The TL Debate Thread - Page 7

[18:04] <Souma> 1v1, two rounds: 3 minutes for opening statements, 3 minutes for closing statements, and 5 1-minute responses in-between for each speaker. I'll ask the Proposition the first question, and they'll have 3 minutes to make an opening statement. The Opposition will then have 3 minutes to refute that opening statement. After that, you guys will have up to 1 minute to respond to each other. If you stray off topic, I'll step in and moderate. After the 1-minute responses are over, you'll have 3 minutes each for closing statements, beginning with the Opposition (Proposition will get first and last word).
[18:04] <Souma> For the second round, it will be the same but reverse (Opposition will get first and last word). I'll keep strict track of time.
[18:07] <Souma> Once the question is asked, you have exactly three minutes to respond.
[18:15] <Souma> Ready: GO.
[18:15] <Souma> Proposition, in your opening speeches you mentioned that if all countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, it will deter conflict rather than create conflict. Why will the world become a more peaceful place with more nuclear weapons?
[18:15] <Shady_Sands> Okay. In short:
[18:15] <Shady_Sands> First, if I think my neighbors have nukes, it makes me less likely to engage in armed conflict with them.
[18:16] <Shady_Sands> This is because I won't know how far they will go in their response.
[18:16] <Shady_Sands> Second, they and I both know
[18:16] <Shady_Sands> that once we enter armed conflict
[18:16] <Shady_Sands> the nature of modern warfare systems
[18:16] <Shady_Sands> means we will have to strike each others' cities and command and control networks
[18:17] <Shady_Sands> which means that in a conflict we are fighting to win, we would invite nuclear retaliation.
[18:17] <Shady_Sands> Basically, warfare is inherently escalatory.
[18:17] <Shady_Sands> Having the threat of nukes at the top of that escalator
[18:17] <Shady_Sands> means that the whole risk/benefit calculus of the war/peace decision
[18:17] <Shady_Sands> swings very firmly into the peace camp.
[18:17] <Souma> 30s
[18:18] <Shady_Sands> Once we let slip the dogs of war
[18:18] <Shady_Sands> we have no idea whether they will come back as nuclear warheads or not.
[18:18] <Souma> 5s
[18:18] <Souma> time.
[18:18] <Souma> Opposition.
[18:18] <Souma> You have three minutes.
[18:18] <heroyi> once you let slip the dogs of war there will be nothing left if the warheads were to launch.
[18:18] <Souma> Go.
[18:18] <heroyi> anyway nuclear weapons will ensure destruction of a civilization
[18:19] <heroyi> not just a city.
[18:19] <heroyi> so to say that it is ok to utilize in a warfare is a bit extreme
[18:19] <heroyi> also the threats of nukes are far less threatening then back then
[18:19] <heroyi> with the increase of globalization and interdependence of trade in the world market
[18:19] <heroyi> one country will affect a network of countries
[18:19] <heroyi> also
[18:20] <heroyi> also now days we have a network of intricate relationships with almost everyone
[18:20] <heroyi> so if one country was threatened
[18:20] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[18:20] <heroyi> you dont threaten that one country
[18:21] <heroyi> you threaten all the other allies associated iwth that country
[18:21] <heroyi> cause again nukes are designed to wipe out life unlike conventional weapons
[18:21] <Souma> 30s
[18:21] <heroyi> nukes wiping out as in again society in general
[18:21] <heroyi> nothing can recover from it
[18:21] <Souma> 10s
[18:21] <Souma> time.
[18:21] <Souma> Go Prop.
[18:21] <Souma> One minute.
[18:22] <Shady_Sands> The opposition claims that use of nuclear weapons ensures the destruction of entire nations. The proposition agrees. This means that we both agree on the fact that nukes are a huge risk on the risk/benefit calculus. This means that nukes make it so that war becomes much much more risky, which is a point for the proposition.
[18:22] <Shady_Sands> Second, the opposition claims that nukes wipe out not only that country, but also its neighbors and allies and dependencies.
[18:22] <Souma> 20s
[18:22] <Souma> 10s
[18:22] <Shady_Sands> This means that nukes not only create risk for the instigator but make it so that all the other neighbors and the entire world
[18:23] <Shady_Sands> have an incentive to promote peace and prevent conflict.
[18:23] <Souma> time.
[18:23] <Souma> Opposition, one minute.
[18:23] <Souma> Go.
