10nfl1-Nukes-Cover

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 35 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com understanding that the international scene is messy and convoluted, and that some decisions are morally ambiguous. The two best I could think of were Deterrence to War and Realism.
Deterrence to war. Deterrence to war is a clear-cut connection to reach international peace, and is the underlying doctrine used to support nuclear weapons for the most part in the status quo. An ethical decision under this criterion is one which provides the highest cost to conflict, thus reducing the number of conflicts, and in turn the number of deaths or people who suffer. This criterion is of course resolutionally significant, and is a fair criterion to use as well, since it doesnʼt force the affirmative to disagree with you. On the other hand, it does provide the footing you need for your evidence to drive home the important point – it is good for states to have nuclear weapons, since the practice saves lives. Deterrence to war is a good connection to national sovereignty as well, as it gives states the tools they need to protect themselves against outside aggression, while at the same time having the freedom to pursue internal policy. This framing of the criterion gives the negative room to argue in terms of how rights are constructed in an international setting and absent a strong governing body.
Realism. Realism at its root is the recognition of the imperfect, and is a criterion setup to rebut affirmative moral claims by arguing that in all likelihood any decision will have some morally hazardous fallout. By making realism your criterion, you setup the debate as not asking which course of action is ethical or moral, but which is the most workable – a sort of anti-theory. This allows you to sidestep claims of justice or inequality, while making it perfectly clear that now that Pandoraʼs box has been opened, there is noway to close it and we are better off accepting the status quo and preparing for it than posturing what the world would look like if nations were somehow to no longer possess an irreversible technology. Realism can be attacked by pointing out that it presupposes several values of its own national sovereignty, for instance, which can still be debated, or by questioning the assumption that there is no moral course of action. Moral questions sometimes come before the policy means of addressing them, but ignoring them altogether prevents those policies from being formulated in the first place. Even if we donʼt have the ability to abolish nuclear weapons now, we should not stop looking for ways to do so if we know their existence to be immoral. The rebuttal to this is twofold. First, there have been condemnations of nuclear weapons since their initial use, and thus far no working plan to eliminate them has been found, indicating that there maybe no metaphysical capacity to abandon them. Second, absent realism states are likely to have greater cause for conflict and violate the affirmatives moral sensibilities, making the affirmative position inconsistent. This debate delves into policy once more, so be sure to keep the ethical or moral nature of realism distinct from the effectiveness concerns that are likely to arise.
Conclusion

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 36 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com There should be sufficient evidence for the contentions in this topic to build themselves – and the major disagreements that the varying advocacy groups in this topic have are moreover paradigm than over statistics or facts. This means that you want to take hold of your value and criterion before you move to your contentions, and ideally use those contentions as a reciprocal support for your value. If you do so, you will likely be able to win on style and clarity, since the decision past that point is largely arbitrary.

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 37 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com

Download 1.23 Mb.

Share with your friends: