The Instigator
Koopin
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
lovelife
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points

If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 11 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,968 times Debate No: 12877
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (73)
Votes (11)

 

Koopin

Con

I would like to deeply express my thanks to lovelife for excepting this debate. I hope this is both a fun and educational experience for both of us.

Full resolution: Assuming war is murder, then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone.

====================
Definitions:

WAR: A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. (1)

MURDER: According to this debate, the act of killing another human being and any scenario. (2)

LEGAL: Permitted by the law. (3)

====================

My opponent lovelife has said in another thread that war is Murder. I replied that if war is in fact murder, than murder is necessary. She responded with:

"Then it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone, not just because they live in a certain place or dressed a certain way." (4)

Lovelife also agreed that she would be willing to debate this topic for me. Obviously this debate is more focused on the question "is war a necessity." We are simply using the example lovelife brought up 'anyone to murder anyone.'

I ask that my opponent simply says 'I accepts this debate' for round one. I will start the actual debate in round two.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent lovelife for accepting, and would also like to thank the audience for reading. I look forward to the rounds to come.

Sources:
(1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2). Lovelife's philosophy.
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.debate.org...
lovelife

Pro

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate.

================================

Argument:

War. No matter what religion they believe in, most people agree that war has been around since the beginning of time. It has lead to nations being built, and has ended countless empires. Mankind has, and most likely always will use war. Many of these wars are the product of greed, in which countless lives cease to exist. These wars spread across planet earth like wildfire, destroying everything in its path. These wars are without a doubt, unpardonable. Though, this does not mean that all war is unjustified.

Although most people do not want to admit it, there is such a thing as a necessary evil. Take the "Trolly problem" scenario:

" A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

Or what about the "Ticking Time bomb" scenario:

"There is a terrorist in custody who has hid a bomb in New York City. The bomb is set to explode in thirty minutes and is going to kill thousands of innocent people. Would it be ok to torture the terrorist to get the location of the bombed out of him?"

When morals contradict morals, people tend to back away from the subject. But you can see what I am getting at here. Many people will come up with arguments of how it wouldn't be moral to push the fat man or torture the terrorist, but the facts are still there, it would be better to do so.
The same could be said about war. Many people suffer at the hand of their government, take North Korea for example. The government keeps their people hidden in the dark, if you do not comply with their orders, you are either killed in a gruesome way, or thrown in an inhumane prison. North Korea has a concentration camp known only as "Camp 22." Camp 22 was established in 1959. As of today, there are an estimated 50,000 prisoners held in Camp 22. Most have been imprisoned because relatives were critical of the Korean Workers' Party or its General Secretary, Kim Jong-il. Analysis of satellite imagery suggests that the camp is surrounded by guarded fences. Housing is clustered in fairly small groups. Reasons for housing the prisoners in this fashion are unclear, but could be to decrease the risk of rebellion. There have even been accounts of chemical experimentation on prisoners using a glass gas chamber for observation. This is just one of many prisons in North Korea. So many people are suffering at the hand of this horrible government. Now, if there was a nation that wished to stand up for what is right and take down North Korea's evil government would it be wrong? Would it be wrong to kill some people in North Korea's army in order to save its civilians? Of course not!

Now, what about revolutions? In 1775, thirteen British colonies rebelled against the Kingdom of Great Britain. The thirteen colonies decided that they wanted freedom from Great Britain's rule. They wanted to be free from the over priced tax, and they also wanted freedom of religion. Britain was being overbearing and cruel to the colonies. The colonies started the war with Britain and won. After the war, they claimed their independence and later became The United States of America. Surely you can agree that this war also is justified.

If you for some odd reason disagree with the two examples above, surely you will not be able to tell yourself that the following example is unjustified. The example that I speak of is invasions of our territory. Let us say that the USA is tired of Canada's export tax on its yummy maple syrup and wants to take them over. So, they send over troops to take down their government. Canada, of course, fights back. By defending her homeland, Canada is starting a war. This war is of course justified. Would it be better just to surrender? No way! If that were the case, The United States of America could be taken over by Jamaica, Mexico, or North Korea! It is obvious that this would not work.
On December 7th, 1941 353 Japanese air crafts attacked Pearl Harbor, the next day the USA entered World War Two. The Japanese accomplished exactly what they wanted to do, their goal was to bring the United States into the war. But, it was of course necessary for the USA to enter. It is easy to see that the USA had no other choice then to enter the war; therefore, entering World War Two was justified.

Many people today want to feel like they are that someone to stand up against all the bloodshed. They want to come together and say ‘enough is enough.' But what these people do not understand is that mankind is not perfect. If mankind was perfect, there would be no need for war. But people are never content with what they have. There will always be a need to go to war, a sad fact, but a true one.

I look forward to your response, thank you.

Sources:

(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3). http://www.ask.com...
(4). http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com...
(5). http://education.yahoo.com...
lovelife

Pro

I thank Koopin for his responce.

"War. No matter what religion they believe in, most people agree that war has been around since the beginning of time."

Pretty much, yes.

"It has lead to nations being built, and has ended countless empires."

Which makes it right?

"Mankind has, and most likely always will use war. "

'It's always been that way so it must be okay'?

"Many of these wars are the product of greed, in which countless lives cease to exist."

Shows how its wrong.

"These wars spread across planet earth like wildfire, destroying everything in its path. These wars are without a doubt, unpardonable."

Again, evil.

"Though, this does not mean that all war is unjustified."

Anything can be justified, but it is the justification right? In some cases yes. The only time a country should fight is to defend itself, and never go to another country for the fight. Truely defensive war is rightous, not greedy, not going to a country and taking revenge because of what some did, not trying to force your way of life on that country.
If even most countries did that, it would grow. Especially if international trade with non-compliant countries ceased.
In war both sides think they are right, or more justified. Its easier to believe the country that is being invaded, is the one that is less wrong, reguardless of what they are doing.

"Although most people do not want to admit it, there is such a thing as a necessary evil."
I admit that as the world has been, is, and probably always will be, there are necessary evils. Does that mean we shouldn't try to reduce, or even hope to eliminate such problems?

--troll example--

The best thing to do would be to come up with a plan with the fat guy, if time is slow then pushing him off may be justified.

--ticking time bomb--
I am never against torturing a terrorist, rapist, murder etc. especially if you may get valuable information on how to save innocent lives.
When someone infringes on another's rights, they lose their own as far as I am concerned.

-Korean example-
Two wrongs do not make a right. The government is being evil, but evil acts can be punished while the law abiding, scared, and already victimized citizens, aren't punished as much, as those in power.
Stop trade with them, break ties, set standards as to what they need to do to get business back. Its not instant, neither is war, but it helps more then it hurts.

-British to American example-
I don't believe it was fully justified, no.
I agree with the Boston Tea Party, I agree with most anything really, but when war started I could no longer agree. Who fired the first shot? I've always been taught no one knows for sure, it does not matter, it was not justified by either of them.
If they wanted independence that much and I was running Great Britian at that time, I would let them. I would not supply them with anything until they agreed to be under my rule, or it was plain they did not need me.
If I was an "American leader" at the time I would continue peacefully protesting, maybe even take the ones sick of the English authority further west.
In neither case would I prevent the U.S from being created, but rather make it more peaceful, and use zero dirty tricks.

-Canada/US syrup example-

If Canada is being attacked by the US they have a right to defend Canada and their yummy maple syrup, and their citizens, and anything else that would need protected. They do not have the right to crash planes in the US, nuke the US, or in any way attack someone that is not a US soldier or leader. If it is just some rogue US citizens bombing and attacking Canada, Canada does not have the right to follow suit.

-World War II-

But was Hiroshima, and the Japanese Concentration Camps in the US justified?
No. Those born from survivers of Hiroshima to this day are still born deformed, with cancer, and numerous other health defects that affect their lives, even though they never bombed anything, even though they are only two years old, no matter how innocent the people are they are still being hurt and killed.

"Many people today want to feel like they are that someone to stand up against all the bloodshed. They want to come together and say ‘enough is enough.' But what these people do not understand is that mankind is not perfect. If mankind was perfect, there would be no need for war."

Mankind is not perfect, but it can improve.

