The Instigator
theyoungdebator
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Can war ever be justified?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,524 times Debate No: 13675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

theyoungdebator

Con

I feel that war is not about victory or defeat. It is about the total failure of a human spirit. Wars can't be justified, people can fight over religion, power, land, oil or freedom but really most people want more than they need and are greedy. People die every day just to fight for their country and live a normal life. Why can't people be treated equally? And if they were, maybe a war wouldn't even be needed in the first place!
Put yourselves into the position where you have to fight to survive, live in unpleasant surroundings from day to day, men women and children dying day in and day out. Your family and possibly even you could end up dead because of war, on both sides! Can that ever be justified? Killing is wrong under any circumstances therefore nothing justifies war which inevitably involves killing. War is unethical and by no means fair and nothing can justify it. Nations can just settle down their differences without war and loss of important lives. War portrays lack of respect for human sanctity.
In the end War will lead to the end of the world .Weapons are getting stronger with the ability to kill a million people in a second. The amounts of deaths are shocking; I have some figures on Iraq.
SourceIraqi casualtiesMarch 2003 to...
Iraq Family Health Survey151,000 deathsJune 2006

Lancet survey
601,027 deaths out of 654,965 excess deathsJune 2006

Opinion Research Business survey
1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflictAugust 2007

Associated Press110,600 deathsApril 2009

Iraq Body Count project
98,170 -107,152 civilian deaths as a result October 2010
Danielle

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for beginning this interesting debate.

While I agree that war is horrific and should be avoided at all costs, I acknowledge that in some rare circumstances war might be appropriate. To help demonstrate my case, I'll be utilizing the Just War Theory - a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin [1]. Essentially it sets up a framework of criteria that must be met in order for a war to be justified.

There are four strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force, including:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. There must be serious prospects of success;
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force, and what is acceptable in using such force [2]. For instance the first thing to consider is whether or not there is a just cause for war. In other words, the reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations" [3].

Another thing to keep in mind is comparative justice. The injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other in order to warrant the use of force or aggression. Having good intentions is another criteria; force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose — correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Finally, force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical [3].

Essentially these values describe strict guidelines that must be met in order for war to be considered a moral feasible option, i.e., justified. If these conditions are met, I believe that war is in fact justified, as it ensures that war is the very last resort after all peace keeping efforts have been exhausted. It's idealistic to assume that human beings will not try to take advantage of each other, or become greedy with power among other atrocities. However this theory provides insight as to when waging war on another is appropriate, ensuring it's not a frivolous decision but ultimately a last resort to protect one's self or home (or country, etc.).

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[2] http://www.eppc.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
theyoungdebator

Con

theyoungdebator forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
theyoungdebator

Con

theyoungdebator forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sieben 3 years ago
Sieben
RAAA im not going to conform with all you conformists! Im gonna be myself!

(If my vote actually effects the decision, PM me and i'll votebomb the other way)
Posted by ChristianM 3 years ago
ChristianM
RFD: Pathetic.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 2 years ago
jm_notguilty
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
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: Danielle's use of the just war theory completely blew the youngdebator's arguments...Her note of how war might be taken for "just" means (especially when other diplomatic ways have been used, and failed) and how war will only be unjust if the casualties of one side outweighs that of the other....Con forfeited, though I doubt that she could have refuted Danielle's case...
Vote Placed by clucas 3 years ago
clucas
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Sieben 3 years ago
Sieben
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ChristianM 3 years ago
ChristianM
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 3 years ago
Danielle
theyoungdebatorDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07