The Instigator
Kanishk
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Are we heading towards World War III

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,385 times Debate No: 20723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Kanishk

Pro

First Round for acceptance
Second and third Round for Argument
Fourth Round for Rebuttal
Fifth round for The Last Stand
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I accept. I await Pro's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Kanishk

Pro

First of all let me explain to you how World War II might happen.

Iran as we all know is on the verge of discovering nuclear technology with the help of Russia and Pakistan. When the USA and the UK were briefed on this they made a decision of not by oil from Iran as soon as their contracts ended even though Iran had said that it will use Nuclear Technology only for generating electricity. They did this because Iran and Israel are ancient enemies and Iran has vowed has vowed to destroy Israel and calls it nothing.

Iran reacted to this by warning USA and UK that it would close the Strait of Hormuz from which one-fifth of the world's oil comes from. This could lead to oil prices rising highly and the market's rising, and along with this if the Euro zone broke up because of Greece, many commodities including Gold and Silver could go Hay-Wire.

USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so. It has said that it should change it's decision before the contracts end otherwise war would follow.

An Iranian politician reacted by saying that their decision was final, and if they want to resolve the situation peacefully, they should change their terms.

The USA,UK and The EU send ships into the strait of Hormuz in reaction to this

China and Russia reacted to this by saying that they would not watch the show, but they would join the war by defending Iran.

It is likely that Israel will also join the war on America's side and if it does not, it will support America unofficially.

Pakistan has remained Neutral till now but is likely to join the war because all Muslim countries especially Iran, Pakistan and Egypt want to wipe out Israel. Iran and Egypt attacked Israel in the past and suffered major losses. They have been hell bent on revenge ever since.

So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia
and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

First, let me point out that PRO has made several claims and assumptions with nothing to back them up. Therefore, these claims may or may not be accurate. PRO must provide a source. I will refute these claims once a source has been provided.

"USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so."

I find this hard to believe, as Obama just pulled out of the Iraq war. Please provide a source.

Secondly, moving on to my arguments.

There will not be a World War 3.
We live in the 21st century, a time where everyone wants peace. We have seen this several times in the world.

We see this when Obama withdrew all US soldiers from Iraq, essentially ending the Iraq War, because he stands for peace. http://content.usatoday.com...

We see this again with North Korea. By not attacking North Korea, it shows that we stand for peace. Fifty years ago, we might have invaded North Korea because they are communists, but not in the 21st century.

In the 21st century, no one wants war anymore. Things are solved through diplomats and peacekeepers in this new time. We saw evidence of this new form of "warfare" emerging from the suez canal crisis, with Lester Pearson.
http://www.suezcrisis.ca...

This entire crisis was resolved through talks and working out each others differences. Therefore, in the 21st century, we stand for peace and we solve issues like mature people, talking them out.

Let's look at the Libya crisis. War erupted between the rebels and Gadhafi. What did NATO and the UN do? They stepped in to try to resolve this issue, not take sides. Therefore, it is obvious, that in the 21st century, we strive to resolve issues and make peace.

Let's look at the groups you pointed out.

"So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia
and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK"

None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore.

Therefore, no one wants to anger each other, because these countries are interdependent for trade. Therefore, no one would want to start a war with each other.
Debate Round No. 2
Kanishk

Pro

Please list the statements of whose source you want.

The one you demanded for in the previous round is here
http://www.firstpost.com...

CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in.

"None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore."

This is what CON said.

Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other.
Israel either way does not trade with any of the Countries who might be it's Enemies.
The UK and The EU are self-sufficient, hence they trade very less and even if they do, it is with the countries that might become it's allies.
China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face.
China has a lot of trade with Iran
https://images.angelpub.com...
If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University.

Here are a few of my Sources - Essential for you to read the first few lines
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.foxnews.com...
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

This round will be short and concise.

PRO drops my argument about peace and how in the 21st century, diplomats would rather talk about the issues instead of fighting each other. In fact, the source he provided: http://www.firstpost.com...

clearly proves my stance. In fact, the title of that article is "Why Obama must shut out the warcries and TALK to Iran." This clearly shows that leaders would rather talk than go to war with each other.

Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof"

Furthermore, PRO seems to be caught up with the past. I agree that there were bad relations in the past, which was the reason for the previous world wars. However, since then, the world has been able to mature and talk things out. PRO continues to leave this point unrefuted.

Also, PRO fails to recognize that relations with other countries have improved greatly, reducing the likihood of a third world war.

Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the likihood of us heading into world war 3 is unlikely as both the USA and EU are trying to prevent this war from occuring in the first place.



REFUTATION



CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in.

Not deviating, simply providing examples to support my claims. PRO leaves these examples unrefuted. These examples prove that in the 21st century, we do not fight with each other as much. We would rather talk.


Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other.

This is not true. In the 21st century, relations have become much better, proving the unlikihood of a World War 3.
http://rt.com...


If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University.

Key word, if. As there is no war, China would not back Iran. PRO has not proved his stance on this. I have proven that there will be no World War 3.



Conclusion

As a result of PRO dropping several arguments, I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO is unable to logically prove his stance. He jumps to conclusions.

For example, he has provided several events around the world. However, he does not explain why these events would lead to a war. He simply assumes this to be so.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
Kanishk

Pro

CON is being completely Irrational, he is just reading the title of the link I provided and not what I wanted him to. I have told him to read the first few lines of the pages.
http://www.firstpost.com...
The title of this page is " Why Obama must shut out the war cries and talk to Iran.
MUST is the key word.
Now CON said that I am defying myself by giving him this source, but it says that Obama must shut out the war cries, it does not say that he will do it.

CON is cutting my statements into half and acquiring the wrong meaning out of them so that he can use them against me.
One such example-
WHAT I SAID- "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face." [ Typing error, I meant fact}
WHAT CON USED- "Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof""
If CON does not want to believe this then let me give him another source with days the same thing but in not related to Nuclear Weapons
http://beforeitsnews.com...

CON is saying that the weak bonds between the countries that were damaged in the past have been healed. it is a well knows fact that revenge dies hard. Once in the past, the Russian Prime Minister mad an offer to the American President to disarm all their nuclear weapons. America Refused. [A little while after the cold War]

CON says- "Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons."
This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task.

CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument.

CON demands that I explain how the events that I mentioned may lead to the Third World War. The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War.

Did you know how World War I happen ?
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, the capital Bosnia. This was organised by an illegal union of extreme Serbian nationalists who called themselves, "The Black Hand" or "Union of Death".

And con may have not noticed that these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers. They are all interlinked

Dear Voters, CON's argument is very weak and he is deviating from the topic, stating facts that are not in any manner relevant to the topic and just refuting.

VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR PRO
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran.

Yes, MUST is the key word. MUST means that Obama has no other choice, that he must talk to Iran.
Must:

Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity): "you must show your ID card".

http://www.google.ca...;

This means that Obama will not go to war, as he must shut it out and talk to Iran. Must conveys the message that Obama will talk to Iran, as he has no other choice.

For example, let's look at the sentence: You must eat food to survive. Meaning, you have no other choice. Therefore, sooner or later, you will eat food, as you need it to survive. It is the same here. Sooner or later, Obama will talk to Iran.

2. China/Russia

Please note that the source provided by PRO does not prove his earlier claim that "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face."

Therefore, this claim is still proofless and invalid.

Furthermore, the source that PRO provides that he believes proves his stance, does not prove his stance at all. It talks alot about how China had ordered its troops to prepare for warfare. However, preparing for warfare does not mean that we are heading to a world war 3. It simply means that tensions are high. However, like I said before, in the 21st century, this war will not happen as countries try to talk first before going into war.

For example, let's look at an example. You are going camping, and you bring afterbite to prepare for mosquitos. However, it is entirely possible that no mosquitos may bite you. It is the same here. Tensions are high, so China prepares the army. However, it is entirely possible that no war may occur.

Preventative action does not mean that we are heading to war. If anything, it discourages war, as other countries become aware of the damage that another war can cause.

3. Relations

Yes, relations can be healed over time. In fact, http://rt.com..., which PRO did not refute last roudn, shows the Russians and US shaking hands.

An obvious sign of friendship.

4. Sanctioned Trade

PRO says: "This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task" in response to my point about sanctioned trades actually preventing war.

However, we see that this trade sanction is not failing, as there is no world war as of yet. This task only fails if it erupts into a 3rd world war. There has been no third war. Therefore, they are not failing in this task.

In fact, the EU and USA are succeeding in their task, as Iran is becoming more and more pressured to get rid of their nuclear weapons as the trade embargo continues. Sooner or later, Iran will need trade and comply to the terms provided.

What the EU and USA are doing is right.

5. Suez Canal

PRO says: "CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument."

Pro concedes that his argument was refuted.

