Topic: We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons

Argument: Don't let anyone fool you with talks about deterrence and so-called "nuclear peace" - weapons are made to kill, this is their sole purpose. And nuclear weapons are made to kill millions! They are pure evil.

Argument: Even if nations were able to survive a nuclear war, they resulting nuclear fallout and climate change would likely make life on Earth difficult for centuries to come, dooming future generations.

Argument: Even one accident from a nuclear weapon going off unintentionally would cause massive damage, and this is damage that we should not accept the risk of as a society.

Argument: every country talking about peace and at the same time building and producing more nuclear weapons which should be stopped and only way for that is abolition.

Argument: Fallout from nuclear weapons gets carried across the world by the wind, we must abolish nuclear weapons so that conflicts between individual states don't cause nuclear damage in neighboring states.

Argument: having nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent for other nations who also have them, it means they will not use theirs against us as we would retaliate wiping them out too so they prevent war.

Argument: having nuclear weapons actually stops nations from going to war because of the fear of how it might escalate

Argument: having nuclear weapons increases nation's power and status

Argument: having nuclear weapons is a protective measure ensuring other countries with them are unlikely to launch attacks.

Argument: having nuclear weapons lowers the chance of a nuclear war because no one will mess with a country that will use them because it is used the war will end instant due to the country being wiped off the map

Argument: having nuclear weapons provides a good defense and a strong offense against threatening countries.

Argument: if a country uses nuclear weapons and another country responds by also using nuclear weapons both will be destroyed

Argument: if all nuclear weapons were destroyed then the world would be a safer place.

Argument: If at least one-tenth of the money and efforts we put into constructing nuclear weapons and anti-missile systems went into promoting disarmament and mutual trust, the global peace would long have been achieved.

Argument: if no country had nuclear weapons the world would be a safer place.

Argument: if no one had nuclear weapons we'd all be on an even playing field again.

Argument: If nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands, e.g. terrorist regimes, they can be used for nefarious purposes.

Argument: If something exists, it is impossible to ensure it will not ever be used. The risk of nuclear weapons is too huge to allow them to exist at all.

Argument: if we abolish nuclear weapons, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack

Argument: it would make everyone safer if nuclear weapons did not exist.

Argument: It's a difficult challenge, but do we have a choice? Nuclear weapons will end civilization if we don't at least limit them.

Argument: just having the ability to use a nuclear weapon often can be a deterrent.