The Instigator
Debatemenow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Adam2
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Divisions are the cause of (if not all) most conflicts.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Adam2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 56970
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Debatemenow

Pro

What I mean about divisions:
Division: Nations, ideals, etc.

If the people of this world(by people I mean race, or the people living in one kingdom or nation) only live in one nation, worship only one God, there would be no wars.

I am not specifying any nation or kingdom, or any religion.
Adam2

Con

No they're not. Assuming by division, you mean countries and races, ethnic groups and even religion in some cases, no. Racism, desire to enrich one's country, and even extreme nationalism (Britain and Denmark during the golden age of the European powers) cause these things, especially conquest.

Now as far as war is concerned, sometimes rape is the cause two. For instance, when British, particularly Scottish and Georgian supporting English troops, were stationed in the Americas on the eve of the French-Indian War, it can be said that some raped indigenous women, causing natives to retaliate.

It is those things that cause conflicts.
Religion doesn't really count, at least in the case of race. In terms of hatred of tomboys and autistic people, yes. But race is a different matter. It can correlate depending on the religion though. Orthodox Lutherans and orthodox Jews absolutely hate blacks with a passion.

But those things don't cause division. Racism causes conflicts. A need to conquer.
Debate Round No. 1
Debatemenow

Pro

My opponent argues that racism, the desire to enrich ones country, and extreme nationalism is the cause of conflicts. I will disprove these one by one.

First of all, racism. If all people were in one nation, there will only be one race. Now second, is the desire to enrich ones country. If there is only one country, wars will not cause conflict because everyone will work together to achieve this goal. Last but not least, extreme nationalism. If there is only one country everyone will be united in making their country more prosperous.

About the paragraph containing something about rape, if all is united under one, the people who raped the natives would have respected them enough not to do it.

My opponent is also arguing that religion does not cause wars. Clearly when he was typing his argument he did not put the Crusades in mind. The catholics were like OMG, and the muslims were like oma. Hahaha.
Adam2

Con

My opponent argues that racism, the desire to enrich ones country, and extreme nationalism is the cause of conflicts. I will disprove these one by one.

First of all, racism. If all people were in one nation, there will only be one race. Now second, is the desire to enrich ones country. If there is only one country, wars will not cause conflict because everyone will work together to achieve this goal. Last but not least, extreme nationalism. If there is only one country everyone will be united in making their country more prosperous.
One country would not solve the problems of the world. There would be rebellions, rape, crime and violence. And plenty of unhappy people. A united world will still not solve anything.

About the paragraph containing something about rape, if all is united under one, the people who raped the natives would have respected them enough not to do it.

There would have. Remember the atrocities UN troops did to Iraqi civilians
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent is also arguing that religion does not cause wars. Clearly when he was typing his argument he did not put the Crusades in mind. The catholics were like OMG, and the muslims were like oma. Hahaha.
The Crusades were complicated. It wasn't a clear case of let's conquer another country. To be fair, the Spanish were indeed invaded by the Arab invaders, who were quite brutal, so in this case they were just trying to reclaim their land. Self-defense. It's not like what Britain and Denmark did, which was pure, brutal, ruthless conquest.
Debate Round No. 2
Debatemenow

Pro

Debatemenow forfeited this round.
Adam2

Con

Yes as I said before, it's not always division that causes these things. It's arrogance and selfishness. The Brits, Danes and Swedes brutally and viciously conquered the countries they conquered without shame or remorse. They did what they could to enrich the mother country. It wasn't in the name of religion. There are things about Lutheranism and Presbyterianism that I dislike, but to blame it solely on them is plain wrong.

A united world will still have problems. It's actually better if the world had its nations. Independence is a key to happiness.
Debate Round No. 3
Debatemenow

Pro

Debatemenow forfeited this round.
Adam2

Con

I rest my case!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
The resolution is pretty circular; a conflict requires a division of some sort by definition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DebatemenowAdam2Tied
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: Forfeiture