10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Negative Values Because the negative has to argue for the ethical justification of bombs that can level cities, its values will be more inline with the nondestructive capacity provided by nuclear weapons. Since the bombs do nothing on their own except drain resources, it will want to focus on what we lose in a world without such weapons instate hands. That leads the negative to the same values held by the architects of MAD. Human life – Just as the affirmative has the ability to bring to bear the question of human life, the negative has sufficient evidence to take this value. Its topical relevance has already been discussed, so we will only briefly touch on this value with regards to how the negative wants to 13 http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-‐law/1113714-‐1.html 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 34 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com set it up in the debate. Focusing on the real-world impact of our moral decisions makes human life an easy rebut to any questions of risk or peace. When you crunch the numbers and ask whether an ethical decision will save or cost lives, you simply save lives and worry about the rest later. That gives the negative the opening to the argument that nuclear weapons are an effective enough deterrent to justify their potential harms. The affirmative rebuttal to human life is both to go with the value and argue the existential threat that the bomb poses to human life. Does a weapon that reduces the average lifespan of a population by thirty years deserve the same moral consideration as one that reduces the average by a few minutes Nuclear weapons, as an existential threat, promise extinction – an infinite cutoff of human life, meaning that whatever other benefits they gain are pointless. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|