"There will always be a need to go to war, a sad fact, but a true one."

It is sad, and while I agree the cause will always be there, how we respond can evolve so the innocent don't have to be killed or hurt.

-----Now to address the resolution-----

Now What I mean by "If war is murder, than it should be legal for anyone to murder anyone."
basically that if you support the troops, if you support the war, etc you support murder.
Main causes of war are greed, revenge, and not accepting a countries beliefs/practices. (<----including religious wars, and Koopin's Korean example)

If you support fighting for these causes, with innocent people being bombed, raped, attacked, orphaned, abused, tortured, just for living in the wrong place, or believing the wrong thing, it should also be acceptable by your standards, to support it on a much smaller scale.
Example-
If a young girl is raped, her or anyone close to her should have the right to find who raped her and attack, torture, and kill him. Some may agree with the morality of it, but it remains against the law.
If a seriel killer killed your son, and you saw it, but the jury doesn't believe he did, you don't have the right to kill him, he gets to live.
If you disaprove of pot, you then have the right to rape, attack, kill potheads. Or even just bomb a neighborhood where its common, or even if you got some/most of the potheads, maybe some innocents too, you will still leave some children orphaned.
Gangs should be allowed to do whatever but if you hate gangs you could kill them yourself or with a group of like minded people that would kill them.
All justified the same way as war.

Thus if war is okay so is murder within a soceity, often deemed as illegal.
Basically if a non-defensive war is legal, so is killing someone for the above reasons.
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Con

I thank my opponent for the timely response.

================================

Argument:

For the first few sentences of my first argument, I explained how war is sometimes bad. My opponent responded with a series of questions and answers such as:
"Which makes it right?" "It's always been that way so it must be okay?" "Shows how its wrong."
To all of her questions, the answer is no. I was simply pointing out the facts that war has its cons. However, simply because war has cons does not mean that it does not have pros. That could be said about pretty much anything, drug legalization, gay marriage, health-care, ect… This part of my debate is of course not me arguing my case, rather, stating an obvious fact that should be said.

My opponent has admitted that defensive war can be good, what my opponent probably does not know is that most wars are defensive wars! Most of the time, there is an attacker and a defender. Let us take the Al Qaeda for example. The United States of America is looking to hunt them down for what they have done (blown up buildings, killed many Americans.) The Al Qaeda is fighting the United States back with through war. Whatever position you take on this, one part of the war is as you say "righteous." Now, I on the other hand do not take your point of view on the matter. I would rather the United States kill the terrorists instead of the terrorists killing the Americans, but my thoughts are not needed. What I am saying here is that we cannot know all the facts to every war, there are even some defensive wars that are bad. Who decides whose land is who? Many people say that it was wrong to take the Indian's land, but they took that land from another Indian tribe, and so on.

You seem to be getting revenge confused with justice. Justice means to receive punishment for one's misdeeds. Revenge is to retaliate to gain satisfaction. Punishment is necessary, or people will continue to do it. There are different punishments for different causes. If I steal a cookie, I will get a slap on the wrist, if organize a plan to attack a building with air planes, I die.
You say that we should try doing things to punish countries instead of having war with them. The best way I have heard it put is this, violence is the only language that is understood by everyone. Picture if you will, someone breaking into your house, armed to the teeth and determined on killing you. He will not stop to listen to your reason and so for you the only way for you to make it out of that alive is to grab the shotgun from under the bed and kill him before he kills you. Wars are similar, just on a larger scale. You cannot simply say 'we should talk things over.' If that were the case, there would have been Six million more Jews in the world. Do you think Nazi Germany wanted to sit down and 'talk?' Same with your response to my North Korean war scenario, North Korea does not want to talk. Many have tried, but they refuse.

As stated before, humanity is not perfect. We could not get the whole world to agree to punish one nation by not trading with it, it would take away from so much freedom. There would have to be someone in charge of it all, to make sure the nations are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Moreover, what if the countries don't listen? Then should the Nation in charge ban trading from them too, until all the nations are blocked? What about the people being blocked from trading? Their people would suffer with not enough food, the rich would have all of it. If the rich get sick of it, then they start a war. Obviously this idea of yours would not work. We have something similar to it (sanctions) but it rarely works.

