10nfl1-Nukes-Cover

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 24 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com Ill spare you a lengthy discussion of ought – Iʼm sure youʼve debated/coached ought resolutions in the past and know the potential implications of each definition, how to implement each type, etc. Regardless, Ill touch on each quickly and make one general observation, just to be sure were all on the same page. The logical consequence definition is largely inapplicable to debate – aside from really weird, questionably topical arguments like states will not possess nuclear weapons in the future, quantum physics says that blablabla” – there are no real, useful, topical applications. The desirability definition is one that generally implicates a consequential view of morality, i.e. we look to whatever action creates the most desirable world in the end. I expect most cases on the topic to use this definition, just due to the big impact stories that are available nuclear war, winter, and the like) as discussed earlier. Finally, we have the moral obligation definition, one generally used with rules-based or deontological conceptions of morality. This definition will (of course) be used to justify running the normal killing is bad position, but can also be used to justify much more interesting positions – the international treaties affirmative, as an example. The argument would go something like this because the only real rules that can apply to all states are international treaties, any given state ought to be bound by treaties that most agree are legitimate, and since there area number that would presumably affirm – the NPT
3
, START, and CTBT
5
, to name a few – it would follow that states ought not possess nuclear weapons. Aside from the definitions themselves, there is one more general question that must always be asked when debating morality – is it necessary that we prove the actions of the resolution are practical, or even possible for states to take, or is justifying them on a purely philosophical basis enough There is no true answer to this question, as we will discuss later, but this is important to note here the definition you choose of ought can have an impact on the practicality vs. idealism debate. Possess
1) Have as belonging to one own I do not possess a television set. 2) Have possession
of as distinct from ownership a two-year suspended sentence for possessing cocaine.
The definition of possess seems fairly simple if a nation possesses a nuclear weapon, it just means that they have it. This is, I feel, one of the definitions that will be the least necessary to include in a case – I cant see much ground for controversy in the possess debate. It does seem like in a normal setting, the two definitions for possess would pose a potential problem, or area for
3
Go to Wikipedia fora fairly comprehensive summary – the full text of the treaty is available here http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf
4
Awesome description/numerous descriptions http://www.state.gov/t/vci/trty/126118.html
5
Full text http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treatytext.tt.html
6
Google Definitions. http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=possess&langpair=en|en

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 25 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com conflict (i.e. possessing versus owning a drug, but here, the two seem to imply the same thing – they are currently in the control of some state that can use them at their discretion. There are only really two nuanced ideas that stem from possess that Iʼve heard of/thought of thus far. First is the idea that states ought to possess nuclear weapons to prevent their use. The position would be sneaky, probably nontopical, and would evade the true meaning of the topic, but donʼt be surprised if someone tries to run the argument that possess means have, states donʼt have the nukes anymore if they use them A silly argument, but something to be ready for – someones bound to do it. The second idea is slightly better, but still probably wont find very much use in the average debate round. I could see affirmatives trying to argue that some sort of neutral party ought to control the weapons use – a multinational organization like NATO for example – solving back the harm of nations using them in war, but still garnering the deterrent benefit (should a country use a nuke against another, this neutral party would allow retaliation. Again, not the most persuasive argument to begin with, but as the weapons would need to be housed somewhere, the second definition of possess would seem to exclude the neutral party affirmative – even if states donʼt control them, they still possess them. In sum, be ready for some bad and groan-worthy possess debates if they do occur at all. I think that both sides would be best just agreeing that possess means own, and leaving it at that – this should be a relative peaceful section of a good debate on this topic. Nuclear Weapons

Download 1.23 Mb.

Share with your friends: