DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

About UtilitarianismI never said that you don't need a moral system to make decisions, I was just stating that one need to analyze the problem first. But I do believe that Pro can't show a compelling case even with Utilitarianism. Relation between nukes and wars1. Nuclear war's probabilityPro here claims that because there were 20 cases where nuclear war didn't happen, this shows that it's very unlikely. This actually would make it more likely. Like rolling a dice several times and not getting an specific number. This of course, should not affect the probabilities Pro and me are using.2. Nuclear war vs asteroidsThen he claims that an asteroid is more probable and it would save more lives. Considering that he is using the same amount of lives in the comparison, let's just compare the probabilities. He is using 1 in a million and 1 in a 4000. This comparison is unfair. I did not address this issues because he did not compare the probabilities until now and my arguments were not related to the probability of an asteroid colliding with Earth. The first issue is that as stated in his source number 16, that probability is inaccurate:"The probability computation is complex and depends on a number of assumptions that are difficult to verify. For these reasons the stated probability can easily be inaccurate by a factor of a few, and occasionally by a factor of ten or more. "The second issue is that he is misinterpreting his own sources, at least if consider a fair comparison. The asteroid of the presented probability is an small body asteroid that has a probability of colliding with Earth of 1 in 4000 in the year 2880. Also mentioned in Pro's sources. The probability of 1 in a million I used for my side is the probability of it occurring right now. Considering that he is using the probability of a single asteroid in an specific year shows that the probability of an asteroid colliding with Earth is not as high as Pro makes it seem, and that small body asteroid would probably no be taking 7 billion lives.3. Nuclear weapons and the probability of a nuclear warHere Pro claims that because nuclear weapons exists in both worlds, there is also the probability of a nuclear war in "Con's world". It's true that considering that took a passive position, my side has still the possibility of contain nuclear weapons, therefore the possibility of nuclear war, but none of us is taking the real world position, or at least to an extend, I would be taking the real world position. But Pro is taking the position that states has the obligation of possessing nuclear weapons. There are only 7 states that possess nuclear weapons with some others that might possess them. That means that there are a lot of other states that are not possessing nuclear weapons. If more states were to possess nuclear weapons, the fact that there are more states and more nuclear weapons increases the possibility of a nuclear war. Pro here still uses deterrence as a way to reduce the possibility of a nuclear war. The only thing he shows to prove this is his source of reduced war after WWII of few states. Pro just asked me to show my own data even when the problem would persist in mine too. This problem may not be enough to invalidate the results completely, but his data would not affect nuclear war. His data doesn't show the reduction in nuclear war because it has not happened (yet). EmpiricsPro accepts that there is an small sample size. This makes the results less accurate. How can you know the probability of getting an specific number with a dice? The bigger the data, the more accurate the results will be. 7 states is a very small sample size compared to the states of the world, and even the states that participated in war in the past. Nukes and asteroid deflection1. Prefer nukesIt's true that nuclear deflection is more effective, but it should not be preferable if we need nuclear weapons (and their disadvantages) for nuclear deflection. In other words, this point part of Pro's argument is not as important as the first part. Pro showed the advantages of nuclear weapons, but not its disadvantages. This is in no way weighting the consequences.2. ProbabilityAnd asteroid is terrible, yes, but here Pro claims that it's more important than the nuclear war issue because it is more probable, using then, his reasoning on the first part in the comparison between the probability of nuclear war and an asteroid colliding with Earth. This is false. Conclusion -Pro tried to use Utilitarianism weighting only the advantages of the possession of nuclear weapons. -Pro has not used accurate enough data to show significant deterrence, specially considering that with slight different factors, the situations I presented as possible nuclear war would have ended in nuclear war. -Pro misinterpreted his own sources and used them to make an unfair comparison. -Pro showed more sources, but considering that some of them were to show that asteroids are terrible, they hurt utility, and one of them was used to show an unfair comparison, I don't this is enough to give him the sources points. This and the fact that more sources doesn't mean better use of reliable sources. -Pro has not presented compelling case for the obligation of states to possess nuclear weapons. In any part of the debate showed a relation between his defense on nuclear weapons with this obligation. The best scenario for his case s "We are fine as we are now", which is not Pro's World. Thanks for the debate.