As predicted, you get into Semantics with the Trolley scenario. Obviously, the fat guy is not going to sit down and have a chat with you. If someone was running towards you and trying to push you onto the tracks, you would run for your life. However, it would still be moral and just to throw you into the tracks.

You respond to my British to American example by saying what you would do if you were Britain. However, the point is, you were not! You were not Britain, you were not the colonies, you are lovelife, a girl with different views than Britain had. Maybe if the colonies saw that England was willing to let go of the Americas, they would not have fought. But it was obvious this was not the case. Both sides of this war were righteous, we cannot look at Britain and think bad of them. Of course they were not going to simply give up. If the state of Montana wanted to separate from the United States, of course the USA would fight back. The war with Britain was not a 'dirty trick' as you describe it. It was the only way that either of them would listen.

The northern states tried talking with the southern states before the beginning of the Civil war, but the south would not listen. Do you think it would have been better to let the south break away from the north, and even keep slaves?

For my Canadian example, you say how it would be right for Canada to fight back against the USA, therefore engaging in war. Even though you say that they could not crash planes in the US, nuke the US, or in any way attack someone that is not a US soldier or leader, it is still war. And a righteous one at that.

I asked you a question about World War Two, you ignored it and skipped to Hiroshima. Maybe you believe Hiroshima was wrong, but that is not the point. The USA still had no choice than to enter the war. Do you honestly think the Japanese would sit down to 'talk?' Getting into the war and Hiroshima are two different subjects. But Hiroshima is a good example of what 'talking' does. The United States sent a message to Japan and said that they would bomb them with something huge if they did not surrender, Japan did not respond. The USA dropped the bomb, then sent another message warning that if they did not surrender, it would happen again, still no reply. So they dropped a second bomb, Japan finally got the message and surrendered. Again, this is not about Hiroshima. This debate is not even about the methods of war, it is about war itself.

Now, you say that if you support the troops, if you support the war, you support murder. If this is the case then you indeed support murder. You yourself said that some wars are righteous. Your whole murder and war argument is extremely flawed. Remember, justice and revenge and two different things. We have already established that some wars are for justice and not revenge. But taking the law into your own personal hands is very different. There is a organization higher than us which is called the Justice System. The system is run by the government to insure Justice, not revenge. You say that If someone supports fighting for these causes, with innocent people being bombed, raped, attacked, orphaned, abused, tortured, just for living in the wrong place, or believing the wrong thing, it should also be acceptable by their standards, to support it on a much smaller scale. Again, war is not the things you listed. War is when soldiers attack soldiers. You continue to use the methods of war instead of concentrating on what war actually is. You keep taking the worst-case scenario, which of course is not a good example. I could say that swimming is bad because you are stung by jellyfish, eaten by huge sharks, and sunburned, this does not help my case, because that is not what swimming is. Your examples of why murder is right if war is right is way off. If we went around and took the law into our own hands, we would be doing it for revenge, not justice. Wars, although can be for revenge, can be for justice.

I look forward to your response.

Sources:
(1). http://www.globalsecurity.org...
(2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.cfo.doe.gov...
lovelife

Pro

My opponent first states that war has pros and cons, what I'm saying is as it stands the cons heavily outwiegh the pros and should cease until war stops targetting unwilling people for death. Killing thousands of people because those people are being tortured does not make sense. If they dislike it I'm sure they could leave via suicide, attacking those that attack them, or even sneaking out of the country if they have the skill. they shouldn't be bombed just because they live there and are dealing with it.

Yes many wars are defensive, but defensive to whom? Not everyone in the middle east is bad, not all of them are terrorists, yet we target basically that whole area killing many civilians.
Again I'm sure terrorists will get brought up so I will source some info. [1] shows that anyone who is remotely against the U.S or Christian belief are terrorists. The list includes:
"Anyone who criticises the president. "
"Anyone who disagrees with the Neocon political philosophy. "
"Anyone who offered themselves as a human shield to protect brown-skinned people in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. "
"Anyone who opposes the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. "
"Anyone who joins a demonstration to protest government or corporate actions. "
"Anyone who burns a flag. "
"Homosexuals. "
"Anyone who believes abortion should be the decision of the mother. "
"Anyone who teaches evolution instead of creationism. "
"Anyone who does not give lip service to a belief in god."