[18:23] <heroyi> it is very risky correct
[18:23] <heroyi> however the threat of a nuke being used by a state is very low
[18:23] <heroyi> however it is very costly to maintain such program
[18:23] <heroyi> as seen by the speeches numbers
[18:23] <heroyi> also
[18:23] <Souma> 30s
[18:24] <heroyi> if we were to allow countries to harbour nukes this also increases the chances of rogue nations and terrorists group to obtain them
[18:24] <Souma> 10s
[18:24] <heroyi> by through force or black market trade
[18:24] <heroyi> and they are not rational groups
[18:24] <Souma> time.
[18:24] <heroyi> thus they are prone to utilize them
[18:24] <Souma> Proposition, one minute.
[18:24] <Souma> Go.
[18:24] <Shady_Sands> The threat of a nuke being used by a state is directly proportional to how much command/control and city losses it has sustained. This is a point of the proposition.
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> Second, the threat of terrorism means that states
[18:25] <Souma> 30s
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> all states
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> dependencies in that intricate network included
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> have an incentive to make sure that nukes are kept out of their hands.
[18:25] <Souma> 10s
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> Since terrorists thrive when states are weak
[18:25] <Shady_Sands> then this means that nuclear accountability increases.
[18:25] <Souma> time.
[18:25] <Souma> Opposition, one minute.
[18:25] <Souma> Go.
[18:25] <heroyi> yes so why not just stop production of all nukes
[18:25] <heroyi> to decrease the accountability
[18:26] <heroyi> also again it is extremely resource draining
[18:26] <Souma> 30s
[18:26] <heroyi> from utiilizing academic minds
[18:26] <heroyi> to money
[18:26] <heroyi> and irriational states should not utilize them
[18:26] <Souma> 10s
[18:26] <Souma> time.
[18:26] <heroyi> since they may use them to empower themselves
[18:26] <Souma> Proposition, one minute.
[18:26] <Souma> Go.
[18:27] <Shady_Sands> First, people can be irrational, but states, by and large, are not irrational.
[18:27] <Shady_Sands> This is because they states are founded to guarantee the lives/security of their citizens and elites.
[18:27] <Souma> 30s
[18:27] <Shady_Sands> Nukes make it so that those lives are hugely and equally threatened by armed conflict.
[18:27] <Souma> 10s
[18:27] <Souma> time.
[18:28] <Shady_Sands> I will touch on resources in a later comment.
[18:28] <Souma> Opposition, one minute.
[18:28] <heroyi> this assumes that all states follow the social contract. but no as we have seen, dicattorship is popular
[18:28] <heroyi> otherwise in countries like
[18:28] <heroyi> many in middle east, north africa
[18:28] <heroyi> and NK
[18:28] <heroyi> the people and the government are two different entities
[18:28] <Souma> 30s
[18:28] <heroyi> the government in those regions do not care about the people
[18:28] <heroyi> also
[18:28] <Souma> 10s
[18:29] <heroyi> many are irrational since it is not one party
[18:29] <heroyi> but instead many claiming for the governement
[18:29] <Souma> time.
[18:29] <Souma> Proposition, one minute.
[18:29] <Shady_Sands> Precisely the point--there is no reliable way for a dictator to escape a warhead falling at terminal velocity on his capital city any better than the lowliest slum dweller. In contrast, a dictator can live perfectly comfortably if under sanctions or even conventional warfare.
[18:29] <Shady_Sands> As for the resources argument
[18:29] <Souma> 30s
[18:29] <Shady_Sands> We are not demanding that every nation in the world build nukes, but rather that every nation in the world have the right to.
[18:30] <Souma> 10s
[18:30] <Shady_Sands> When nations don't have that right to build nukes, then ironically the only ones with nukes
[18:30] <Souma> time.
[18:30] <Shady_Sands> will be the irresponsible groups like terrorists
[18:30] <Shady_Sands> which you speak of.
[18:30] <Souma> Opposition
[18:30] <Souma> Go.
[18:30] <heroyi> the nukes will empower the dicatators not the people. which contradidcts to your believe
[18:30] <heroyi> but if you allow to build the nukes
[18:30] <heroyi> then countries that are corrupted will follow
[18:31] <Souma> 30s. - NEXT ROUND IS THE LAST ONE MINUTE ROUND.
