CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.
Challenge Debate: Middle-Eastern Nation-States Should Be Allowed To Posses Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Negative: Middle-Eastern Nation-States and/or Non-State Actors should not be allowed the possession of WMD's (Weapons of mass destruction), by the global community.
Affirmative: Middle-Eastern Nation-States and/or Non-State Actors should be allowed the possesion of WMDs and it is not the business or the place of the global community to dictate to them what they are or are not allowed/entitled to do. It is a direct violation of state sovereignty to interfere or intervene in the affairs of said (aforementioned) Nation-States.
Because they have a history of violence, I'm not just referring to the U.S., I am referring to the global community. It would be a threat to National security.
So if your holy book was blasphemed by a nobody director wouldn't you be offended. And remember that US intelligence has held the believe that it was from Al-Qaeda splinter cell that attacked the Consulate for the remembrance of 911
If I was part of a major religion and my "holy book was blashphed" I would most likely be offended. I would however, not riot or participate in violent acts. Which further supports my argument.
So if a country has major riots then they can't have WMDs. That would mean the US can not have any because remember the LA riots, Occupy movement, or the Hippie movement. And remember one of those was started because a guy on drugs was attacked by police.
No, these incidents did not affect the global community or the national security of other nations, no embassies or consulates were attacked and the issue was resolved (the violent ones), these were domestic issues. When you look at the country as a whole, it was rather minor by comparison. The only riot that u mentioned that is relevant is the LA riots (a beautiful display of wit, a well. Was not prepared for that one, lol), but at no time did this riot threaten to influence the decision making process of the government, in terms of foreign policy. Since we have a very stable government, the momentum of the riot fell well short of seizing power or affecting the global community. The Nation-States in question, lack a stable government, it could be easily toppled by extremist regimes or organizations (which has happened very recently and repeatedly). The risk of this happening is a major factor in why said Nation-States should not and cannot be allowed WMDs. I await the rebuttal of the affirmative upon our next meeting.
Christians and Jews have their beliefs and "holy books" "blasphemed" on a near daily basis, they do not react I'm the same manner however. Remember when the image of the profit Mohhamid was published in European papers? They created a lynch mob, hung a man, and threw a grenade into businesses and not on only one occasion.
How about attacking doctors because they perform abortions? Or protesting at soldier's funerals because they live in a nation with a gay population. How about the KKK remember that they are mostly protestants
Yes they can because just as any religion, people can pervert a religion for their crusade. They can change in the near future because let say a Christian man calls a president the anti Christ or believe it is time to reclaim their nation. It can become violent, and so that is what happened to Islam. After years of poverty and starvation people start blaming people and that is what happened in the Mid East
It is possibly, I will concede that, however, it is not likely. We have no reason to believe that this hypothetical situation will ever take place. As pertains to our argument, however, the history of violence and the likelihood of further violence cannot be ignored. These nations have warred (waged war) for thousands of years and based upon the evidence, there is no reason to believe this will stop anytime soon.
I don't, I never said that, Mr. Red herring, what you r saying is irrelevant to the argument at hand, I said "Middle-Eastern", I never excluded Isreal or even mentioned Islam or Muslims in my initial argument. Please, do try and stick to the topic at hand. U have the affiative.
U can sit here all day and assume what I might say (or rather; what you would like me to say), but it will ultimately be irrelevant to the topic and futile. I see right thru ur strategy, Mr. Red herring.
Due to the Violent nature and history of violence that these Nations posses, it would not be reasonable to let them posses WMDs. If a judged were to let a person with a history of violence, who showed a tendency of violence (it was concluded the person had a violent nature), posses a weapon or firearms, the public would push to try the judge him-self in a court of law for gross negligence. He himself would be guilty of a crime. I'm not saying that the U.S. is the rightful judge of the world, but rather the global community.
I concede that u make a valid argument, however, the U.S. is not inclined to use it's WMD freely and irrationally. The history of violence and the violent nature supersede any justification or argument of said nations. It would be as if a convicted murderer demanded that he requires a weapon for negotiation and protection.
You have held your ground very well and on a difficult position. You have made very valid and sound arguments, I would say that you have won! It has been a pleasure debating with a reasonable and level headed opponent. :) may we debate again, soon.
Do you think Israel should not have WMDs? You might say that they are peaceful but in reality they are not. They alone have defied the most UN resolutions, than any other nation. Killed thousands of Palestinians and have threatened their immediate neighbors even when they themselves were not threatened. They are also the only nuclear armed nation in the mid east at this time. So how can you say that the Muslim countries pose a threat while the U.S ally can threaten peace?
The MId East should be allowed to have WMDs just as any other nation can have one. Self defense is one reason of course but what about a diplomatic weapon. Remember that the US has before used WMDs as one of their arguments and remember the US outnumbers the MId East in foreign wars.
Okay as we were saying, you can't just say that one entire continent ( I consider the mid east a continent historically) you can't own WMDs because that would just inflame a situation. Leaders in general are like children, when you tell them not to have something they will do it any ways. I know that it can cause an arms race but they have a national security to worry about. My country to the north, the Chinese to the south, and NATO and Israel to the West. Guess what they have the resource that drives our economies: oil. They have NATSEC to worry about.
Beautiful argument and a beautiful display of wit (no sarcasm intended). I concede that leaders in general can often be like children, but we cannot appease these children like leaders when they have a temper tantrum with WMDs, especially when national security is at stake.
Also it can be said that America is a violent nation with a violent past. Remember they killed millions of Indians but yet they are allowed to control an entire nuclear arsenal. How can we justify one one scale if we are hypercritical about it?
Valid, but we have owned WMD's longer than any other nation-state and we have proven to be very responsible with our arsenal. Every nation-state or country has a history, very often it is unsavory, we at least acknowledge our mistakes.
