Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que)

I'll go AC-NC-Voting issues. Onto the affirmative. He rebuilds his value saying that his should be paramount because it is universal. However he did not actually refute my argument about him admitting life is a prerequisite to morality. So now we must agree that life is more important than morality since with no life there are no morals. Thus the negative's value of security becomes inherently stronger because it is protecting life, and without my value we could not even debate about morality. He talks on his criterion saying if he proves deterrence he wins this point. Sure. But as we'll soon see, deterrance is true. He rebuilds his contention 1 saying that we must evaluate concequences. I agree. My argument however was that his point was all impact and no warrant. He kept talking about nuclear destruction and what it will do but never linked the possession of nuke weapons to them actually being used. Go back and read his original C1 and you'll see. He states he talked about terrorism, however this was more of a side-note mentioned at the very end of his case. My argument still stands here because this contention, contention 1, had no warrants to nuclear use. Contention 2: He defends my first point against it by saying deterrance is false and nukes will kill people and all that. I'll get to that later in C4. He drops all of my examples where I apply his theory to other scenarios. So I will repeat my attack and then we will count it as true for showing the flaws of this theory. Here is a direct quote from my opponent "If it has potential to take away lives, then it is immoral according to utilatarian standards". Ok, so lets ban food, water, and houses since all three of these have the potential to kill people. Obviously though those things are moral. But his theoy would say otherwise, showing you how flawed his interpretation of utility is. Then he says that the public may not be aware of MAD theories but they do know loss of lives is bad. My opponent has basically agreed with my argument then, since my point was that the public doesnt support nuke weapons since they are not aware of the safety we have from them. My opponent did not deny this. Contention 3: Again he drops all my examples where his theory of deontology is applied to other scenarios, showing how it is false. Please extend those. He talks about a world where everyone has nukes and how thats bad. In addition to this not applying to deontology (which talks about bad intent and not universal posession), my opponent cannot make this argument because he never said how we will get to the point where everyone has nukes. He just randomly brings it up and never links to how it will happen. Contention 4: He states terrorists can get nukes through the same ways major countries got them, assembly through uranium and such. First off he does not deny that terrorists cant steal nukes, please extend this. In addition, affirming will not solve for this problem of terrorist assembly. Nuclear materials have no correlation to nuke weapons. The materials can be found in any nuclear energy plant or in some natural environments. If we affirm and depossess all nukes, it will not solve for terrorist assembly of them because nuclear materials will continue to exist due to their use for nuclear energy. About reckless rulers. He did not actually address my point about them avoiding nuclear war since destruction of their own country means they cannot rule over anything. He just talks about the possibility. I have proven that this "possibility" of use is no greater than the possibility of the sun burning out tomorrow. Onto my case. He says his value is better because it is universal since everyone has morals. I ask, is this a good thing? What about suicide bombers, who's morals tell them to kill themselves and take as many people as they can with them? Is it good that they have morals? As we see, its *because* everyone has their own morals that security outweighs, because people valuing security will not do crazy things like this. Criterion: Deterrance works so maintaining our nuclear policy is desirable since there is no threat from nukes. C1: "We cannot undermine the capabilities of the human race to make irrational decisions. You can never get rid of the probability of nuclear war" Lets once again apply his theories to other scenarios. By this logic we should launch a major space campaign to live on Mars since we cant get rid of the possibility that the earth could be destroyed by the end of the month. We should kill everyone in the White House since there is a possibility any one of them could climb the political ranks and become the next Hitler. So whats my point? It is possible for the probability of something happening (like nuke war) to be so small that it need not be worried about. He keeps talking about the possibility of deterrance failing, but when I have refuted every argument where he gives example of how it could fail, you must realize that we are completely safe from nuke. Onto his "Twilight of the Bombs" argument. It supposedly lists all these detonations that have happened. However since my opponent did not provide a link to this particular video so we could verify it, I will provide a link for him (1) and then analyze it. This link provides a list of nuclear accidents in the past 60 years. However,the most recent is in 1984. This was before we had the ability to cancel a detonation within the first 12 minutes. Thus any accidents that happened in the past are not a threat now, since we have improved security measures and accident prevention methods than we did 26 years ago. Round summary/Voting issues: 1. Deterrance. My opponent has only attempted to disprove it through terrorists and irrational leaders. So please extend that rational leaders will not use them since there was no clash on this. Terrorists cannot steal nukes due to their security and assembly through nuclear materials is not solved for by either side since they do not relate to nuclear weapons. Irrational leaders will not let their country be destroyed because they would the have nothing to rule over. 2. My opponents concepts of morality are shown to be ridiculous when applied to real life scenarios, such as banning food, and prohibiting the "immoral" threat of imprisonment for murder. I thank my opponent for starting and staying committed to this debate (which has been hard for me to find ever since I joined a short while ago). I also really thank everyone who bothered to read all this stuff and I hope we get a lot of votes, as this has been a great sim of an ld round. I urge a con ballot. http://www.cdi.org...