The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
VelCrow
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Elements of division,

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 2 votes the winner is...
VelCrow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 63297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

The main reason we fight wars is that we divide ourselves by these 4 horses of the apocolypse.

Sorry for the mispell, so what.

Race/Color
Religion/Faith
Sex/Gender
Party/ No Party

I would like to have a Master Debater contest this but they mostly get it, so this is open to the first fool that presents themselves.
VelCrow

Con

The theme of this debate is quite vague. However I will take Pro's Round 1 statement as his stand.

Pro's first statement is that "The main reason we fight wars is that we divide ourselves by these 4 horses of the apocolypse [which are] Race, Religion, Gender and Party"

My assumption is that Pro uses the word Party to describe Political Parties.

My strategy as Con would be to prove that there are wars fought that were not caused by Pro's above 4 points.

1. War for gold.
In the year 1519, The Spanish Conquistadors waged war with the Aztecs due to their greed for gold.

"The conquistador's awe at the Aztec achiements and their lust for native treasure."

http://www.pbs.org...

2. War for land
War has been fought for whereby the prize has been land and territory. The territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded 3 times between France and Germany due to conflict.

"Alsace-Lorraine, during this time, was a geo-political prize contested between the French and German powers."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. War for the greater good.
In 2003, the US invaded Iraq with the claim of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Although the claim turned out to be false, you could say that the cause of the invasion was due to the "presence" of WMD in Iraq.

"Although Bush marketed the war in Iraq as necessary to protect us from Saddam Hussein"s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), his decisions had less to do with self-defense than with dominating the oil-rich Middle East. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

4. War for oil.
The real reason for the 2003 US invasion as mentioned above was the the oil in the Middle East countries. Prove of that would be the same quote I used in 3.

5. War due to instigation.
I would quote World War 1 for this. World War 1 was complex and big. But the initial point of the war can be traced to one very specific event, the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

"The immediate cause of World War I that made the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary."

http://americanhistory.about.com...

These are my arguments against Pro's "four horsemen of the apocalypse" (Note to Pro: this is the correct term, not horses. And your spelling of the apocalypse was wrong *hinting to voters ^^*) . Pro will definitely argue that in each of those wars that I quoted there will be a difference of race, religion, gender or political parties, or even a combination of the four. However I would like to point out that the four mentioned by Pro are NOT the instigators of the wars. If Pro were to argue otherwise, Pro is saying that if a black man stole a car from a white man, the black man should be prosecuted for being black, and not for the theft of the car.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

You are wrong on all fronts and here is why.

1. The Aztecs were a different religion from the Spaniards and gold was only an excuse.
2. Essentially, the Germans and French see themselves a different races, or nationalities if you prefer, but the me thing in the end.
3. Again, this war was both a war of opposing races and religions.
4. Wars in the middle east are always religion based.
VelCrow

Con

I'm amazed by the new breed of debaters who think that they can state their opinion without proof. I will now refute Pro's points as they are weak with no evidence.

1. Pro claimed that the Spaniards invaded the Aztecs because of their different religion. Please note the following text.

"Another small fleet set out from Cuba in 1518, under the command of Juan de Grijalva, and explored the coast, during which they heard tales of the wealthy Aztec Empire further west. As a result of these rumours, Hernán Cortés set sail with another fleet. "

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most of the conquistadors were motivated by the prospects of the great wealth to be had from the seizure of precious metal resources such as gold or silver; however, the Maya lands themselves were poor in these resources. This would become another factor in forestalling Spanish designs of conquest, as they instead were initially attracted to the reports of great riches in central Mexico or Peru.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Au contraire, the Spaniards invaded Aztecs for their gold. Religion was only an excuse.

2. I do not understand Pro's point here. However I assume he was trying to address my 2nd point which was war for land. I have shown evidence by using the Alsace- Lorraine example which was a piece of land that had changed hands as many as 3 times due to conflict between France and Germany. Pro has yet to dispute me with any evidence here that the geo-political prize contested was in no way connected to the France Germany strife.

3. Ex-President Bush (of the US) did NOT say "let us invade Iraq because they are Islam/Muslim." He said "Let us invade Iraq because they have WMD which would put us in danger of being targeted. Pro has yet to provide any evidence that says otherwise.

4. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.—Jimmy Carter, state of the union address, Jan. 23, 1980

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org...

In his state of union address, Jimmy Carter (ex-president of the US) there is ZERO MENTION of RACE or RELIGION.
He specifically mentioned vital interests of the United States of America. Now as far as I know, the Persian Gulf is famous for being the world's largest single source of crude oil. Obvious point to Con.

5. Pro failed to even mention my 5th point which was War due to instigation. And World War 1 is definitely one of the biggest war in history. Thus this itself is undisputed proof that something other then the "four horsemen" can be a cause of war. Con stands firm with no contest from Pro here.

Pro has failed to provide evidence to back his opinions. Pro's argument is not even a fallacy of weak inference. Pro's argument is a fallacy of NO inference.

My prediction on Pro's response came true. A black man who stole a car should be prosecuted for the theft of the car. Not for being black.

