The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Can war be justified in any ways?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 34864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




While the Con argue that war cannot be justified, Pro (I) will argue back that war can be justified.

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 graciously accept my opponent"s invitation and the academic opportunity he/she has offered me. Furthermore, I shall rebut his/her statement that war is justified.

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. 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.

Debate Round No. 1


Beenzino forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited this round so I shall too to be fair. I hope to see his/her rebuttal in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2


For the con side thinking that war is just a brutal and a useless, life wasting, money wasting act, I shall give him/her a example that he/she can sympathize.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
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:31 
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.