Resolved: The Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral

My opponent uses a lot of fallacies and loaded language in his argument. I will just go through the points one by one and refute them. He starts it off with an ad hominem attack. Attack the arguments, not my credibility. Plus, I am taking Physics and my teacher has talked about nukes in the course, as well as nuclear theory such as MAD. So even if you consider ad hominem to be a legit argument, it"s false. As for his claim of my ad hominem, I said the argument was ridiculous and morally repugnant, I never said my opponent was. So I did not use any ad hominem, but I"ll be winning the actual debate as well. He says nukes are to keep other countries in check, but as I showed, wars still happen. So saying nukes stop terrorism is clearly false- terrorism is a huge threat to global security even though many countries have nukes. Terrorists do kill at random in my opponent"s world, so his argument doesn"t make sense at all. As I showed, MAD does not apply to terrorists, so they can fire nukes without fear " and some of the terrorists organizations with suicide bombers want to die. My opponent does nothing to stop terrorism. As for WMDs always existing, this is non-topical. Just because one bad thing exists doesn"t mean another should. I don"t have to show that WMDs are OK, just that nukes are bad. If people moved from these previous chemical weapons to nukes, clearly nukes are more disastrous. So not only does his argument that WMDs are worse than nukes make no sense, but it isn"t pertinent to the debate at all. Then to his third response. If nukes just stop other countries from nuking you, then why don"t we just all not have nukes? Plus, India doesn"t need nukes while another country has it " if any country were to nuke another, then everyone else with nukes would bomb that country. Source [11]: "The most fundamental objective of our strategic policy remains nuclear deterrence. I reaffirm the directive of PD-18 to that effect. The purpose of this directive is to outline policies and actions in the nuclear force employment field to secure that continuing objective. (S) Our strategic nuclear forces must be able to deter nuclear attacks not only on our own country but also on our forces overseas, as well as on our friends and allies, and to contribute to deterrence of non-nuclear attacks." So as long as the US has nukes and one other country to keep the US in check, that is sufficient. So India doesn"t need nukes, as it will just feed into my first contention points a-d. I already addressed his accusation of an ad hominem attack " I"m sorry if it seemed like one, but it wasn"t. As for Japan, his arguments refute his point. First of all, one nuke didn"t even make Japan surrender, so clearly nukes failed at forcing the surrender. And the soldiers won"t surrender even if their country gets nuked. That argument just helps me! Even though Japan got nuked, soldiers didn"t surrender and the emperor didn"t either. That shows that nukes did not make Japan surrender, refuting my opponent"s contention. Now let"s take stock. My opponent doesn"t contest my point that using a nuke causes an apocalypse. So clearly we must avoid a world where an apocalypse occurs, as the Bostrom evidence shows. National security would be destroyed by the use of nukes. And he doesn"t respond to the fact that a world without nukes is better in every way then a world with them. He makes an off-topic response and an ad hominem attack " don"t listen to those arguments. There is no reason to have a world with nukes when a world without one is strictly better. So vote Pro. Also remember judge to ignore any new sources or new arguments brought up in my opponent"s next round as well as my last round if we forget the rules. [11]: https://en.wikisource.org...