Based on that standard I believe almost everyone on DDO would be considered terrorists.

[2] shows how the Iraq war is illegal and unjustified, and the soldiers there are nothing but criminals that are glorified protected, and aided by the government instead of killed, like normal criminals.

[3] Torture, its real, its common, its the American way, a fine tribute to Hitler.
[4] more information
You can tell I'm sure that they didn't just get attackers, they got women and children as well. Some of the evils commited include:

"Doctors tortured prisoners. 35 pages of government documents. "
"Rape, vaginal and anal of men, women and children."
"Kicking prisoners to death "
"Parent forced to watch son being tortured. "
"Government documents show soldiers were ordered to "beat the f-ck out of" prisoners. "
"Chaining to the ceilings of cells for days at a time. "
"common peroneal strike, aimed at a point just below the knee and intended to disable. Basically pulpifying the legs so they look as though they had though they had been run over by a bus. "
"breaking a teen's jaw, then wiring it shut. "
"Pulling out fingers and teeth. See Page 49 of Chain of Command. "
"Setting vicious dogs on children. "
"Raping young Iraqi boys on video. 14 year old being raped. Pulitzer prize winner and breaker of Mai Lai, Seymour Hersch has seen one of the videos. The most horrifying part is the Americans raping a little boy in front of his parents as the little boy screamed"
"'Dietary manipulation'. Forcing to eat pork and alcohol forbidden to Muslims. Forcing to eat disgusting things. Forced to eat the contents of a toilet. Forced to drink from a toilet bowl. "
"Menstrual Blood. To break the prisoner's reliance on God, a female interrogator would tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash. Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean. At Guant´┐Żnamo, a prostitute menstruated on a man strapped the floor. "

The list goes on and on and character limits prohibit posting much more. The site records 94 different types of abuse, done to innocent people in the middle east, that if done to American criminals would result in bringing the guard or whoever else did it to justice.

My point? It is not justified. It is not much different then Nazi Germany, in this case we are the evil, they are trying to defend against all these acts of horror, and we think of the soldiers as heros. It is quite sickening.

Humans are not perfect, but humans can help end the evil and unjustice done and glorified today.
Justice is revenge. If you kill your mother's murderer you brought them to justice. If the state does the same they did the same. No one entity should have more freedom then another. If soldiers can do it so should the everyday hard working U.S citizen, over seas, at home, same rights, same treatment.
You can't glorify torture and murder for a few thousand while punishing the others, not justly at least.

My opponent addresses slavery. Cruel possession of other people, forcing to work hard, with little hope of survival.
Yes slavery was wrong, it still is. Should there have been a war? Not unless need be. It would have been easy for the north to over power the south by blockading, and leading the underground railroad. They chose instead to not let the south secede and treat them as a seperate country, to which my solutions would still apply, they chose to get mad, greedy, and lead a war.
Both sides thought they were justified, the north wanted freedom of people, the south wanted freedom of choice and freedom of government.

My opponent argues methods of war vs war itself what about slavery in that sense?
Slavery could be good if you looked at it as saving people from dying, and giving them home and food in exchange for work.
Actual practices of slavery were just as wrong as how civilians in the middle east are being treated, and it isn't unique to one war, or even one time frame, we have just devoloped new ways to torture over time.

Your worst case scenerio doesn't really work either, What people remember of the Holocaust was the worst case scenerio, and it was very real, and nearlt everyone agrees it was evil. What's changed over the time? Do people never learn?

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and the audience for reading it.

----sources----
[1]http://mindprod.com...
[2] http://mindprod.com...
[3] http://mindprod.com...
[4] http://mindprod.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Koopin

Con

Thank you for your response.
Before I began, I would like to say that I am in no way trying to be rude in this argument to come.
I am simply pointing out facts in a caring way, though it is hard to tell over the internet.

