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

Ok, I will defend my case and move on to attack my opponents. My value is the one that should be used because the concept of morality will always be universal. Everybody will always have some concept of morality in their minds, even if that entails dancing naked, or doing things we deem bizarre\. Criterion: Ok, basically he just says he is achieving life better than me so all i need to do is prove detterence false to win. C1: He states consequensalism is not applicable to the round because we are debating possession. This is false, it is utterly pointless to debate possession without considering the consequences. For example, if i threw a piece of paper on the ground and knew it would cause the world to explode in ten years, I obviously would not throw it onto the ground. In doing this I must consider consequences. I do prove use will happen through terroist states, which i shall delve further into later. C2: What i stated was the vast majority of people value life in general. Therefore, if detterence does not work then it will inevitably take away lives through usage. If there is a slight possibility of this occuring the states should not take the risk. If it has potential to take away lives, then it is immoral according to utilatarian standards. He also makes a claim the media does not talk about MAD. Ok, I agree with this but people do know that the loss of lives is harmful so therefore if i once again prove detterence and MAD false my contention stands. C3: Deonthology, he makes attacks on the intent, but not the Categorical consequences i mentioned in CX. Thei imperative asks people to consider what a world where all states possessed nuclear weapons would be in. This is slightly repetitive, but if detterence is false, the more possession of nukes, the more chance of a nuclear war. C4: He automatically assumes terroist will smuggle them. You can never get rid of the knowledge of nuke so therefore a terroist could one day aquire the uranium to creat a nuclear weapon. The negative acts as if smuggling were the only way to aquire nukes. How did China get nukes? How did U.K.? How did North Korea? The terroist state argument stands, proving his entire case false. You can never get rid of the possibility of a reckless ruler, such as Hitler, who killed himself and abandoned his country simply because his own ambitions failed him. Turning to the neg case: Value: My value is clearly better because the concept of morality is universal, everyobdy has theri own morals,whereas security is extremely subjective. Criterion: His criterion is essentially detterence in that he states by posessing nukes we will automatically be secure. C1: He agreed in cx that we live in a changing world. Therefore, political stability will always shift. We cannot simply dismiss detterence as unrealistic. We cannot undermine the capabilities of the human race to make irrational decisions. You can never get rid of the probability of nuclear war. Also, he does not refute the fact detterence need only fail once for the whole theory to be dismissed entirely. Simply because detterence has worked in the past does not mean it will in the future. He states detonations have never happened other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Cx and that we will never have an accidental detonation. I disprove this with the "Twilight of the Bombs" which is essentially a video directly showing the total amount of detonations in the world since world War Two. The amount is approximately 1,189 detonations. The clip shows several accidental detonations in areas such as Russia and China, although the nuclear weapons then were not as powerful as they are now. He argues against smuggling but I have proven smuggling is not the only way to aquire nukes. So basically I have disproven his entire case and defneded mine and that is why you must affirm. The negative will now give his final rebuttal. Value: