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

The definition of Justice is horribly vague about what it means for something to be "morally right. " We ought to go with the affirmative conception of Justice. The one constant to all conceptions of Justice is that they all require some form of respect for humanity. We must contextualize Justice around preventing the dehumanization of individuals. You can extend the Haney analysis, about how dehumanization is an extremely powerful cognitive process that can distance people from the moral implications of their actions. Also extend the two justifications for this conception of Justice, as my opponent does not attack these as y they dont support my conception of justice. First, dehumanization destroys the freedom of will and justifies a follower mentality that enslaves the oppressed. And second, dehumanization denies individuals the ability to feel guilt and understand our own moral framework. Without that, there is little to identify us as humans, for the ability to feel guilt is intimately tied to our humanity. Opp Case Off I. 1. There is no justification for why this is the best way to evaluate the round. 2. Taken to the logical conclusion of applying this concept to international relations, any war for any reason is unjustified and does not give "Just desserts. " For example, even war with Hitler's Germany would be unjust because the war would kill civilians and individuals fighting in the army who are only fighting to defend their country. Applying this idea of "Just desserts" to international relations makes it impossible to combat the atrocities committed around the world, no one could respond to genocide or tyrannical leaders. A conception of Justice that would allow massive injustice to occur is a horribly UNJUST conception of justice. 3. There is a fundamental difference between acquiring a gun and acquiring nuclear weapons. There are a variety of ways to use a gun that are no threat to other individuals. Target practice, collectors item, and hunting are all examples. This isn't so with nuclear weapons. They have only one purpose, the destruction of humanity. They have no peaceful purpose. THERE IS NO WAY TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE. 4. While it is possible that individuals who are not directly responsible for the nuclear program could be harmed by the use of military force, given the effectiveness and accuracy of US smart weapons the collateral damage will be limited, and given the threat that nuclear weapons present this is Just. 5. 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. A conception of Justice that makes Justice meaningless is an absurd way to define the term, and we ought adopt the AC conception of Justice. Off II. 1. This is an abusive and unfair criterion because there is no possible way for the affirmative to ever meet it. The resolution requires the affirmative to be, at least to some small extent, non-pacifist. That makes it impossible for me to make any argument that shows how military force is pacifist. That alone is reason enough to reject the criterion, as it is supposed to be a mechanism by which we can evaluate who wins the debate, and both sides need to have access to being able to win the debate for it to be fair. 2. Pacifism, while sometimes effective, if followed in all situations will only lead to greater injustice. See my second argument on the last point and apply it here. Pacifism is not an effective tool in the international community, telling other nations that all we will do is sit back and protest while they build the tools of humanities destruction will do nothing. 3. There is no link to the value of just deserts, for that not only includes not harming those who have done nothing wrong, but also that those who DO propagate injustice and harm receive the punishment that they deserve. If we are as pacifist as possible, then we can take no action to deal with individuals and leaders who insist on oppression, violence, and genocide as ways to control their population. 4. If you wait for a "moment of dire need" you have waited too long, for the way my opponent argues that would only occur after the nations have acquired nuclear weapons. At that point it is far more risky to attack the nation to take away their nuclear weapons, and you risk far more harm then would occur had we stopped the nation before they acquired nuclear weapons. The US conventional military is unmatched by any in the world, but it is still no match for a war that goes nuclear, in that conflict all lose. 5. Iran may have taken a long time to build their weapons program, but that doesn't not mean that one cannot be created much faster. For example, North Korea. 6. It is easier to take a program out closer to its beginning, the longer you wait the more it grows and the more likely an attack may miss important components. Off III. 1. TURN: Cross-apply the second argument from above. 2. This evidence only shows that Iran would attack Israel if Israel attacked their nuclear program. THIS SAYS NOTHING about how they would respond to a US attack. 3. TURN: If we accept Iran's intentions, then we must equally accept their claim that they will wipe Israel off the map. The possible violence that could occur by an attack on Iran now would only be the threat of conventional weapons, if we wait and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and they attack Israel with them, the US will be drawn into a nuclear exchange, causing far more destruction than anything that could conceivably happen by attacking Iran. 4. This puts the negative in a double-bind, either we accept what Iran says and they will attack Israel with nuclear weapons, or we do not accept what Iran says and there is no longer any warrant for this argument. 5. Apply observation 2, any outcome of US intervention is extra-topical. My opponent accepts this, and you throw out this argument because it relies on the outcome of US intervention. Off IV: 1. There is no warrant in this argument, it is simply a collection of claims that are backed up by NOTHING. 2. There are uncertainties in any action taken, the existence of uncertainty is not enough if a reason to say something is unjust, otherwise it is impossible to say anything is just ever. Framework: This sets up how the round is to be evaluated. Extend the 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. Response to attack on 1: 1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly were nuclear weapons, and if you want to make that claim you need to back that up. 2. There is no warrant that MAD will continue to work if we allow more and more nations to join the nuclear club, especially as the nations attempting to acquire them are more dictatorial regimes who are far more likely to use them. Response to attack on 2: This is to justify my conception of Justice. Guns: 1. Refer to response 3 to the Value. Extend the Polebaum evidence, Nuclear weapons power create a system of dehumanization because of their totalizing power. Nuclear weapons desensitize humanity to its own destruction and demand that we live with their power. This meets the affirmative burden to show that nuclear weapons are dehumanizing, and you vote PRO based on that alone. Extend the Kreiger evidence, nuclear weapons serve as a distance between one society and the "other" that legitimizes violence in society that always deny respect for individual worth and thus dehumanize the individual.