[18:31] <heroyi> and mass hoard the weapons
[18:31] <heroyi> iran is slow because they must do so in secrecy
[18:31] <heroyi> in the mountains
[18:31] <Souma> 10s
[18:31] <Souma> time.
[18:31] <Souma> Proposition, one minute. LAST ROUND.
[18:31] <Shady_Sands> Nukes don't empower dictators relative to their people. Nukes empower a nation, both the govt and people, relative to the rest of the world.
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> Second, resources are a strawman argument since nations will spend great amounts on defence anyhow
[18:32] <Souma> 30s
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> no matter what technology they use.
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> Its a wash.
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> Third, nukes prevent warfare
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> by putting a giant threat atop that risk escalator
[18:32] <Souma> 10s.
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> and also creating doubt in policymakers heads.
[18:32] <Souma> Opposition, one minute. LAST ROUND BEFORE CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
[18:32] <Shady_Sands> Hence the pro world leads to peace.
[18:33] <heroyi> No. to a rational agent the nukes will be better utilized and better follow your theory. Dictators are far from connected with their people
[18:33] <heroyi> any dictatorship countries have a history of poor living conditions
[18:33] <heroyi> which show the disconnection
[18:33] <Souma> 30s
[18:33] <heroyi> and they use that scenario to bolster their arguments of using nukes
[18:33] <heroyi> to help empower the nation
[18:33] <Souma> 10s
[18:33] <heroyi> when really it helps empower the government
[18:34] <Souma> Time. STOP.
[18:34] <Souma> Opposition, you have three minutes for your closing argument.
[18:34] <Souma> Starting...
[18:34] <Souma> NOW!
[18:34] <heroyi> Again I dont think nukes are the way to go. For defense purposes they are extrememly costly and instead the money could be better utilized in investing within the country itself (health, public services etc.)
[18:35] <heroyi> and asking help from the world organizaitons like nato, and UN are much more efficient
[18:35] <heroyi> Many countries are not rational agents as you believe
[18:35] <heroyi> and those are the dangerous ones to obtaint he nukes
[18:36] <heroyi> as they will bully other nations and may carry the threats out. spreading bloodshed for their own agenda
[18:36] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[18:36] <heroyi> and not he citizens
[18:36] <Souma> 30s
[18:37] <heroyi> also countries that try to follow this dream of nukes dont know all the consequences and responsibilities
[18:37] <Souma> 10s
[18:37] <Souma> Time.
[18:37] <Souma> Proposition, you have three minutes.
[18:37] <Souma> Go.
[18:37] <Shady_Sands> In closing:
[18:37] <Shady_Sands> First, from a moral perspective, all people around the world have equal rights to life, liberty, and happiness. When they form governments to protect those rights, their governments should all have an equal opportunity to safeguard them. Ergo, all governments should have an equal chance to self-defense, which means all governments should have the right to nukes.
[18:37] <Shady_Sands> Second, since warfare is escalatory and risks nuclear annihilation, it means countries will be extremely cautious in attacking other countries if they think those other nations have nukes. This becomes even more of a point when those other countries are interconnected with the rest of the world via globalization. The opp has conceded this point.
[18:37] <Shady_Sands> Third, nukes are not an unnecessary drain on resources, since barring this form of self-defense simply means nations will spend on self-defense through other technologies.
[18:38] <Shady_Sands> Fourth, nukes do not help dictators oppress their citizens, since they are such an unwieldy tool to do so.
[18:38] <Shady_Sands> Dictators oppress to gain off their citizens.
[18:39] <Shady_Sands> Killing them en masse with a nuclear warhead removes the end goal of their oppression.
[18:39] <Shady_Sands> Take the fourth point and tie it to the first:
[18:39] <Shady_Sands> Nukes let citizens have the same chances of security as their governments
[18:39] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[18:39] <Shady_Sands> Nukes make it so that dictators aren't so different in a war, or when dealing with other states
[18:39] <Shady_Sands> because the beggar on the street has the same chances in a Hiroshima as the dictator in the palace.
[18:40] <Souma> 30s
[18:40] <Shady_Sands> Finally, nukes make it so that all nations will want to regulate them more closely.
[18:40] <Shady_Sands> nuke capabilities, i mean.
[18:40] <Souma> 10s
[18:40] <Shady_Sands> This lessesn the chances that they will fall into the wrong hands.
[18:40] <Souma> Time.
[18:40] <Souma> STOP.

[19:01] <Souma> Okay.
