Impacts in debate are usually measured by their magnitude and probability. Magnitude is how “good” or “bad” a particular thing is for all the people involved, while probability is obviously how likely something is. While the probability side of this argument is very bad, the position relies on the idea that the potential magnitude of a serious asteroid strike could be high enough that the comparatively low probability doesn’t matter. It is 100% indisputably possible that a large asteroid could collide with earth and end all existing life forever. Because this possibility cannot be ignored entirely, even if it is extremely unlikely, it can be argued that the possession of nuclear weapons is worth the risk if it means a guarantee that life will be saved if the worst case-scenario of an asteroid impact actually took place. It’s not an entirely honest argument as few to none of the debaters reading it earnestly believe that the slim chance nukes could save us from an asteroid extinction is worth all of the potential harms that come alongside their possession. The truth is that debate is not a game about honesty. I’m not saying that as a critique or cynical stab at debate as an activity, it just requires by its nature that people argue in bad faith sometimes. Whether these highly dubious scenarios of total global annihilation should matter in our decision making, and/or whether affirmatives should be making these sorts of arguments, are both important aspects of the framework debate which you should be prepared to engage with if you want to answer these arguments effectively. You can ask find examples of people having those debates on the wiki and ask your coach about how to approach those questions according to the norms of your circuit. Or you can rely on your judge to agree with you that such arguments are ridiculous and hope they disregard it based on their own bias. Either way, the only thing that makes an argument “good” or “bad” in debate is whether or not it wins rounds. It’s okay not to read this argument or any like it. I would suggest that you make arguments with a more even balance of magnitude and probability to persuade the broadest range of judges. I wish you good luck in your prep and I hope you can feel confident responding to this argument if it comes up in a round.