The Instigator
Titanium_Conservative1776
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Are non-defensive wars justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 586 times Debate No: 74290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Titanium_Conservative1776

Pro

This is a heated subject that deserves a general debate rather than simply an opinion poll. I believe non-defensive wars are justifiable. If you disagree, please accept my debate. If you do accept, then I want to lay down some ground rules first: 1. If you post statistics or any data information, please provide the source. 2. No name calling, harassment, or foul play. 3. It's just a debate so enjoy it.

Please accept my debate. I look forward to arguing this topic.
Yassine

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for instigating the debate on such an interesting topic, & I accept his challenge. & I also hope we both enjoy it.



Resolution:


- None-Defensive War: warfare not motivated or warranted by defensive principals, elements or strategies.


- Justifiable: a matter or a decree is Justifiable if it is so in light of its objective [*], i.e. :

> An objective that is based on bringing benefits, or preventing harm.

> An objective that is based on the sincere choice between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.



BOP:


- The burden of proof is shared, as per the format of the resolution.



[*] http://www.academia.edu...



Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
Titanium_Conservative1776

Pro

Good luck to you as well.

As Con correctly stated, a non-defensive, aka an offensive war, is a war that is not motivated or warranted by defensive principles, elements or strategies. Now let me first state the obvious: not all offensive wars are justifiable. An example of an unjustifiable offensive war is Germany's invasion of Poland, the USSR's invasion of Finland, and Japan's offensives in the Pacific. Iraq's invasion of Iran was also unjustifiable. One could also state that most wars prior to the 19th century were unjustifiable as they were usually caused by land and political disputes between kings. So to be clear, when Con states that non-defensive wars are unjustifiable, I agree with him to a certain degree.

However, some offensive wars are justifiable. For example, the Union invasion of the southern Confederate states during the American Civil War is justifiable. The North was fighting to preserve the Union of the American states and preserve the Constitution. As stated by President Lincoln, the North was fighting so "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" (Gettysburg Address). And most importantly, following the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, the Union's cause changed from fighting to preserve the Union to fighting to free enslaved persons. The is no other more noble cause for waging war than that of freeing the oppressed.

The United States also fought in both World Wars, especially World War II. Are these wars defensive wars? I would say no, and let me state my reasons for that statement. First, lets say the Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor but instead coordinated with the Nazis the destruction of the USSR. Would the US have eventually gotten involved in the war? In all likely hood, yes. Realistically, should the USSR have collapsed to the Germans, England would have been forced to face the full might of the German war machine and there is little reason to believe that the German's would have failed to destroy them. Also, did the Axis Powers, exclusively Germany and Japan, at any point in the war pose an imminent threat against the US homeland. The answer is no. The Germans could never have safely shipped an army across the Atlantic and hit the US Eastern Seaboard. The same goes for the Japanese. Though Japan possessed a large and powerful navy, the prospect of invading the contiguous 48 states was virtually impossible. due to the distances and logistics involved. So realistically, the US fought an offensive conflict during World War II, and given that we liberated millions of people by the war's end and halted the Holocaust, I would say that World War II, though it was an offensive war, was completely justifiable.

Now I will allow Con to refute. Thanks again for accepting the debate and good luck to you.
Yassine

Con

Thanks Pro. :)



Preface:


- Pro has no objections against the definitions I provided, they shall stay valid throughout the debate.

- Due to limitation in time, I will attempt to provide a basic argument against the resolution & elaborate more on the next round.



Case:


1. Peace is the desirable state of affairs, & it should conform with what is justifiable, for what worth is Peace if it doesn’t lead to more good & less evil.

2. Therefore, a justifiable state of affairs is one that leads to Peace, for what is peaceful is a justifiable state of affairs.

3. War is an undesirable state of affairs, for it disturbs peace. However, if War leads to Peace, then it is nonetheless a justifiable state of affairs. For instance, if a nation is occupied & oppressed by another state, then war against this oppressive state is a justifiable state of affairs, for it leads to the peace of the said nation ; the war may disturb the short-term illegitimate peace, but it is for the sake of the long-term real peace, which leads to a greater good, thus Peace.

4. I shall then argue that Non-Defensive War does not lead to Peace, & thus is not Justifiable. Warfare warranted or motivated by other than defensive principals, elements or strategies is an undesirable state of affairs, & do not lead to Peace either, for its objective lies in disrupting peace without Just Cause.

5. To establish my last point, I shall argue that defensive principals, elements & strategies constitute a Just Cause, while the opposite doesn't. A defensive act is an act ‘devoted to resisting or preventing aggression or attack’ [*], which implies that a defensive act is an act against an unjust state of affair, with the purpose of restoring justice, thus deemed conforming with Just Cause. An act that is not a reaction to an unjust state of affairs can thus not be deemed as conforming with Just Cause, hence the proposition.



