Topic: We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons

Argument: Nuclear weapons, as any other weapons, can be used for protection, deterrence, and ensuring rather than disrupting safety. Our goal should be to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons rather than get rid of them.

Argument: Nuclear weapons, by virtue of the principle of mutual assured destruction, have made another great war between global powers impossible.

Argument: our goal should be the abolition of nuclear weapons because a nuclear war would likely destroy the world.

Argument: Radioactive waste from nuclear weapons poses a real threat to the health of the population living near those site.

Argument: Testing of nuclear weapons causes pollution and destruction of the environment.

Argument: the abolition of nuclear weapons is a hugely important goal on the path to world peace.

Argument: the abolition of nuclear weapons means we would have a reduced potential of accidental detonation

Argument: The choice presented to the human society is simple: either live in constant fear of the other and go down in a spectacular feat of self-destruction, or finally evolve and put an end to nuclear weapons.

Argument: The cost of developing nuclear weapons in developing states drains cash from infrastructure, education, and welfare funds which hurts the population as a whole.

Argument: The development of nuclear weapons in developing states has lead to sanctions by the international community, which starves the poorest civilians who likely had no say in the development of weapons.

Argument: the immediate results of a nuclear attack are already devastating, but the lasting effects make it that much more cruel.

Argument: The international community has already acknowledged that nuclear weapons are bad by signing a number of nuclear nonproliferation and test-ban treaties, and the next step in international cooperation should be the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Argument: The one occasion where neclear weapon has been used has brought to the world unimaginable suffering and death. We definately don't want to try that again.

Argument: the only reason nuclear weapons exist is so one country has the ability to destroy another country or force them into submission. the only thing they do is murder.

Argument: The possession of nuclear weapons is illegal under international humanitarian law.

Argument: the potential destruction to our entire planet is on the line so we must fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Argument: The production of nuclear weapons exposes many workers to dangerous levels of radiation, decreasing their lifespan and quality of life unjustly.

Argument: the stockpiling of nuclear weapons ensures that other countries will not attempt to attack. the concept of mutual destruction is a great barrier to nuclear war.

Argument: The theory of "Mutual Assured Destruction" is viable today as much as it was in the cold war, and the result is relative peace

Argument: the threat of nuclear weapons helps keep other countries from declaring wars.

Argument: the threat of nuclear weapons keeps despots and tyrants in check.