10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Definitions In Rant #1” we discussed the proper definition of the word states I will focus on defining the remaining terms in the resolution. Ought is generally defined as either (a) an indication of desirability orb) an indication of amoral obligation. If we assume that the affirmative selects the latter of the two, then the question arises of what the negatives ground is. If not negates ought, then it is not immediately clear if the negative has the burden to defend the converse of the resolution (i.e. that states have an obligation to possess nuclear weapons, or if the negative minimally must defend that the possession of nuclear weapons is permissible. Assuming that the negative has only the minimal burden of defending permissibility, the negative can obviously advocate realism or argue that states have no moral obligations. If ought implies desirability, then the burdens are obviously 14 As aside note If states have no moral obligations, then do they have rights entitlements Probably not. If they have no rights entitlements, then ought they possess property, such as nuclear weapons Probably not 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 45 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com very clear the affirmative must prove that the possession of nuclear weapons is undesirable, while the negative must prove that it is desirable. Possess has the potential to be tricky. Since possess and use are two different words that mean two different things, there might be some sneaky negative debaters that try to argue that states ought to possess nuclear weapons, but they ought not use them. There are certainly reasons why is this (a) an abusive argument and (b) a bad argument, but I am willing to bet that this position will seethe light of day in the hands of some debaters, so expect it. Nuclear weapons is straightforward. I trust the debate community to use a commonplace, standard definition of nuclear weapons. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|