The Instigator
jinx18
Pro (for)
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)

Is Pre-Emptive Warfare Morally Justified?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
jinx18 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 104586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

jinx18

Pro

Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos once said, "Suppose aliens invade the earth and threaten to obliterate it in a year's time unless human beings can find the Ramsey number for red five and blue five. We could marshal the world's best minds and fastest computers, and, within a year, we could probably calculate the value. If the aliens demanded the Ramsey number for red six and blue six, however, we would have no choice but to launch a pre-emptive attack." In ties with this, I am resolved that pre-emptive warfare is morally justified.

Let's start by defining some terms. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, pre-emptive warfare is defined as a strike against something that is feared or anticipated to happen. Morally justified is defined as being shown to be ethically true and/or right by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

My value is global security. Global security is defined as protection of the world against war and other threats. My criterion is liberalism. Liberalism is defined as a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self- regulating market, and the gold standard. Liberalism ties into global security because, either for better or for worse, has profoundly affected the way states act in matters of security in its establishment of international institutes.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

No, because more likely than not, aliens don't exist. They will not destroy the planet, this was some far fetched conspiracy that was debunked years, if not decades ago. Your arguments are based on other conspiracies from the past and The Merriam Webster Dictionary, which still makes it a conspiracy,

Aliens never existed, that must have been some overreaction that we found more planets in the past.
Examples:

Jupiter: Which was found by Galileo in 1610 [1]
Mars: Which was found by Christian Huygens in 1659 [2]
Saturn: Which was found by Galileo in 1610 [3]

Sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://www.windows2universe.org...
[3] https://attic.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Planets were just found, Aliens never existed, they never will exist.

There is no need for "Pre-Emptive Warfare"
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jinx18 8 months ago
jinx18
Also, this debate is not about aliens, so your argument is not very valid.
Posted by jinx18 8 months ago
jinx18
Okay, I chose the wrong quote. That is my mistake.
Posted by jinx18 8 months ago
jinx18
Okay, I chose the wrong quote. That is my mistake.
Posted by jinx18 8 months ago
jinx18
Okay, I chose the wrong quote. That is my mistake.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 8 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
This makes no sense
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.