[19:01] <Souma> Here's the question:
[19:01] <Souma> Opposition, earlier you mentioned that you believe the full disarmament of nuclear weapons by all countries is preferable. Do you really think this is possible and why would it lead to a better future than allowing all countries to have nuclear weapons?
[19:02] <Souma> Opening statement: START
[19:02] <Souma> Three minutes
[19:02] <heroyi> yes the disarmanent is possible. US and Russia signed a contract where russia agreed to sell the nukes to US and allow them to convert the heu to leu for civil purposes. Not only are they saving money but they have successfully disarmed many nukes. shows it is possible and commercially beneficial
[19:03] <heroyi> i dont know if it would be a better future however I do know that there is a more safer and better way to get to a peaceful future without the use of nukes
[19:04] <heroyi> As long as the weapon is out and produced, a group will always try to seize and use them despite the negative consequences that follow it
[19:04] <heroyi> nuclear proliferation increases the chance of a rogue group to obtain them and help further their agenda
[19:04] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[19:05] <Souma> 30s
[19:05] <heroyi> nukes may be better utilized in rational agents because of them knowing the true consequences thus they will only remain a threat that would never ocme true
[19:05] <Souma> 10s
[19:05] <heroyi> while a terrorist will activate them if the event arises
[19:05] <heroyi> never make a deal with a terrorist
[19:05] <Souma> time.
[19:05] <heroyi> as they never follow the rules
[19:05] <Souma> Okay.
[19:05] <Souma> Proposition, three minutes.
[19:06] <Souma> Go.
[19:06] <Shady_Sands> So the central question here is whether the disarmament is coercive or cooperative.
[19:06] <Shady_Sands> If coercive:
[19:06] <Shady_Sands> Full disarmament of nuclear weapons is not possible.
[19:06] <Shady_Sands> The very technologies that make modern life comfortable also make nukes possible. Gas centrifuges, for instance, can isolate U-235 UF6 gas just as easily as they can separate lifesaving radioisotopes for anti-cancer therapy or for industrial gas uses. The same rockets that launch satellites can be used to carry nuclear warheads. The same devices in nuclear fission--namely, devices that enable a closed fuel cycle--that maximize a nuke power plant's efficiency also can breed plutonium for a bomb.
[19:06] <Shady_Sands> Hence any sufficiently technologically advanced state can engage in nuclear development even if other states impose full sanctions on it.
[19:07] <Shady_Sands> Then the only option left for full, coercive disarmament is warfare, and when other nations embark upon warfare to remove a nation's nuclear capacity, this returns to that risk escalator concept we talked about earlier
[19:07] <Shady_Sands> as well as putting the developing nation in a use it or lose it situation with their existent possible nukes
[19:08] <Shady_Sands> If cooperative:
[19:08] <Shady_Sands> first, nukes are a nation's last guarantee of true sovereignty in the world
[19:08] <Shady_Sands> the ultima ratio regum, so to speak.
[19:08] <Shady_Sands> for nations to cooperate on fully disarming (and i mean fully, not just reducing warhead numbers or types)
[19:08] <Shady_Sands> means that they hand their ultimate instruments of sovereignty to each other.
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> This means that, in a certain sense, the two nations are handing their political control to each other.
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> This implies a level of trust between the nations which is frankly difficult to achieve.
[19:09] <Souma> 30s
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> Russia/US nuke disarmament
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> was driven by cost concerns on both sides
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> but even so
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> both sides maintain nuke programs
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> and develop beter warheads
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> they only cut down the numbers of warheads
[19:09] <Souma> Time.
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> they still have over 3000+ warheads total.
[19:09] <Shady_Sands> k
[19:09] <Souma> Opposition, one minute.
[19:09] <Souma> Start!
[19:09] <heroyi> No because the uranium must be enriched to a certain degree (higher than needed for civil purpose) to be utilized. Hence the conversion of HEU to LEU. Because of that the technology for deliverance is not the issue but instead the farming of uranium, the main ingredient to the nuke warhead. also as seen by the US/russian agreement Megaton to megawatts shows that disarmanent of nukes does not have to be associated with warfare.
[19:10] <Souma> 30s
[19:10] <heroyi> a simply treaty agreement to not house nukes is simple enough to do
[19:10] <Souma> 10s
[19:10] <heroyi> as long as we show that it is not that feasible or accomplishes very little.
[19:11] <Souma> Time.
[19:11] <Souma> Prop, one minute.
[19:11] <Souma> Go.
[19:11] <Shady_Sands> Even if cooperation is possible, then how does the opp propose preventing nations who want nukes from getting them? Cooperative methods also only work if all actors capable of developing nukes cooperate
[19:11] <Shady_Sands> From a game theory perspective each defector in this multi-dimensional game
[19:11] <Shady_Sands> increases the chances more nations will defect
[19:11] <Shady_Sands> you'd literally have to make sure every country who could
[19:11] <Shady_Sands> would cooperate.
[19:11] <Souma> 30s
[19:12] <Souma> 10s
[19:12] <Shady_Sands> Second, US/Russia, as I've stated, are still not even committed to complete disarmament, only reduction.
[19:12] <Shady_Sands> k
[19:12] <Souma> Time.
[19:12] <Souma> Opp, one minute.
[19:12] <Souma> Start.
[19:12] <heroyi> we strengthen the enforcments and policies against the program on ALL countries thus strengthen world organizations like UN or nato of which stand as the world police in a way.
[19:12] <Souma> 30
[19:13] <Souma> 10s
[19:13] <heroyi> it is costly to maintain a program
[19:13] <heroyi> and thus if trust can be established
[19:13] <Souma> Time
[19:13] <Souma> Prop, one minute.
[19:13] <Souma> Start.
***Shady_Sands disconnects for a few minutes***
[19:16] <Souma> One minute.
[19:16] <Souma> Go.
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> Again, this returns to the central question of sovereignty
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> cooperation or coercion?
[19:17] <Souma> 30s
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> if Opp claims we need to strengthen enforcement
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> then Opp admits cooperation is unlikely.
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> if Coercion
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> then Opp is saying we need to abrogate soverigenty for the Opps world.
[19:17] <Souma> 10s
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> This can create a whole new batch of problems.
[19:17] <Shady_Sands> More later.
[19:17] <Souma> Time.
[19:17] <Souma> Opp, one minute.
[19:17] <Souma> Start.
[19:18] <heroyi> it is not coercion if everyone agrees and plays by the rule. No ones sovereignty will be threatened. If UN stands strong then there would be nothing to worry about
[19:18] <Souma> 30s
[19:18] <heroyi> If everyone acts on their best interest
[19:18] <heroyi> then no one would need to worry about a defector
[19:18] <heroyi> if one does arise
[19:18] <Souma> 10s
[19:18] <heroyi> then the other nations should rise and stop
[19:18] <Souma> Time.
[19:18] <Souma> Prop, one minute.
[19:19] <Souma> Start.
[19:19] <Shady_Sands> First, nuke development can be hidden.
[19:19] <Shady_Sands> So defectors can hide their defection until they already have a fait accompli
[19:19] <Shady_Sands> second, for everyone to agree and play by the rule would be herculean.
[19:19] <Souma> 30s
[19:19] <Shady_Sands> it would not only require nations to play by the rules for nuke development
[19:19] <Shady_Sands> but for them to agree to not wage war period.
[19:19] <Souma> 10s
[19:20] <Shady_Sands> k
[19:20] <Souma> Time.
[19:20] <Souma> Opp, one minute.
[19:20] <Souma> Go.
[19:20] <heroyi> Difficult to hide it fully from others considering US was able to detect Iran and stop it from a comp. virus. As long as countries allow UN inspectors to come and investigate then there will be no distrust
[19:20] <heroyi> or rifts between nations
[19:20] <Souma> 30s
[19:20] <heroyi> it is diffuclt but you wont succeed in producing nukes
[19:21] <heroyi> as long as all the nations contribue to a world organizaiont
[19:21] <Souma> 10s
[19:21] <heroyi> that share all interest
[19:21] <Souma> Time.
[19:21] <Souma> Prop, one minute.
[19:21] <Souma> Start.
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> "As long as countries allow UN inspectors to come and investigate then there will be no distrust"-- this is not true
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> the UN, first off, is not an impartial organization
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> strong nations have stronger voices
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> or else how is it that the US is able to shield Israel's nuke program
[19:21] <Souma> 30s - LAST ONE MINUTE ROUND COMING UP.
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> from UN inspections
[19:21] <Shady_Sands> Second
[19:22] <Shady_Sands> returning to sov argument
[19:22] <Souma> 10s
[19:22] <Shady_Sands> this means handing over all tools of government to the UN by all states
[19:22] <Souma> Time.
