Debate Info

Debate Score:3
Total Votes:3
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 What makes chemical weapons so much worse than conventional weapons? (3)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(1226) pic

What makes chemical weapons so much worse than conventional weapons?

To be clear, I'm not condoning their use, I'm merely investigating the concept.
Add New Argument
1 point

I'd say that a conventional weapon just kills. Nerve gas causes your body to drown you in your own fluids and your skin to rot off and hair to fall out and not grow back, amongst other things.

WinstonC(1226) Clarified
1 point

I wouldn't say that incendiary weapons such as Napalm "just kill" (Source 1). I can appreciate that differing levels of suffering are caused by different weaponry, it just seems that napalm, for example, is among the worst of the worst weapons. An even worse example (though this is arguably a chemical weapon, it isn't classified as such) would be another incendiary weapon; white phosphorous.



They kill people in more inhuman ways rather than killing them instantly by making their head explode.

WinstonC(1226) Clarified
1 point

Napalm is a conventional incendiary weapon.

1 point

I think it's a difference between a quick death versus a long, painful, often psychologically damaging hope for death. Sure physical damage like a bullet, hurts and can have lasting effects if you survive, but chemical damage is just so much more and tends to stay in the body. You can repair a bullet wound better than you can damage from a chemical weapon.

WinstonC(1226) Clarified
1 point

In my opinion, this would also apply to conventional "incendiary weapons", for example napalm.

Mint_tea(4136) Clarified
1 point

That was an interesting observation so I looked it up.

"Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke ammunition are not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use."