10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Rant #1 If you have been thinking about the topic prior to reading this (and I would certainly hope you have, then the thought of defining states as anything other than nations has probably at least crossed your mind. If such a thought has crossed your mind, and you have sincerely considered that thought, I have one piece of advice Please let that thought go. Defining states as subdivisions of nations is a terrible argument. Your West Virginia ought not possess nuclear weapons argument is not ever going to create a good debate. Additionally, there are no authors who defend that West Virginia should have nuclear weapons, which makes negating somewhat difficult. The word states in the resolution refers, generally, to nations. It does not refer to individual states or provinces within nations, nor does it refer to certain emotional conditions, nor does it refer to phases of matter. Current nuclear powers should disarm is an example of an acceptable argument. “Minnesota/Anger/Liquid ought not possess nuclear weapons are not examples of acceptable arguments. Finally, do not try to argue that terrorist groups are states. This was done by some debaters on the last nukes topic. While arguments about nuclear terrorism could certainly be compelling on this topic, abetter way to frame such a position would be to argue that states (as in countries) possessing nuclear weapons greatly increases the probability that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear material. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|