Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

For my final address of this resolution, I would first like to address the value clashes, then revisit the most important parts of the debate, and lastly sum it all up. Also, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting first debate and express that I look forward to his final word. Core Value and Judging Criteria Clashes: Throughout the debate I have been an advocate of peace and common good, my opponent an advocate of Just War Theory and human rights. I believe that peace always trumps Just War since peace is a universal goal. Contrary to popular belief and any arguments my opponent may still make, peace is attainable and sustainable. It just takes a little more effort than dropping a nuclear weapon on a disagreeing country. Because the principle of peace takes the common interest, general well being, and happiness into mind, it stands over Just War theory, which states that nations do what they must in war as long as their goal is "good." While my opponent's judging criterion of human rights is an important aspect of war and everyday life, I must say that it upholds my case better than his. It goes hand in hand with peace. In the case of nuclear weapons, human rights are always infringed upon instead of protected. It's due to this that I must argue that my criterion of common good upholds my own case better than my opponent's criterion of human rights upholds his negative viewpoint. Weighing our values against each other, one must assess whose value is most pertinent to each opponent's own case. Important Points: -Contention 1: My first contention states that these weapons, for the two offensive uses during WWII, cost too much to date. Our nation should not place such a rarely used weapon such as these so high on our so-called "defense" budget. My opponent seems to think that possessing less (around 3000-3500) nuclear weapons will be better. On scale, however, we would be spending just as much. As I stated, just buying 108 new weapons over the coming 2 years will cost $4 billion more. And what do we even need more than 2000 of these things around for? We haven't used one since the forties. What makes anyone think that tomorrow there will be a sudden use for them? I uphold that my first contention still stands. -Contention 2: In my second contention, I say that unspeakable damage is done with these weapons, as proved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan has suffered through long-term effects and immediate effects alike. My opponent agreed to this fact, but he seemed to justify one of his arguments with "it was war." While it is an accepted fact that war causes death, unnecessary deaths are a different story. He essentially said that any weapon can cause damage or sway a nation. If that's the case, why do we need nuclear weapon? Due to my opponent's admittance that they cause damage, I must say my second contention still stands. -Contention 3: My third contention addresses that there is no proof of nuclear weapons being effective, therefore it is unnecessary to stockpile and claim "preparation against attacks" as a reason. My opponent said that they are in fact weapons of defense, even though our only reason for use was offensive and we have no current reason to assume we'll need them anytime soon. Again, assessing of the argumentation in the previous rounds, my third and final contention still stands. Opponent's Case: -Contention 1: My opponent seems to think that nuclear weapons deter from large-scale wars. If Russia were to threaten us, we could threaten back in a practice called Mutually Assured Destruction. In a country where we believe nuclear war is immoral and unnecessary, the threatening to use them makes us seem hypocritical. I cannot stress this enough: the threatening to do something immoral IS immoral, even if you don't follow through. Due to this, my opponent's first contention falls. -Contention 2: My opponent argues in this contention that there is such a thing as a just war. While I'm not disagreeing that there are good results sometimes, such as in the Civil War, I am disagreeing that the means taken to reach an end in war can be unjust. My opponent mentioned using nuclear weapons to "end a war against a nation that along with Germany practiced Lebanserrum (genocide of the local population to create living space for your people)" and said it was just. In this case, the use of nuclear weapons immediately make the war unjust. But my opponent's example of the Civil and Revolutionary War do not pertain to this case since there were no weapons of mass destruction involved. Since his examples are irrelevant to this resolution, this contention falls. -Contention 3: My opponent addressed the supervision of nuclear weapons to make sure that they weren't being used illegally or dangerously. I argued that they shouldn't require supervision that strong, since that probably means they aren't ethical. As a response, my opponent brought up money, energy, and education as examples of supervised practices. I must refute this by saying that they are supervised on a much lighter scale. Money boosts the economy and helps businesses, energy provides power and services, and education contributes to the future of our country. In a worst case scenario, our economy will have a recession or depression, which indeed sucks, but our nation will recover. We could have an energy shortage or our children will get shortened school hours or less learning material. But worst case scenario with a nuclear weapon means destruction and havoc. Because the worst case scenario with a supervised weapon is more disastrous than too little money, power, or education, my opponent's argument falls. Due to the immorality and inefficacy of nuclear weapons, I kindly ask for an affirmative vote for this debate.