The Instigator
Peacetotheworld
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jolwen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Can peace kept without war?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,573 times Debate No: 39561
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Peacetotheworld

Pro

Peace can be kept only by being peaceful. Its illogical to think that war brings peace
jolwen

Con

War is an inevitability through which peace (or one groups idea of peace) can be accomplished. Peace cannot be defined by one group or one person, it is an ever changing and evolving idea that depends on the individual, the collective, the situation and the desired outcome. It cannot be reduced to the simple statement that peace is no war.
Debate Round No. 1
Peacetotheworld

Pro

Peace has more lasting effects when it is not made by war. War is conflict, it breeds hate towards nations, instead of finding an agreement through negotiation and being able to see each nations points. War destroys nations, leaves them in poverty, and keeps the two nations from finding a real solution to their problems.
jolwen

Con

War does not breed hate or conflict. War is the result of hate and conflict; war is the result of competition between nations, the clash of ideologies and personalities. War is the result of inequality, intolerance and misinformation. Peace can cause all those things and lead to war.

By your logic, peace is only possible if all countries, men, women and other entities are willing to negotiate and compromise. The key word there being willing;not all participants are involved of their own volition. Prime examples include ethnic cleansings with the the Holocaust being the most widely accepted (and known) example. There was no peace in these times, Nazi supporters may have believed that the mass murder of what they deemed to be undesirable factions within society would bring them ultimate peace, there was no peace for the Jews, the homosexuals, the disabled, the gypsies who feared for their lives and their families every second of the day. Millions were murdered; negotiation was not an option, what could be used as compromise? War was the only option to achieve some sembelence of peace for the victims of the pogroms and the world at large. The only solution to the problem posed by Hitler and his regime was to fight against it. The time between the end of WWI and the start of WWII was in general peaceful (if we use the definition as being without violence), but it was in way a time where people experienced peace. Millions struggled through the Great Depression, which was not a strictly North American phenomena. Germany suffered post-war with poverty and debt, they were required to reimburse WWI war expenses; personalities like Hitler laid blame on German hardships on Jewish people. He began his pogroms between the wars.

The act of war does not destroy nations or cause poverty; war results from the clash of personalities and ideologies. War is caused by the victimization of a group of people. Peace causes war. The Treaty of Versailles, an international agreement for peace closing WWI, can easily be blamed for resentments and triggers of WWII. Peace is never equal, never satisfied. Decades pass and heartache is still felt for the innocent men, women and children lost to the gases at Aushwitz and Buchenwald. November still stands as a time of remembrance for the brave sacrifices made on behalf of nations during war. The worlds scars continue to heal from the lashes of inequality, intolerance, hate, conflict and misinformation. This is not peace, this is recovery dreaming of the impossibility of peace.
Debate Round No. 2
Peacetotheworld

Pro

So in other words you are saying peace causes war. How can it do that? If nations refused to fight there would be no war, thousands of innocent people would survive. Peace maybe unlikely, but unlikely is better then impossible. We've tried war and where has it gotten us, innocent people dead, uprisings put down for a moment but they rise up again worse then ever, nations left in poverty with its men and women injured and dead.

Does anyone ever really win a war or do both sides just get to tired and depleted to continue. How come its a crime to kill one person and yet our government can order our soldiers to kill thousands in another country.
jolwen

Con

Peace breeds hate, inequality and conflict, as I said. It does this because there will always be those who seek power, control, more than their station. Peace is commonly defined by the absence of violence, but violence is not always war or conflict. Lack of peace can include anything from lack of opportunity, discrimination, harassment, unemployment, poverty, etc. None of those inherently involve violence, but they can lead to violence, war and conflict. War is not inherently violent; it can be a war of words, philosophy, money, etc. Most wars are violent, but that is not due to war itself. The violence stems from the players involved, the actions they take to seek their desired outcome.

Using WWII as an example again, millions more innocent people would have been murdered by Nazis had Britain, Russia, the United States and other countries not stood up against the regime. What else could have been done? Nothing, Hitler would not have stopped expanding his hate propaganda. His trail of death would cross the globe had he been allowed to continue. There is no reasoning/negotiation/compromise to be had with those who seek what Hitler and his followers sought.

War may not be seen to achieve much outside of rivers of blood and mountains of dead, but the United States would not be what it is today without war (not going into that debate, just stating a fact); billions across the world would have been massacred had countries not gone to war against the Nazi regime, entire cultures and religions completely wiped off the face of the planet. You and I may not have been doing this right now had there not been a war.

It is not simple as it seems to say that war is bad, war does no good, war is to be avoided at all costs. No one wants to go to war, no one wants to see millions killed, young men brought home to mothers in wooden caskets, child martyrs faces splashed across every news broadcast and newspaper killed on their way to school. No one wants that. It is an undesired product of a war caused by people's ambitions, ideas, grabs for power.

Obviously, there isn't always a clear winner in war. But to those down-trodden, tortured people are living in fear of their neighbours and their leaders; when they witness their children forced into train cars like cattle to the slaughterhouse, the victor will be those that defeat the feared tyrants and killers. Our government (I'm assuming you're American, I'm American but living in Canada) does not wantonly order our soldiers to kill thousands in another country, our government orders our soldiers to defend our country. There is no direction that says kill thousands in XYZ country.
Debate Round No. 3
Peacetotheworld

Pro

Of course, there will always be hate and conflict in this world, but it doesn't need to end in war. Maybe more people would have been killed in WW11 but we can't know that. We've almost never been attacked to the point that our country is in actual danger, until there actual hostile forces are on our country's soil we shouldn't be bombing other countries. Personally I can't see that our country is any better for the wars its fought. There are peaceful ways of dealing with conflict without waging a war. Killing is immoral and is murder any way you look at it.
jolwen

Con

Obviously there are peaceful ways to resolve conflict, but the parties involved need to be willing to negotiate and compromise. If one party has no interest in it, there will be no possible way to resolve it peacefully. It is ignorant to think that Hitler wouldn't continue killing those deemed unworthy of his idea of the pure Aryan race; his plans were to ensure the purity and this exterminate all who do not fit the mold. It is also ignorant to say that we have not been attacked to the point of being in actual danger, why don't we ask the families of those who died on Sept. 11? Or the marathon participants running for their lives in Boston? I'm positive they were directly in the line of fire from those attacking on American soil. Would you not call the Boston Bombers hostile forces on our land? They were two men who sought to cause terror in America and they succeeded. WWII was waged in defense of those who faved hostility from their best friends and neighbours and to ensure the horrors didn't spread further.

Killing can be morally and ethically justified, war can be justified, terrorism can be justified. Every thing a nation or person does can be justified in someway. It is not illogical to say that war brings peace because peace is an impossibility. A notion to strive for in all affairs and situations; a dream to hope comes true. As stated, peace is undefinable as it depends solely on the situation and parties involved. We can argue that it is the absence of violence, but that would be a flawed definition. Peace can only be defined if we assume that all peoples and nations have put aside intolerance, misinformation, inequality, desires for power and dominance. Then perhaps, we can experience some semblance of peace; but until then, peace will be the elusive hope/prayer/dream we seek everyday in our own lives and for our greater good. This peace we seek will have to encompass equality amongst all nations, no poverty or famine, no desire for power, no money woes, no jealousy. I could go on, but you get the picture. The impossible temptress that is peace will continue to elude our capture until the end of time.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.