================================

Argument:

You state that war has so many cons that it should cease.
You says that 'killing thousands of people because they are being tortured does not make since.'
No offense, but this statement itself does not make since either.
We are talking about war, not a specific war, but war in general.
I have said this in my previous arguments, but you have yet to address them.
My examples of the Korean war is not what we are talking about, it was just an example. Not all wars are about freeing certain people.
Most of your opening paragraph in round three does not make since. Saying that ‘they could leave via suicide' is simply foolish.

You go on to talk about the war in the Middle East.
Again, I have said countless times, not all wars can be based off of one example.
If I play a basketball game against a horrible player and win, I can not say that I will win all my future games.
The reason for this is because there is always something different, there could always be a better player than me. The scenarios always changes, same thing in war.
You give a list of what makes a "terrorist."
First of all, this list is irrelevant, seeing as to not all wars are about stopping terrorists.
Secondly, the list is extremely flawed!
It is not even our government's use of the word terror.
Your source even says that people use the world so lightly, that people have started using it to describe their their enemies.
The list you gave was showing how people loosely use the word terrorist.
The funny thing is your own source says that the list is wrong.
Your source does not help you in the least.

Sources 2, 3, and 4 are also irrelevant to this debate, for yet again not all wars are the wars in the Middle East.
Your mass copy and paste of the site you used is not very reliable, and does not cover all war.
It covers a war, but not war itself.
I think you are somewhat confused about websites.
Just because you list sources from a site does not make it true.
For example, this site (1) believes Michal Jackson is still alive, and popping up all over the world.
Here is a direct quote from the site:

"The World Weekly News has reported that Michael Jackson is appearing around the world on his birthday.
He has been seen in Ireland, South Africa, Dubai, Shanghai, Manila, Rome, Barcelona, London, Moscow, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aires, Sydney, Miami, New York and Los Angeles.
Michael appears on the street, sings and dances for about thirty seconds then he disappears.

‘It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen,' said Roger Farley of London. ‘He appeared on the street, sang a few short lines of the song, spun around and was gone… It was him. It definitely was him.'"

Now simply because this site says Michials still alive, does not make it true.

The internet is full of stuff like this. These people (2) even say that Elvis Presley is alive and working as an undercover agent for the DEA!

But back to what I was saying, the internet cannot be trusted, and you needed more official sources to help your case.
But again, if you think that America is so evil and the real terrorists are fine, then you agree that war against the USA is righteous and necessary.

Saying that Justice and revenge are the same is completely wrong.
The best way I have heard it put was that revenge is retaliation by a wronged party against the person or people they see as having caused the wrong.
The person carrying out an act of revenge may have been harmed indirectly or not at all by the person at whom the revenge is directed, but on some level there is a perceived personal grievance.
Justice, on the other hand, can be carried out by an unaffected third party.
In most developed countries it is considered vital that the judiciary be independent from the other arms of government, partly for this very reason.
Justice also doesn't necessarily involve any act of retribution.
For example, the acquittal of an innocent person can be considered an act of justice, but it certainly isn't revenge. Justice also requires fairness, and while this is obviously subjective to a large extent it's still relevant.
It's no secret that the invasion of Iraq was partially motivated by the '9/11' terrorist attacks, but while a war killing tens of thousands of civilians with no terrorist involvement may be called revenge, there aren't too many people who would see it as justice.
Do you see what I am getting at?
On a smaller scale, if someone rapes a girl, then the girl's brother goes and kills the rapist, then it was revenge. Justice is when you are punished in the correct manner by people who are not deeply affected by the situation. If justice and revenge was the same thing, that would mean if a ten year old stole my bike and I killed him, then the ten year old came to justice.
You see?
It obviously does not work that way.
I even gave you the definitions of both justice and revenge in round three.

About the civil war, you said:

"Should there have been a war? Not unless need be."

Of course there was a need! You say that the North became greedy when they could have just blockaded the south. This was not the solution, in fact, it was the South that started the war by firing upon northern troops!

Comparing slavery vs war is also a bad contrast.
The slave has done nothing wrong, where as in war the other person usually has.
The slave does not have a choice to be free, but in war the person has the choice to surrender, slave ownership puts one man absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.
This is not the case in many wars, although it is the case in some.
I shouldn't have to say this again but, not all wars are the same.