6. World War

PRO says: " The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War".

I assume the "me" is a may. Please note that PRO used the word "may" instead of "will". This shows that he is not confident in his arguments, and he himself believes that there may be a chance of a third world war.

As the resolution is: Resolved: we are heading to a third world war, PRO concedes the debate to me. He must prove that there will be a world war 3, however, he has just said that there may be a world war 3, which is my burden of proof.

As a result, PRO has lost this debate.

7. World War 1

Yes, I know how it happened, and it doesn't prove your case at all.

PRO says, "these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers".

Like I said, we are more inclined to talk things out in the 21st century, not go directly into war. As a result, this will not lead to a world war 3.

Dropped arguments by PRO

I made these arguments in the 2nd round and they have yet to be refuted:

1. PRO did not refute the argument I made that nations are more inclined to talk in the 21st century
2. PRO did not refute the argument I made that many organizations in nations want peace

Third round arguments:

1. The USA and EU sanctioned trade with Iran to get them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, showing that they are trying to prevent war and they don't like war.

These are the main reasons there will be no World War 3 and PRO did not touch upon these yet. It seems he is avoiding these on purpose to try to leave these unnoticed.

Unsupported claims by PRO

1. A trade sanction will lead to a world war 3
2. China and Russia helped Iran acquire nuclear energy
3. Slightest disturbance will cause a world war 3

Conclusion

As you can see, voters, there are many dropped arguments that PRO did not refute. Also, PRO makes several unsupported claims.

In fact, PRO also seems to agree with many of my arguments, in essense, conceding the entire debate to me.

Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
Kanishk

Pro

CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive"
In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does

In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to.

There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow.

I agree that my argument was refuted, but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments.

Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss.

The U.S.a and the E.U sanctioned trade with Iran to convince it to drop Nuclear Technology, but Iran does not seem to be listening to them.

We may be more inclined to peace in the 21st century, but superpowers like U.S.a do not take any crap from a country.

CON is becoming over confident towards the end of the Debate.
I request you all voters not to be partial and vote for the one who YOU think is better.
VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE PRO
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I will go through a point by point refutation of all the major topics in this debate, showing why I have won.

1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran.

PRO says: "CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive"
In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does"

Clearly this refutation makes no sense. He says that "it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran" when clearly it does. Therefore I have won on this point, proving that Obama does not want to go to war, and instead talk to Iran.

This proves that a major crux in my arguments still stands.

2. China/Russia

Dropped by PRO, therefore I win on this point.

3. Relations

PRO says: "In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to."

No, it clearly shows russian prime minister and the US foreign affairs minister shaking hands. http://rt.com...

Clearly this shows that relations have improved.

Therefore, I win on this point.

4. Sanctioned Trade

PRO says: "There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow."

Pro makes an absurd claim, saying that once trade is expired, war will follow. He has no proof to back up this claim. Why would war follow? I have proven that war will not follow because in the 21st century, country leaders would rather talk than go to war.

Pro does not prove his BOP. Therefore, I have won on this point as well.

5. Suez Canal

PRO says: "I agree that my argument was refuted, but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments."

I win on this point because PRO says himself that this argument was refuted.

6. World War

Pro drops this point completely. Therefore, I have won on this point.

7. World War 1

Pro drops this point also. Therefore, I have won on this point also.

8. US vs Iran

Pro brings up a new argument: "Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss."

It is terrible conduct to bring in a new argument on the last round.
PRO even admits himself: " this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War"

He admits himself that there is a chance of a major war but not a third world war. Therefore, PRO concedes this entire debate to me, once again. As a result, I have clearly won this debate.

Conclusion:

Pro still does not refute the dropped arguments that I have pointed out last round. In fact, this round he has conceded several arguments to me as well as dropping a few more.

I have won on all the areas of major clash in this debate. As a result, it is clear that I have won this debate.

Furthermore, PRO still does not support his claims that I have pointed out last round.

Therefore, CON wins this debate.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dejon 5 years ago
Dejon
Yes there will be wwIII
So much hate discrimination, nukes, oppression, there will be a war, its already happening.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
KanishkHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources as prohad more of them but better ones too. Args con as his logical arguments where stronger.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
KanishkHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did much better in convincing me how the world is moving towards peace while the Pro tried to sell that Russia and China would somehow join sides with Iran in a war against the US, and it wasnt convincing at all. Arguments to the Con, Spelling as well, sources were even. Decent debate...