Is Armed conflict justifiable?
Debate Rounds (3)
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)
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.
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.
HWilcox forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.