Thus Con is the obvious choice to vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

It amazes how people fail to look at the big picture and snivel over all the little details which are nothing more then excuses for their point of view.

The fact is that all wars are a matter of religion and race. People of the same religion and race never go to war, they get along fine. As far as your argument goes, it is nothing more the a reiteration of the politically correct history books. Are you a religion, race, gender, or party member? If so you are divisive.
VelCrow

Con

"It amazes how people fail to look at the big picture and snivel over all the little details which are nothing more then excuses for their point of view."

As Con it is my stand to debate against the "big picture". I have provided ample examples of causes of war which do not fit any of the 4 categories mentioned by Pro. Pro has yet to provide a sound arguments against my points aside from his opinion. Pro has failed to provide examples and to address my point on one occasion (War due to instigation). Pro has shown himself to be a bigot that is unable to justify his stand.

"The fact is that all wars are a matter of religion and race. People of the same religion and race never go to war, they get along fine."

Wars appear due to conflict of interest. I did not say that religion and race never caused war. But my stand as Con is that race and religion are only a subset of war causes. I have proved that race and religions are a subset through the use of examples of war causes that lies outside that subset which Pro fails to disprove.

"As far as your argument goes, it is nothing more the a reiteration of the politically correct history books."

Yes I use history as example because it is proof that it has already happened. Aside from that, do note that the statement "politically correct" in no way implies that it's wrong. Thus, thank you Pro for agreeing that my arguments are correct.

"Are you a religion, race, gender, or party member? If so you are divisive."
Everyone has a belief[1], race and gender. Political belief is by choice. But it does not address the issue here.

Once again, I would like to bring up my example of the car theft.
A Caucasian male who is a Christian decides to steal a car and is caught.
Do you punish him for being Caucasian, male, Christian or the theft of the car?

If I have to spell it out for Pro,
P1: Punish him for being Caucasian.
C1: 245.5 million people in the world have to be punished.

P2: Punish him for being male.
C2: Half the population in the world have to be punished.

P3: Punish him for being Christian.
C3: 2.2 billion people including the Pope has to be punished.

P4: Punish him for car theft.
C4: The current practice all over the world.

As a conclusion, I would like to point out that Pro has yet to show evidence to disprove my examples or negate my arguments. All Pro has done is to provide his personal opinion. As Con, all of my arguments are supported with evidence based on history.Con is the obvious choice in this debate.

To close it up, thank you Pro for the debate. Here is some interesting read up for entertainment. Note to voters, please do not take the following link I posted as part of my argument. It is strictly for fun only :)

http://www.history.com...


[1] I used the word belief instead of religion to acknowledge atheist and also Buddhist which in essence is a philosophy, way of life and not a religion.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by VelCrow 3 years ago
VelCrow
"Depends on the civilizations at war."

Lol.. civil wars are NOT civilizations at war.

"You definitions define you."

You engrand ish velly powderful
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
You definitions define you.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
Depends on the civilizations at war.
Posted by VelCrow 3 years ago
VelCrow
@Bennett91
I was tempted to use civil wars too. However I was sure Pro will relate civil wars to a difference in political beliefs.
Posted by VelCrow 3 years ago
VelCrow
@Max.Wallace
Race is dependant on parents and unchangeable.
Nationality is dependant on birthplace and changeable by submitting application to a different country that accepts the application.

Therefore Race is not the same as Nationality.
If you need an example, a Chinese born in the US and given citizenship is considered an American (Nationality). But he is still a Chinese (Race). He doesn't turn into a Caucasian.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I am sorry to confuse you Bennett, or maybe you just aren't up to speed when it comes to thinking outside your history lessons box.
Posted by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
"Nationalism is the same as race to many" I'm going to need a source on that. Race isn't even a biological reality, so defining it by nationalities makes just as little sense. All of western Europe is white regardless of nationality. They are the same "race" just as the multiple Arab countries are all the same race yet diff nationalities.

"The Francois race vs. the British Rebels? That one?"
"The race of Frenchmen figured they could kick the rebels butt, what happened there?"

I'm not really sure what you're referencing with these 2 comments. if it's the war of 1812 the Canadian side was not french. Canada like the US was a British colony. Although Quebec is a relic of the time when it was a french colony. So the war of 1812 was a war between 2 anglo English speaking white countries both of the same racial stock of England (not to conflate race and nationality). But to answer your question of "what happened there?" the Canadians (under British rule) burnt down the white house. The US was no longer just a British rebel it was, and still is, a nation in its own right (but our race didn't change along with our nationality). In the end the US drove Canada back and the war is more or less considered a tie.

My general point id though that your premise of debate completely ignores civil wars and wars over resources as reasons people kill each other. So you lose this debate as well.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
The race of Frenchmen figured they could kick the rebels butt, what happened there?
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
Nationalism is the same as race to many.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
The Francois race vs. the British Rebels? That one?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Max.WallaceVelCrowTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con is only one to use sources, and manages to counter pro while pro does not rebuild his arg's.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
Max.WallaceVelCrowTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuses to debate and gives no evidence for his position. See rest in comments.