[19:22] <Shady_Sands> k
[19:22] <Souma> Opp, one minute.
[19:22] <Souma> Go.
[19:22] <heroyi> we strengthen the enforcments and policies against the program on ALL countries thus strengthen world organizations like UN or nato of which stand as the world police in a way.
[19:22] <heroyi> i do not think UN necessarily is the place to go. I believe in a reformed UN would work.
[19:23] <Souma> 30s
[19:23] <heroyi> A stronger organizatino where no one nation can hold power,
[19:23] <Souma> 10s
[19:23] <heroyi> and no strengthening a world org does not mean handing over all tools
[19:23] <Souma> Time.
[19:23] <heroyi> as long as you dont abuse them
[19:23] <heroyi> there is no fear
[19:23] <Souma> Prop, one minute.
[19:23] <Souma> Start.
[19:23] <Shady_Sands> Opp is constructing an idealized structure by which their world can exist. Unfortunately, Opp provides no gameplan as to how to get to that structure, nor any blueprint for what that structure will look like once we get there.
[19:23] <Shady_Sands> Opp admits the UN or NATO are not good places to start looking for this idealized world.
[19:24] <Souma> 30s - CLOSING ARGUMENTS AFTER THIS.
[19:24] <Shady_Sands> So without a solid plan, we have no positive reasons to support the opp counterplan.
[19:24] <Shady_Sands> second, there Pro has already shown
[19:24] <Shady_Sands> that to get to the opp world
[19:24] <Souma> 10s
[19:24] <Shady_Sands> govts would have to surrender their most basic powers and reasons for existence
[19:24] <Shady_Sands> which are highly unlikely.
[19:24] <Souma> Time.
[19:24] <Souma> Stop.
[19:24] <Souma> Okay.
[19:24] <Souma> Moving onto closing arguments.
[19:24] <Souma> Prop, you have three minutes.
[19:24] <Souma> Starting now.
[19:24] <Souma> Go!
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> So first, idealized structures--opp has no real plan.
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> no way to get there, no definition of what it will look like.
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> We can construct ideal situations all the time
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> but without a solid plan to get there they are essentially unarguable. I could say God could come down, for example, and guarantee everyone's security.
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> Second,
[19:25] <Shady_Sands> the key argument here
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> is coercion vs cooperation, and how that impacts sovereignty.
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> Nations value sovereignty because individuals value agency.
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> Individuals feel that their agency, their self-control, carries over when their nations can independently.
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> Individuals, overwhelmingly, do not feel that their agency carries over when a world government acts on their behalf. Opp has to prove this point.
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> Since opp hasn't
[19:26] <Shady_Sands> then the cooperation argument is dead.
[19:26] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> Then the coercion argument comes into play
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> Opp hasn't shown that their counterplan
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> solves the "hidden defection" problem.
[19:27] <Souma> 30s
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> nor has they shown that coercion solves the "use it or lose it" problem
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> both of these destablize the opp world
[19:27] <Souma> 10s
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> and ironically lead to more nuke usage and proliferation under an opp world.
[19:27] <Souma> Time.
[19:27] <Shady_Sands> and less peace.
[19:28] <Souma> STOP
[19:28] <Shady_Sands> hence vote pro.
[19:28] <Souma> Okay.
[19:28] <Shady_Sands> k
[19:28] <Souma> Opp, three minutes.
[19:28] <Souma> Go.
[19:28] <heroyi> The world powers do hold seats and have larger voices in the UN however if this can be reformed then this can all be accomplished. Thus it would not be a coercion. An agreement can be achieved. Also the arguments made by you assume a rational agent in the world.
[19:28] <heroyi> we can stop proliferation as US has done to Iran
[19:28] <heroyi> and NK has stopped after threats of cutting aide to the countries.
[19:29] <heroyi> irrational agents exist by the dictatorship as they do not care about the needs of the people but instead empowering themselves as they represent the nation and not the citizens of such
[19:30] <heroyi> agreements can be made as seen treaty of non proliferation as it stands successful.
[19:30] <Souma> 1 minute remaining.
[19:30] <Souma> 30s
[19:31] <Souma> 10s
[19:31] <Souma> Time
[19:31] <heroyi> vote for opposition
[19:31] <Souma> lol.
[19:31] <Souma> Great job guys.