Your last paragraph is incomprehensible.
I really do not mean to be rude, but I have absolutely no clue as to what you are actually talking about.

Audience, my opponent has done a great job in debating me.
I really enjoy that she did not forfeit like most of the others do.
But, she has contradicted herself in so many ways. She has made absurd claims, and has even admitted herself that war is sometimes necessary, therefore proving my case.
She has made false claims such as revenge and murder are the same, and has also failed to provide reliable sources. I ask that the audience vote correctly, and not simply with who you agree with.

I would like to thank my opponent once more for the lovely debate, and would also like to thank the audience for reading.

(1). http://www.michaeljacksonsightings.com...
(2). http://www.elvis-is-alive.com...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
lovelife

Pro

I want to start by once again thanking my opponent for this debate, its been interesting.

I will keep this plain and simple as I can. If war is legal, so should murder on a smaller scale for the same reasons.
I don't think a country would go to war because someone stole a bunch of bicycles, and certainly not children.
If it is justified to fight a war for religious reasons, it would also be proper to kill someone for religious differences.
Just because the number is larger, and its somewhere else, and someone else's problem, does not mean it is less wrong.
I agree war is needed sometimes, so is murder.
If you have someone come on your property and try and kill you, you have a right to kill that person, no different then a government.
Lets say something happened such as the attacker killed himself and the victim. The family of the victim does not have the right to find the attackers house and treat the people there the same way, or worse.
Government should in turn not have that right.

My opponent t claims I contradicted myself, my point was not what a terrorist is, but what people consider terrorists. People can now say that anyone they don't like are terrorists and in the war against terrorists, they will fail to see the REAL threat and find a reason to attack, torture, and kill gay atheists opposed to the war.
I never meant for it to be a definition, just a case.

My copy and paste links were meant to show what happens in war. You can't just say "well that happens sometimes but not always..." It happened then, it happens now, and the only way to end it is to end war, not just a specific war but violating a country's right to live.

War is not any more justified then vigilantism. If it is okay for the government to attack another government, then a person should be able to attack another person for the same reason.

Again I thank my opponent for this debate and the voters for reading it and hopefully voting fairly.
Debate Round No. 4
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
??? What?
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Lovelife debates like she's in comments, still. Red herrings and confusion everywhere!
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
tayjay, is there any reason you gave me 7 points?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Thats why you buy things made in your own country. Plus I really do think people should spend more time being naked, it would help get the stick out of some people's @sses.
Plus my aunt said its healthier.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Good luck checking for "made in" on all your groceries.

Also, I hope you enjoy your life as a nudist. Virtually all zippers, buttons, etc are manufactured in China, to keep costs down. Just because the final product is made or assembled elsewhere doesn't mean that many of the inputs were made in that country. Good luck calling all the manufacturers.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Or even just strong feelings against China, if I hated China, I wouldn't buy anything made in China.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
If I had strong feelings for Australia then I would lok it up and I would support it.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Let's say you hate China and live in the US. Let's say Australia boycotts China. Would you suddenly go out and decide to buy more stuff that is made in Australia (to "show your support")? Do you even know which products in any given store are made in Australia?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Nah I'm sure those opposed to black people/the US would love to support Walmart/country X.

I don't think it would last long, nor do I think it would be too hard for countries to ignore the US for a while.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
The U.N. cannot boycott anyone - member nations can.

The U.S. is a net importer, not a net exporter, meaning boycotting us means a net loss for most countries. It's easy to buy from somewhere else, it's not easy to find someone else to sell to.

For example, if you boycott Walmart, you could easily buy from Target instead.

However, if Walmart decided to boycott black people, it would find a hard time finding a bunch of new customers.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
KoopinlovelifeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
KoopinlovelifeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by TayJay13 6 years ago
TayJay13
KoopinlovelifeTied
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 arethusa668 6 years ago
arethusa668
KoopinlovelifeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by rengstrom6147 6 years ago
rengstrom6147
KoopinlovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
KoopinlovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
KoopinlovelifeTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
KoopinlovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
KoopinlovelifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
KoopinlovelifeTied
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:50