Likelihood of catastrophe. To match the policy-based affirmative, we weigh a simple criterion that suggests the pathway to the value is based on numbers. The affirmative doesnʼt want to quantify catastrophe (since the status quo, having only seen two nuclear attacks, has not seen the extinction of the human race) but rather weigh the likelihood of annihilation. It also has a clear brightline for the judge moral decisions should be based off of whichever imperative saves lives. From there, the affirmative must of course prove that nuclear-armed states are more dangerous than nonnuclear armed ones (keeping in mind their real-world limitations. The negative may wish to simply accept this criterion rather than attack it, since the body of literature goes both ways on the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. A little rebranding maybe helpful, suggesting that repeated wars and terrorist actions deserve the same consideration as one large nuclear incident.
