The Instigator
SmartSmartSmart
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ILL_logic
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Do you think there is a way to prevent the next World War?

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 3 votes the winner is...
ILL_logic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 804 times Debate No: 46093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

SmartSmartSmart

Pro

According to many scientist most likely in upcoming generations a World War 3 will begin and it will either be started because of nuclear, gas, religion or water. I think if certain treaties were composed we'd and new technology is developed this could possibly be avoided.
ILL_logic

Con

Thank you pro for making this topic i hope we can both learn from it

ill first start off by stating that world war 3 is only a theory assuming that there is in fact going to be another war in history at all .

yes wars are common and long as civilization has been around so have wars and yes in a way history finds a way to repeat itself but nobody can say with 100% fact that yes there will be a WORLD WAR 3 nobody knows that for certain .

can we prepare for a world war 3 ? absolutely ! i believe that it is always good to plan a defense ! but in order to LITERALLY defend yourself from world war 3 there has to be a world war 3 first wouldnt you agree?
Debate Round No. 1
SmartSmartSmart

Pro

Right but looking at the unstable nations that surround us and the fact that Americans are put into these territories if one were to set off a nuclear bomb the united states would already conclude its self into the war like we always do. There doesn't have to be a war in order to prevent it. We already so show signs that a war could possibly begin soon.
ILL_logic

Con

how can you be sure it would not be america to set off a nuke? as you see here

Two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both times by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type fission bomb code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people"mostly civilians"from acute injuries sustained from the explosions.[3] The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and their ethical status, remain the subject of scholarly and popular debate. http://en.wikipedia.org...

the only two nukes to have ever been dropped was by america
Debate Round No. 2
SmartSmartSmart

Pro

SmartSmartSmart forfeited this round.
ILL_logic

Con

First, the U.S. needs to get its economic house in order. Economic freedom in the United States has dropped an unprecedented seven years in a row, a dismal record matched by no other country.
Second, the U.S. needs to stop running away from protecting its vital interests. President Obama has squandered our hard-won victory in Iraq. He is about to do the same in Afghanistan. Both these tragic mistakes will cause America security troubles for years to come, and they aren"t the worst of the president"s many bad judgments.
A strong American economy and a strong foreign policy focused on protecting U.S. vital interests would be a great New Year"s resolution for the White House. More than restoring luster to a lackluster presidency, it would spare the world the threat of another world war.
JAMES JAY CARAFANO, a Washington Examiner columnist, is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. This piece originally appeared in the Examiner.

http://blog.heritage.org...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Well, Con likely read the debate wrong, in all fairness Pro just repost the debate and both sides should urge for a 0-0 tie
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
SmartSmartSmartILL_logicTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument assumes that there will be a nuclear way, and Con exposed that false premise. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeit.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
SmartSmartSmartILL_logicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argument assumes too much. Con touched on why pro argument is a logical fallacy
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
SmartSmartSmartILL_logicTied
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