All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed

The Potential End “It doesn't matter how close they came to "blow[ing] each other to bits", the facts are that they DIDN'T blow each other to bits. M.A.D. worked”. Yes, M.A.D worked and “prevented a war plain and simple”, but my point is that it is an inefficient method of maintaining world peace. To have Nuclear weapons that can potentially annihilate a vast proportion of the planet is inefficient when compared to having no nuclear weapons what-so-ever that will not pose said threat. There is no risk if there are no weapons (in the entire world), whilst there is still a (albeit slight) risk in having weapons. What would have happened if a nuclear technician accidently set off a nuclear weapon in the Cold War? While there is relatively low risk in governments creating and maintaining nuclear arms, there is still risk. Police Brutality “Your argument is straying from the original resolution now. We are arguing for the destruction of weapons not the creation of some new society”. Through the creation of a new society we can destroy all weapons in the world. It is because we can create a new society that all weapons should be destroyed. “I already pointed out that we do have a fear and disgust for crime instilled in us from a young age and enforced by our legal system.” Yes, but again, not to the level of fervency which would provoke different mindsets of our young. “Weapons are key to law enforcement because without the threat of some sort of retribution in the field criminals would never, ever surrender.” If we slowly, but surely decrease the necessity and/or temptation to commit crime, there will eventually be no need for the police. “Also, this debate is not about our legal system it is about the existence of weapons.” The legal system is one of the reasons why weapons are required (currently). As you have specified, the police (currently) require weapons to enforce the law. “No matter how hard you try you won't eliminate crime. If it were doable it would have been done by now.” This claim (in the second sentence, I left the first in the quote for context) is made under the presumption that all methods to eliminate crime have been attempted. I asked my opponent to explain the process involved reaching this conclusion, but he has yet to do so. It is, as it stands, an unsupported statement, and is therefore an unsupported presumption. Teaching Children “Are you supporting a system of vigilante justice in which criminals are cheered when killed in the streets?” Not killed, but eschewed in society. People could treat them contempt and unbridled resentment upon merely acknowledging their existence (i.e. saying “hello” in a nasty way). It will have a similar effect to peer pressure; people will not want to be hated by their fellow men and women. This inner insecurity can be exploited effectively to reduce the people’s tendency to act violently. “What you are proposing is almost the exact same thing US President LBJ proposed in his Great Society and War on Poverty and it did not work.” I would like to highlight the word “almost” in this sentence. It is possible the aspect which separates my proposal from LBJ’s is the aspect which will make my proposal work. Since the proposals are not exactly the same, we cannot conclude that my proposal effectiveness will be the same as LJB’s. ”Your argument: create a system in which crime will not exist and therefore the need for weapons disappears. However, we are talking about today's world and the situation in reality. In our current situation, if we made all weapons disappear today, it would not work. The debate is not about creating a utopian system in which weapons serve no purpose but whether or not we should destroy all weapons TODAY HERE AND NOW. And the answer to that is no. “ Your conclusion is correct relative to the information you have provided. However, “TODAY HERE AND NOW” is not specified in the terms of this debate. The resolution: “All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed”, instructs that the weapons will be destroyed in the future, not “HERE AND NOW”. Let me give you an example: “I should not do this”, said Johnny. Johnny has yet to “do this”, hence the “should not”. Now, Johnny is not doing “this” now or the sentence would read: “I should not be doing this”. Conclusively, according to the resolution, the weapons must be destroyed in the future and not “HERE AND NOW”. Weapons are Tools “Are you suggesting the First World buy tablets to sustain the entire Third World? This isn't viable in today's day and age. This doesn't happen”. First World countries already give plenty of aid [1] to Third World countries, and while this is far easier than what I’m suggesting, it shows that First World countries care about Third World countries. Now remember, this process will take time and does not have to happen immediately. The First World countries can slowly increase the level of aid given until the Third World countries are no longer so. “The Third World needs weapons to hunt and protect themselves from criminals and dangers”. Not if there are not criminals or dangers, which will happen in the long run if the methods I explained in the previous contentions are taking into account. Of course, I understand that we cannot simply remove their weapons right now. I stress this is a process that will take time. “Man still hunts as sport and for food in some backwater areas and Third World countries. Hunting is not a dead art”. Increased aid will make hunting become obsolete (eventually). “Once again you talk about a new society that does not pertain to this debate”. It most certainly does pertain to this debate as this new society will rid the need for weapons. Furthermore, I have explained why having no weapons is more favourable (favourable as it reduces all the risk of creating and maintaining weapons) to having weapons (if we can choose). Therefore, we should implement this “new society” as it would allow us to choose not to have weapons as this is preferable. “You can't just eliminate a tradition and a sport because you feel like it would help your new society”. This is an argument of immorality (as I, given the right permission/power, can most certainly eliminate a tradition). I don’t see how it is fair that the whole of society suffers due to some “tradition”. Perhaps a computer generated world (a video-game) that allows people to carry out their “tradition[s]” would suffice as a solution. “People would fashion their own makeshift weapons and continue without your support”. This is, in all honesty, a guess. You cannot see the future (I’m not being facetious), and whilst you may have based this statement on what seems the most likely to happen (in your opinion), this is a conclusion based on opinion. Resources “In the US arms manufacturing and sales is one of the biggest industries we have. We are the world's largest weapons exporter and total revenue has totaled over 5 billion a year for the past ten years. [1] So while the military incurs costs the weapons industry makes some of it up through sales. And according to your number, overtakes "military spending" by quite a bit”. Okay, I admit defeat in this contention. In summary, although my methods to create a new society would be hard to implement, it is still possible. My opponent exaggerates the apparent idealistic nature of my methods by implying that the world must change right here, right now. As I demonstrated, the resolution specifies that the weapons must be removed in the future, not necessarily right here, right now. A slow implementing of a new society (in every country) would eventually allow for the destruction of all weapons, which is, as I showed, preferable to having weapons. I thank my opponent for his time and I hope this is an interesting read for anyone else. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...