Conclusion:


- A Non-Defensive War is not Justifiable, for its objective lies in disturbing peace with no Just Cause, thus does not lead to Peace.



Rebuttals:


For example, the Union invasion of the southern Confederate states during the American Civil War is justifiable. The North was fighting to preserve the Union of the American states and preserve the Constitution. As stated by President Lincoln, the North was fighting so "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" (Gettysburg Address). And most importantly, following the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, the Union's cause changed from fighting to preserve the Union to fighting to free enslaved persons. The is no other more noble cause for waging war than that of freeing the oppressed.

- Pro here is describing a war warranted & motivated by defensive principals & strategies, for the fact that it is instigated for the sake of defending the people, restoring peace & justice to the slaves, & protecting the government from perishing ; as President Lincoln said: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. & if that weren't the case, the war will not be justifiable.



Sources:


[*] http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Back to you Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
Titanium_Conservative1776

Pro

Titanium_Conservative1776 forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

Rebuttals:



The United States also fought in both World Wars, especially World War II. Are these wars defensive wars? I would say no, and let me state my reasons for that statement. First, lets say the Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor but instead coordinated with the Nazis the destruction of the USSR. Would the US have eventually gotten involved in the war? In all likely hood, yes.


- This is a bare assertion fallacy [1]. There is no reason for us to believe that the US would attack Japan if the latter didn’t bomb Pearly Harbour. This is even more strengthen with the fact that the US did not attack Japan prior to it bombing Pearly Harbour: “The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II [. . .] Domestic support for non-interventionism, which had been strong, disappeared.” [2]. If the US intended to go on the offensive, it would have, as it is in many other wars (namely: the Invasion of Iraq [3]).



Realistically, should the USSR have collapsed to the Germans, England would have been forced to face the full might of the German war machine and there is little reason to believe that the German's would have failed to destroy them. Also, did the Axis Powers, exclusively Germany and Japan, at any point in the war pose an imminent threat against the US homeland. The answer is no. The Germans could never have safely shipped an army across the Atlantic and hit the US Eastern Seaboard. The same goes for the Japanese. Though Japan possessed a large and powerful navy, the prospect of invading the contiguous 48 states was virtually impossible. due to the distances and logistics involved. So realistically, the US fought an offensive conflict during World War II, and given that we liberated millions of people by the war's end and halted the Holocaust, I would say that World War II, though it was an offensive war, was completely justifiable.


- Pro here invokes an argument that is clearly a straw man [4], as it does not represent the reality. The US’s involvement in WWII was based on defensive elements & strategies, & Pro’s bare assertions are not sufficient reason to believe it could’ve been otherwise,




Conclusion:


- Pro forfeited, & thus dropped all my arguments, whereas, I refuted all his arguments. Thus Pro failed to carry the BOP, & I still maintain mine, which he did not contest.


=> Vote Con.




Sources:


[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
@ Titanium_Conservative1776

- Hope everything turned out ok. :) & thank you.

@ dsjpk5 @Espera

- Thanks for the vote.
Posted by Titanium_Conservative1776 1 year ago
Titanium_Conservative1776
Sorry Yassine that I did not post my Round 3 argument. I've been away for several days with family and completely forgot. Also you have made a good case and the more I read your arguments, the more I'm actually starting to somewhat agree with you. With that I concede the debate to you. Good luck in future debates!
Posted by Himans45 1 year ago
Himans45
I may accept this if nobody else does.
Posted by doctorcsss 1 year ago
doctorcsss
i would argue, but I agree with you
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Titanium_Conservative1776YassineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate S&G throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Pro presented two cases of non-defensive wars that were justifiable, namely the civil war and WW2. Con was able to then present his own case which layed down the framework for what is or is not a defensive war, followed by showing how Pro's civil war example was actually a defensive war rather than an example of a justifiable offensive one. Pro then forfeits his final round, which left Con's argument and rebuttal standing unchallenged. Con then rebutted Pro's only other example of WW2, and additionally showed how that was also a defensive war. Ultimately, Con showed that neither of Pro's examples are applicable, as well as having his own argument remain unchallenged for the rest of the debate. For this, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources whereas Con effectively did.
Vote Placed by Espera 1 year ago
Espera
Titanium_Conservative1776YassineTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe that offensive wars are justifiable and Con's arguments against that idea rely on assertions that don't hold up pass face value. So Pro gets the points for that, however due to forfeiting a round conduct goes to Con. As Pro lacked many or any resources that point goes to Con as well. Both had legible entries and neither did that well of a job with their positions so that's a tie.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Titanium_Conservative1776YassineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round