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

Definitions: "morally right" is still as vague as it was when 1st presented, there is no discussion about what that means. Only the Pro provides any meaning to Justice, we must contextualize Justice around preventing the dehumanization of individuals, as justified in the last 2 rounds. Off I: 1. Extend my second response, the idea of "Just Deserts" cannot apply to international relations because it would never allow us to combat atrocities because innocents might be harmed. A conception of Justice that would allow massive injustice to occur is a horribly UNJUST conception of justice, and you throw it out. 2. My opponent misinterprets my advocacy, it is not that we prevent dehumanization by preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons(while that would affirm the resolution, the second observation says we are not debating outcomes). Im arguing that nuclear weapons themselves are dehumanizing, which makes it is just to prevent their acquisition. 3. The fact that the only possible way nuclear weapons are not destructive is by not using them shows they have no purpose other than destruction, for no one creates something for its non-use, even if they haven't used it yet, it was still created because of how it can be used, and that is only in a horribly destructive way. 4. TURN: The argument that you increase the use of nuclear weapons with military force is unwarranted and doesn't make sense, showing the US will respond to nations who try to acquire nukes pushes that acquiring nukes will lead to US attacks on your country, decreasing the likelihood nations will use them. 5. Extend my 5th argument, If Justice is to be defined and argued that any action that kills anyone who has not themselves killed anyone, this conception of Justice either (A) falls prey to the result of my 2nd response or (B) nations will always be engaging in unjust actions and the very idea of Justice will be meaningless. this conception of Justice makes justice meaningless, and any way to define the term that makes it meaningless is a horrible definition. Off II: 1. This criterion is EXTREMELY abusive, the con side will always be more pacifist because the resolution requires the Pro be non-pacifist. A criterion is a mechanism to evaluate the round fairly, whoever better achieves it wins, but one makes it impossible for one side to win is an ABUSIVE criterion and shouldn't be used for that reason alone, we must use a mechanism that allows both sides the opportunity to win. 2. There is no reason why pacifism will give Just desserts, see the second argument against the first point, pacifism would not allow us to ever give despots and tyrants their just deserts. 3. It is pretty easy to see when pacifism will lead to greater injustice, when the threat is from a tyrannical leader of a foreign nation pacifism will allow for greater injustice. Pacifism is effective sometimes in domestic disputes, against oppressive policies by non-tyrannical states. A tyrannical state would simple kill those protesting peacefully. PACIFISM DOES NOT WORK IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. 4 If we can never use military force unless we know for sure we will do good we will never be able to use it, even in situations that it is essential for their use, such as fighting oppressive tyrants. 5. extend my 6th argument, it is far easier and safer to eliminate a program at its beginning, so it is far safer and will cause less harm to do it them than to wait, as the con would have the US do. Off III: 1. Yea, they would respond to the punches very differently if person C is closely matched in strength to person A, and vastly overpowered by person B. You may fight A, but if youre smart you will not fight B because you would be crushed. 2. My argument is that if we dont prevent them from acquiring nukes they will eliminate Israel because that is what they have said they will do. Con said he will believe what Iran says. Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map regardless if they are attacked by Israel first. Either we risk the response of Iran's conventional weapons, or we wait for them to acquire nukes and attack Israel, and given we are allied with Israel we will be drawn into a nuclear war. A nuclear war would be far worse than any conventional attack Iran can muster. 3. This is based on outcomes, making it extra-topical and you throw it out. Off IV: 1. It is irrelevant if the pro shows that nuclear weapons will be acquired or used, if they themselves are dehumanizing I have met my burden. 2. The ability to name a number of uncertainties that are BACKED UP BY NOTHING is not a reason not to engage in an action. The uncertainties have to actually be shown to have merit. My opponent has not produced any reason any of his uncertainties have merit. 3. Any reasons provided that these uncertainties are valid in the last round should be disregarded because I have not had a chance to respond to his justifications, which is unfair. Off 1: 1. There are several reasons that a nation with nukes would use them. If they have powerful first strike weapons that can eliminate the enemies nukes before they can be launched. Or if the nation has an effective defense system that can shoot nukes down. Or if they have a powerful air force and air defense system, and the enemy nation only has their nukes in the form of bombs. And MAD relies on a nations leaders being logical, leaders of nations such as iran could ignore logic and be overcome by religious or ethnic hatred, and the more leaders who can use nukes the more likely one comes to power who chooses to use them. So here's why you vote PRO. I've given multiple reasons showing why using my opponents framework, his value and criterion, are a bad way to evaluate the debate. My opponents only attack on my framework is that I don't meet it, not that it's a bad way to evaluate the round. Extend my framework, affirm is to express agreement with or commitment to. The affirmative accepts the ideals of the resolution. This, along with the aff conception of Justice, sets up the burden to show that nuclear weapons themselves are dehumanizing. If I do that, it would be just to prevent their acquisition and you vote PRO. That shows agreement with the ideals of the resolution. Re-extend the Polebaum evidence. Nuclear weapons desensitize humanity to its own destruction and demand that we live with their power. My opponents own arguments that we ought to accept such massively destructive weapons because they will supposedly bring us peace shows this as well, it causes us to view them as just another aspect of our civilization, which desensitizes us to their destructive power. Desensitizing individuals is a dehumanizing practice, which makes nuclear weapons themselves dehumanizing. That meets the burden and you vote PRO. Re-extend the Kreiger evidence. The very fear that nuclear weapons create and my opponent talks about is dehumanizing itself. It creates an us vs them mentality, where anyone who is not on our side is the other whose nuclear weapons we must be afraid of. This us vs them mentality is created by the nuclear weapons themselves, and that mentality is a dehumanizing one. Finally, ALL OF CON'S ARGUMENTS THAT RELY ON THE OUTCOME OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE ARE EXTRA-TOPICAL AND MUST BE THROWN OUT, this was agreed to in the 2nd observation without, without any qualifications placed on that acceptance. The observation was very specific "any argument that relies on the outcome of US intervention is extra topical. " Also, the so called "evidence" is about one country claiming they will attack the US, hardly strong evidence. Even if you did look to outcomes, you still vote PRO. 1. US responding with force decreases the likelihood nations will use nukes. 2. Pacifism in international relations is UNUST, it doesn't allow the US to respond to threats. 3. Allowing other nations to acquire nuclear weapons leads to nuclear war, see III above.