Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

First, I must point out that my third point is still uncontested. At this point, unfortunately for Pro, he is unable to retort, as beginning his rebuttal on that particular point in the final round would be a new point and thus unethical. However, he has conceded more than just the third point by not giving any possible avenues of policy by which we could actually stop Iran without either failure or impermissible action. He hasn't contested my impact either, in which I state that, if Pro does not refute this point, you cannot possibly vote for him as he fails to provide evidence that this is feasible and morally permissible. Insofar as these concessions stand, Pro loses the debate outright. I needn't even cover the other points (but I will). My opponent first falls prey to a Nazi analogy, which admittedly we all do from time to time. The problem with Nazi analogies is that they're almost always invalid. Germany was a "civilized nation", but that didn't change with the Holocaust necessarily. It changed when the country was crippled by WW1 reparations, hyperinflation on levels you couldn't even imagine, and a rise of the Nazi regime that eventually granted absolute power to one man known for his opinion not that the Jews were part of an inferior and competitive religion, but that the Jews were parasites that fed off of society and creativity and that they needed to be destroyed. There is a fundamental difference between the "Islamic Republic of Iran" and Nazi Germany, including both the ideological reasons for hatred of their leaders and the conditions under which heinous acts potentially take place. Another reason that Germany was able to slaughter millions, as with many genocides, was that the millions being slaughtered were members of their own nation, meaning that they believed that hiding the evidence from the international community was possible. It'd be hard to hide anything on the scale of nuclear holocaust from the global community, I would say. Acting upon your own citizens is fundamentally different than acting upon the citizens of another nation.Concerning your analogy, a few people chanting "death to Israel" (which by the way, is unsourced in your argument, so any voters would be hard-pressed to take what you state as fact) is not comparable to actually slaughtering millions of innocent Israelis. Not only does this only represent a fringe group of Islamic extremists, but this also is more than likely a metaphorical chant, not about the death of Israelis, but the death of Israel itself and what it embodies to the Iranians. They would like to see the Muslims regain control of Palestine, but are they willing to face the wrath of a nuclear Israel and America while slaughtering millions of innocents for it? No, and a few chants is not sufficient evidence to show otherwise. Neither is "I heard that" a source.Merely stating that they have funded terrorists in the past is not evidence that defeats a necessity for defense. The United States funded terrorists to fight Russians a few decades ago, but I doubt you'd argue that they don't need defensive measures as well. Also, my opponent does not, as I've asked, discern between nuclear bombs and other weapons as to why one bomb is impermissible but an entire army is not. At this point, take it as dropped in the round.My opponent claims that, today, Iran is more of a theocracy, but this does not mean that the leaders still don't have the same lust for power that guides them to prudent decisions, such as "don't attack Israel". Especially now, when other nations would be unlikely to help as they would have in the past, such as repressive theocratic regimes in Iraq, unhindered armies in Syria, and a more authoritarian regime in Egypt. The only reason my opponent gives for bombing Israel is that Muslims want to bring about doomsday. This is the epitome of speculation. He states that some doomsday cults want to bring about the end of the world. He then states, sans evidence, that some radical Muslims share this desire. He then believes that the leaders, who lust for power and probably do care about their lives and the lives of their constituents to a degree, will be willing to condemn their entire nation to martyrdom for the sake of partly incapacitating Israel. This point, as it stands, is self-refuting.And "suitcase nukes" is not an refutation of my previous point. If, as I stated, Israel is aware that Iran has nuclear capabilities, and they are struck by a nuclear bomb, it does not matter the source. They will jump to the conclusion that it is Iran. They will attack Iran because they will believe that no one else could have done this. My opponent also assumes that a suitcase nuke is easy to build and that terrorists will be able to sneak the bomb into a major Israeli city. He also now predicates the reason as to why we shouldn't let Iran obtain nuclear weaponry upon the notion that "they will make a suitcase nuke, give it to Hamas, and let them bomb Israel with it." This is an absurdly narrow and ridiculously unfounded attempt at prescience that certainly is not and will never be grounds by which we can impinge upon the sovereignty of another nation for developing a bomb that many nations still use today in a defensive manner, including Israel themselves as well as Pakistan and India. By the way, Pakistan is quite Islamic, and we haven't seen them attempt to nuke India nor have we seen them fund terrorists to do it for them. They haven't made an attempt on Israel either. But that's besides the point.My opponent's concession of my third point is grounds alone for voting Con. The other points just hammer the nail into the coffin with additional force.