States ought not use nuclear weapons

This debate only has one round, and unfortunately my opponent won't really get to debate. I'll just do what I can though. Very plainly, it is easy to see that this is a Lincoln-Douglass style debate [1]. In Lincoln-Douglass, the debater must provide a value and value criterion, or a standard, and then provide contentions to uphold those values after justifying why their value is best. I'm taking the con position; I'll begin with the affirmative case and then provide a few negative contentions, although my opponent won't even get to refute them. It wasn't me who set this up. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________VALUE/VALUE CRITERION DEBATE______________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ The value of morality isn't supported or upheld by my opponent; she merely defines it. I'll provide an alternative value by which to judge this debate later. The value criterion I accept; humanity seems to ultimately be a good method to achieve the value that I'm looking at. Although, my opponent's definition of humanity I disagree with. huï¿½manï¿½iï¿½ty    [hyoo-man-i-tee] –noun, plural -ties. 1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. [2] _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________REFUTATION OF AFF CASE__________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Overview: Notice how my opponent failed to provide any sources. To begin, none of the arguments can be accepted. But let's address them one at a time. C1) Security "Secret terrorist could hack into... nuclear systems and set the nukes off". Consider a few responses: 1) This is unwarranted, and hasn't happened since the invention of nuclear weapons. It is improbable. 2) Nuclear weapons are highly secure, and rogue organizations don't have the ability to penetrate their security. The following article explains. [3] C2) Economy I found my opponents source. She is absolutely misinterpreting it; that number is the price of the manhattan project. More realistically, consider this (according to the same source) [4]: ___________________________________ 2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500 U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project 3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000 Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965) __________________________________ C3) Safety Totally unwarranted argument. I could say "Something may go wrong [without] the nuclear system, and it most likely will endanger not only the innocent lives of that state, but some of the border of a neighboring state." I am just as believable. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________CON CASE___________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ As an alternative value, I provide maximizing human life. Nuclear weapons are a threat to human life, and this resolution would seem to be addressing that issue prima facie. I provide one argument; Contention 1) Mutual Assured Destruction Theory [5]. MAD naturally deters states from using nuclear weapons and promotes peace; I contend that the threat of nuclear retaliation dissuades all states from launching to begin with. Therefore, the possession of nuclear weapons will only deter their usage when publicly proclaimed, thus upholding my the value criterion my opponent advocates; meanwhile, my preferable value of maximizing human life is maintained. Vote Con _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________SOURCES_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.defense.gov... [4] http://www.brookings.edu... [5] http://history.howstuffworks.com...