The Instigator
HWilcox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheDom275
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Armed conflict justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 85251
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

HWilcox

Pro

'The end justifies the means' is one of the most popular term used to justify armed conflict. But is this always the case? It is true that in some cases, such as in Afghanistan, NATO intervention potentially saved thousands of innocent Afghani lives. However, what were some of the repercussions of this? Millions of dollars in government spending, countless Afghani and American lives lost, both military and civilian. What about Vietnam? WWII? Did the outcome of WWII justify the loss of millions of lives and billions of dollars? My opinion is that it did not. While armed conflict can reap some benefits, these benefits mainly affect the governments involved. Other than this, war brings nothing but hurt, misery and death.
TheDom275

Con

The idea of the end justifying the means is arguably savage but it is true all the same. Think back to World War 2. If Britain hadn't declared war against Nazi Germany in 1939 they would have been doing Poland and Czechoslovakia an injustice in allowing their largely unwilling and forceful occupation by the Nazis to go unabated. If the allies hadn't taken up arms against axis forces many more would have died than already did. Armed conflict is what starts wars, yes, but it is also what ends wars.

To put it on a smaller level, if you were attacked by an armed assailant you would arm yourself and reciprocate if the situation allowed it. That's natural, instinctive self-preservation. Similarly, if an armed assailant attacked your best friend or a family member you would arm yourself and defend them if you could. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Basically, my argument is that the instigators of armed conflict are almost always in the wrong and those who defend themselves or their allies have every moral right to. If people didn't reciprocate, armed conflict wouldn't exist as it can't without two sides to fight each other. If people didn't reciprocate and cause armed conflict, they would be stepped over by the power hungry and the greedy. Armed conflict as a result of an inborn desire to have freedom and not be controlled is completely justified.

(If I repeated myself or made any moot points I'm sorry but this is my first debate here and I'm still getting the hang of it)
Debate Round No. 1
HWilcox

Pro

The point I am trying to make is that when wars are started, the justifications given often do not justify the end results. We can look back to conflicts such as the Vietnam War or Korea. While wars were being fought even before US intervention, the real conflict came after the US entered. The reasons for American intervention were no more than US self-interest. Americans were worried that Communism was spreading too quickly, so they denied free elections, sent armed troops, and soon a full blown war had broken out. The end result was a half communist Korea and a communist Vietnam, and around 2.5 million deaths, civilian and military.

In WWII, it is difficult to say whether the end really did justify the means. While it is true that Adolf Hitler was a madman that needed stopping, there is no arguing that the US Army committed no shortage of atrocities during the war, and after the war, we also have to remember the state that Europe was left in. Even England, in all it's glory, was in economic chaos, and even close to becoming a communist state.

Essentially what I am trying to say is that we cannot just look at what happened directly after wars to justify what happened. Things happen all around the planet as a result of armed conflicts, we must take that into account as well.
TheDom275

Con

I have to agree that US intervention truly starts most wars nowadays and that it's mostly only out of self interest and the intent to create like-minded capitalist-democratic states which are crippled and therefore reliant on the US for support but my point still stands that armed conflict and wars can be justifiable.

If you look at possibility and think about the What ifs, most wars have been justified at some point before or after the fact. That is, outside of wars that were pure invasion led by greed such as Vietnam and the old invasions of Africa. Those were horrible. Back to the point though, most wars have stopped events which would have been worse than the events required to stop them. For example, if the Third Reich had lasted any more than 12 years the world would have been irreparably scarred. So WWII is justifiable as a protection of the world at large from Nazi ideals. The same thing goes for the wars in the middle east. Yes, horrible things happened in them. Yes, many people suffered in them. But more innocent people would have suffered as a result of terrorism over time if nobody had stepped up to fight it.

The idea I'm getting at is that someone with strength who doesn't stand and defend their land and people against those who would harm them are just as morally questionable as the attackers and if they don't stand then there is no war, just an attack.
Debate Round No. 2
HWilcox

Pro

HWilcox forfeited this round.
TheDom275

Con

Pro has forfeited the round, so I have nothing to do this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zarium 1 year ago
Zarium
Damn, if i had been aware of this, that was a well constructed argument there, Con.

Forfeitures usually mean nothing unless stated in the first round (i.e. forfeiture = loss) - or if multiple rounds are forfeited.

You have the opportunity to either extend your argument, in the hopes that your opponent picks up the reins again, or to continue with your side - both are acceptable, but statistically people extend their arguments.
Posted by Zarium 1 year ago
Zarium
Damn, if i had been aware of this, that was a well constructed argument there, Con.

Forfeitures usually mean nothing unless stated in the first round (i.e. forfeiture = loss) - or if multiple rounds are forfeited.

You have the opportunity to either extend your argument, in the hopes that your opponent picks up the reins again, or to continue with your side - both are acceptable, but statistically people extend their arguments.
Posted by TheDom275 1 year ago
TheDom275
So what happens when the instigator forfeits?
Posted by MattTheDreamer 1 year ago
MattTheDreamer
Posting here just so I can see the other rounds.
No votes have been placed for this debate.