Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

I won't include too much content in this final round; I'll merely address each issue individually to crystallize the individual arguments within the round in the context of the larger image. I'll frame the round essentially in the same manner in which I've organized the debate:1. Right of other nations to impinge upon the sovereignty of Iran So my opponent doesn't even grapple with the notion that the international community doesn't have the right to invade Iran based upon speculation. He merely continues with this speculation, avoiding the larger point. This concession alone wins the round. But many other concessions alone win the round, I presume. All Pro offers us on this point is arguments that Iran wants to kill the Israelis. I'm being quite generous by even categorizing this under the same point as sovereignty and right to defense. But all of my opponent's points are based upon his own prognostication, unwarranted by actual evidence. Let's address his contentions one by one, under their proper category:2. Likelihood of Attack 1. Hitler did itRefer to my many salient differences between the two regimes as well as the fact that, while Hitler may have done it, that ignores all of the people in the past who have not engaged in genocide yet have hated another group of people. He says that, merely because of hatred and the acquiring of means to slaughter, Iran will necessarily do so. Interestingly enough, he drops my analogous contention, that is Pakistan and India, offering no explanation as to how a radical and unstable nation such as Pakistan has managed to acquire nukes and refrain from using them with both evidence of terrorist ties as well as an enemy who also has nuclear weapons. This point can also be applied to the suitcase nuke point. Why hasn't it happened in India yet? But I digress. Comparisons to Hitler are easy to make, yet harder to warrant. The fact that Nazi Germany and Iran both share a relative disliking of Jews is not evidence in and of itself of inevitable genocide. 2. Charles MansonDo I really have to answer this one? A comparison between Iranian Pm's and legislators and a known sociopathic serial killer with severe mental infirmities? Come on. My argument wasn't that it isn't possible for people to want to end the world to prove a point. My argument is that it's unlikely, and no amount of sociopathic serial killers will prove that point wrong. 3. Death to IsraelOnce again, my opponent fails to cite this, making his claim unreliable. But even if some important members of the Iranian government were chanting this, it does not mean that Iran will act upon this for reasons stated above, such as MAD, and a few radical members of the government do not necessarily control all action taken by the government. 4. Suitcase nukesThis still, as my opponent concedes, will likely lead to retaliation. So MAD is solvent in the face of all of Pro's contentions except for the willingness to engage in nuclear holocaust to prove a point contention, which I address above. But then Pro says it would be easy to construct a suitcase nuke and sneak it into a city, forgetting both the tight security in Israel and the fact that building a nuclear device capable of operating inside of a suitcase is certainly no small feat, and it doesn't necessarily follow from acquiring of nuclear capacity that Iran will be able to develop such weapons. If he opposes this technology, then he should oppose the technology directly, not the acquiring of nuclear weaponry altogether.3. What action would look likeI appreciate my opponent's last-minute response to this contention, but insofar as it is a completely new point made in the final round, voters cannot accept his rebuttal and must still take it as dropped. But just for fun, because I have extra space, I'll address it anyway (note that even if you don't accept my rebuttal as refutation of my opponent's contention, I still win on this point because his contention is new in the final round thus should be discounted). My opponent turns to invasion, as I suspected he would. However, he does not actually engage with my arguments, namely the warrants that back the arguments. He turns to military invasion with the goal of government takeover. He doesn't address the possibility of usage as a retaliation to this invasion. He doesn't address the issue of demolishing of sovereignty of Iran merely because they're developing a weapon that the very invaders possess themselves. And he unsatisfactorily address the issue of the cost in both lives and money of such a war, though he concedes likelihood of instability after. While he fails to address why the destruction of a sovereign is warranted by the development of weapons possessed by the invaders, it doesn't matter. Discount this point. It's new in the final round. Note that Pro did not contest my weighing mechanism for the debate. He thus concedes that it is his duty to keep this argumentative chain intact. Therefore, if you acknowledge my victory on even one of the three points I've provided, I win outright. Even if you don't accept one or two of my arguments, the third will still gain me victory by the conceded weighing mechanism provided at the beginning of the debate. So let's frame the debate in an ostensibly concise manner:1. I win because my opponent fails to prove that the international community has the right to invade Iran in this situation. Pro only uses one analogy to attempt this at first, but he later drops my contentions and thus concedes this point. His analogy fell apart into more accusations of Iran's desire to attack Israel, which totally skirts the issue of our right to attack them.2. I win because Pro did not prove that Iran will attack Israel. His contention to the notion that Iran does not want to commit genocide is that Hitler did. If this doesn't cry "desperate for rebuttal", I don't know what does. But then he attempts to use something that he reportedly heard somewhere, from someone or something, as evidence. The notion that people chant "Death to Israel" all the time. All he had to do was source this to prove its validity, but he didn't. If this was common knowledge or a common occurrence, we would expect no trouble finding at least one source verifying it. The notion that some people wish for the end of the world is warranted by Charles Manson. Charles Manson. Let me just repeat that for you one more time. Charles. Manson. Mental infirmity is not comparable to cultural hatred of a specific group. Mass delusion and indoctrination is a sociological issue. Not a psychological issue, as Pro frames it. One more time. .. Charles Manson. Iran is a sovereign and their leaders are unequivocally hungry for power. My opponent does not satisfactorily address their natural tendency to avoid nuclear holocaust. 3. Automatic concession, automatic win for Con. Pro answers contention in last round, thus we should discount this contention as we would in all debates, and acknowledge this point as conceded. Pro doesn't prove that the resolution is a feasible, ethical option. Thus the resolution is unaffirmed. Any one of these points gives Con the victory, and you'd be hard-pressed not to automatically award me with both the first and third points, as my opponent directs his entire offensive towards the second point. Insofar as I still effectively address his contentions on the second point, this debate appears to be a sweep to me.