allied country. Therefore, the more nuclear weapons, the LESS likely that nuclear weapons will ever be used "again." POLEBAUM EVIDENCE: Again, nuclear weapons are only bad when they are used. KREIGER EVIDENCE: Nuclear weapons don't legitimize violence, they actually lessen it. Again, cross-apply my Israel/Iran evidence which shows that Israel wouldn't dare go near Iran if they knew that nuclear weapons could eventually be used. People begin to get scared when nuclear weapons are in the picture, so violence is actually minimized. Therefore, nuclear weapons are not dehumanizing and it is certainly unjust to use military force (an unjust action in and of itself) to prevent this acquisition. Therefore, you should vote CON. Thank You!