Can war be justified in any ways?
Debate Rounds (3)
War is brutal. However, as it is brutal it can be a hope or a chance for individual around the world for their right to be independent.
I noticed first and foremost that my opponent has not defined what "war" or "justified war" is. Therefore, by default, I believe it to be fair for war to be defined by a credible outside source. Dictionary.com defines war as, "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." Merriam-Webster defines war as, "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations."
It is important to note that both definitions never imply the morality or justification for war but simply defines war as a violent clash between two parties of interest. Keep in note that from now on, that any and all, armed conflict that has occurred in human history is to be referred as war.
By the aforementioned definitions, pardon my redundancies, war is all and any armed conflict between states or nations. It is not as my opponent implies the sole and only tool of guaranteeing or enforcing human liberties. By these definitions, does my opponent believe that all armed conflicts, regardless of who the initiator or receiver is, are justified or promote civil liberties? Does my opponent believe that all declarations of war advance inherent human rights? For my opponent to declare one war over another in this debate is null and void. By definition, war is any and all armed conflicts. Therefore my opponent must take either the stance that all wars are justified or no wars are justified. Because this is a debate is based on polarized opinion, there can be and will be no middle ground. Either my opponent must justify that all wars, by the given definition, promotes and safeguards human rights or reject the claim that war is justified.
Secondly, I believe my opponent was attempting to define "justified war". However, since my opponent has not clarified the meaning of "just war" again, we shall refer to a more authoritative source of defining the term. The doctrine of "just war" or Jus Ad Bellum emerged from Catholic moral theology of the middle ages. Saint Augustine in the 5th century discussed in "City of God" the parameters of justified homicide and the expansion of empires at others expense. St. Thomas Aquinas further extrapolated St. Augustine"s beliefs in his Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas stated that six conditions must be met before the state may declare "just war". These six conditions that justify engaging in a war are, "just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality (cost/benefit)."
For the sake of the debate I shall focus upon these six conditions but more specifically on the proportionality of war.
If my opponent can demonstrate that all wars are justified and if even one requirement is met just war can be attained, I shall concede. I wish you the best of luck.
Beenzino forfeited this round.
Think of it this way. You are a innocent civilian living in a house of your one. You saw a wild man walking in to your fence and breaking the window of your house and getting inside. Would you be justified for calling the cops? In my opinion, cops are their to listen, resolute a problem of a civilian or any individuals. Like it is obvious in your case, What about thinking in a countries perspective. For example, US during the WW2 tried hard to be out of trouble. However, after Japan attacked the harbor in Hawaii, US was involved in the war like other countries are. As you notice, war that happens due to the confusion or the quarrel of a other country can be justified.
We all know war is brutal. It kill lots and lots of guiltless people. Countries spend a lot of their money on military development just to make sure their country is safe. This is really bad in one side, however, if the country is using it for their rights to protect their own country or desire to get their land back, war is no longer a brutal and a deadly thing. Some people states that war is misusing all the money and all the labor of a country. In contrast, misusing any thing can cause harm. So I strongly state here that my opinions for war is true.
Lots of experts thinks only the definition side of what a war is. War hide it's real meaning and it's real theme. If we can all understand what the real meaning and the theme is for war. For some countries like Iran, war means freedom. They fight for their right to be free from other country's disturbance. Don't you feel empathetic about the people who fights for their own rights to be free? I certainly think that they have a right and the privilege to be free and do as they please. Due to all the aforementioned comments, I strongly state that pro side is right.
TheLittleOne forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm really bummed by the fact that Con didn't finish! It was looking so good too. I also am impressed by Con's conceding a round. That takes a lot of guts. I'm putting as a tie source credibility because Pro didn't object to the other sources and didn't seem to need any. Congrats to Pro, and great debate to both.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.