Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Friedrich Nietzsche

oppose a debate motion that states that this house believes that nuclear weapons have prevented more wars than they have caused

You're assuming nuclear weapons *prevented* wars through deterrence, but that's circular logic. We can't measure prevented wars, only actual ones. Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation has directly sparked arms races, proxy conflicts, and near-catastrophic standoffs like the Cuban Missile Crisis. The deterrence theory works only if every actor is rational, which history proves false. Pakistan and India have fought despite both possessing nukes. You're crediting nukes with peace that likely stems from economic interdependence and international institutions instead. The motion demands we accept a counterfactual nobody can prove while ignoring documented destabilization. Why should we credit weapons with preventing something we'd never know they prevented?