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

"A person with a moral viewpoint is more than 99with an idea." It is because I agree with John Stewart Mill that I affirm , "Resolved States ought not possess nuclear weapons." Before I begin my case, I feel I need to define some significant words in the resolution and make two very important observations in order to achieve the best debate possible. Observation one: The resolution uses the word ought, which means "used to indicate duty or obligation " meaning I need not provide a method to remove the nuclear weapons, I only need to prove why it should be removed, assuming we are in a hypothetical instance. It also indicates that states have a moral obligation to not possess nuclear weapons. Observation Two: state is defined as a politically organized group of people usually occupying a definite territory, especially one that is sovereign. My core value is the concept of morality,which can only be truly achieved by the criterion of the Protection of Lives which states that every person is entitled to his own defintion of morality. The concept of morality is best defined by the Moral Standard Right, which states each individual has a right to his own morals. However, I will prove in the round that immorality does exist despite the definition becaue certain things cannot possibly be moral because they directly destroy the key element that creates morality, which is life. My value, the concept of Morality is important for global stability because if no state or few states value the life of their citizens or political leaders, then a form of war, conventional or nuclear, is guranteed. Philosopher Professor Vincent Jamison of Duke University explains in his research that, " The daily chemistry of our minds that tell us that murder or thievery is indecent comes from morality. Without this, we would be slaves to our desires. Every intention we ourselves consider selfless or selfish comes from morality. If for example morals or ethics did not exist, then there is no debate that people would make decisions disregarding other people, but only considering themselves." This proves that global stability, which is essentially considered a positive impact, cannot be achieved if morality is not valued. Since every human is entitled to his own morals, I will use the three most widely known concepts of morality as my contentions and explain why they are particularly applicable to this debate. Contention one: According to the well known theory of consequentialism(founder of this theory unknown), determining if an action is moral is solely based on the consequences it brings.This philosophy is best for this particular debate because the consequences of a nuclear weapon is both apparent and immediate. An example of this can be seen with the nuclear weapons. The main purpose nuclear weapons themselves serve is to inflict mass destruction in many ways, namely detonation and radiation. The consequences of a launch of a nuclear weapon can be illustrated in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which a single nuke decimated two major Japanese cities during World War Two, destroying what both the Japanese and American government agree to be a total of about 200,000 lives. The loss of lives is agreed to be deplorable due to the fact that without life morality itself cannot exist, therefore anything that harms morality is obviously not moral. Don Marquis of the University of Kansas explains that " Murder is not bad because it deems the killer barbaric or if it leaves relatives and family saddened. It is immoral because it deprives an individual of its future." This argument explains that another reason loss of lives is immoral is because it deprives individuals of the future, and civilization itself, along with morality, needs individuals to exist. This is important because life is a prerequisite to morality and the intended purpose of a nuclear weapon is to cause genocide. Unless the negative can prove that the loss of lives is not a morally negative consequence, nuclear weapons are deemed immoral, and if they are immoral that means civilization cannot exist if there are too many immoral things in existence, therefore if civilization cannot coexist with nukes then I win the round. Contention Two: According to the concept of morality known as Utilatarianism developed by John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the two reknown philosophists define morality as " Anything that brings the vast majority of all sentient beings happiness or pleasure." This philosophy can be applied to this debate simply because the vast majority of living things all consider life to be moral, in other words in gives them happiness if they have it, so taking life away in general is considered immoral. Obviously, nuclear weapons possess the capacity to take away life, so taking life away is immoral. This also states that if the majority of sentient beings considers something like nuclear weapons to be immoral,in which they most likely do because many people embrace major religions such as Christianity or Buddhism that directly prohibit murder of any kind, they have the right and the obligation to remove the weapons or do what they feel is morally right. If the negative doesn't prove taking away life is immoral according to most people's standards, then I win this arguments. Contention Three: The moral concept of Dionthology, created by Immanuel Kant, German Philosopher, explains that determining if an action is moral or not is based solely on the moral intent or good will an action has. This philosophy is extremely important because nuclear weapons are not based on good moral intent because they take away lives, as I have explained in my above intention. Also, if the negative happened to outweigh my significant evidence that nuclear detterence do not exist and prove it somehow does, I can argue that the nuclear detterence are based on bad moral intent as it implies that the states are willing to commit genocide simply to protect their own interest and not that of the globe, or states, as described in the resolution. In each of my three contentions I have demonstrated that the loss of lives is harmful and that it cannot be moral due to it not being part of the moral standard right because it directly contradicts the prerequisite to even have morality, life itself. Even if I did not clearly state why loss of lives is immoral, the negative simply cannot state otherwise else he would be stating genocide achieves morality. This is so essential that unless the negative disproves all three of my contentions, there is no reason I should not be winning the round because, I repeat, each contention directly contradicts how the loss of lives can be beneficial in its own individual way and clearly demonstrates that not only do the majority of all moral philosophies value life, but that without it, as I again repeat, morality cannot exist, meaning the concept of morality is achieved when lives are protected. Contention 4: Nuclear Detterents are simply an illusion that nuclear armed state's citizens use to feel a sense of security. states that are run by incompetent rulers or dictators in which the people have absolutely no say in politics may use a nuclear weapon simply because they themselves have little to lose and do not care about what happens to the state. James Hott, University of South Carolina professor explains, " The average human makes a false assumption that nuclear detterents are a foolproof way to ensure security. , the probability of a terroist group, which has no specific location or territory attacking is high enough that we spend billions funding our missile defense systems." Hott also explains that " Monarchs and dictators are known throughout history to put themselves in front of their country, even when faced with the prospect of severe destruction on their state, and thus should not be considered reliable in the false concept that nuclear weapons de