The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,959 times Debate No: 15101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




War isn't evil. And we shouldn't be allowed to murder because war is legal. That makes sense only for those who want it to make sense. Just because we fought against terroists, should Billy Joe be allowed to blow somebody away for the fun of it? We would be in total anarchy! People would be killed left and right! War is horribl, but horribly, it is a neccessity to protect our freedoms. Thank you.


I would like to thank my opponent for presenting me with this debate.

War has much evil to it's attachment. Within war itself, you are going to destroy or kill whether it be other people, properties, beliefs, or anything that stands in the way of accomplishing the main objective.

Evil is defined(1) as (adj.) causing ruin, injury, or pain. Also,(noun) that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction. It may also be defined as something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction.

War is defined(2) as a condition of active antagonism or contentions. Or, to be in a state of hostility or rivalry.

I'm also going to stress the importance of hostility and hostile behavior. To be hostile is(3) to be unfavorable to health or well being. And is also described as feeling or showing enmity and ill-will. I present the idea you can not be hostile and not wish some form of pain, or destruction as a result.

In any war-based scenario you will find some form of suffering, destruction, or injury. You can see the direct result of evil through the loss of innocent lives or any other collateral damage, not to mention casualties of soldiers and destruction of military property.

War is usually not seen as evil from the heads of the attacking party. When waging war, there are 2 parties fighting for what they believe is right. Each party sees the opposing side as a force to be reckoned with. For example, we view the aforementioned terrorists as people who are out to cause harm to our society. Whereas they view us as a superpower running out of control that needs to be stopped. Both of these parties are looking to eradicate their opponents for what they believe in, or to be put plainly, they are seeking to cause evil(harm, injury, pain, destruction) for their benefit.

I will also address some of my opponents viewpoints, they had mentioned, as well.

"...we shouldn't be allowed to murder because war is legal. That makes sense only for those who want it to make sense." I won't deny that killing is wrong and evil. However, I don't believe people are killing because we, as a country, incite war. If we could look at this in a different perspective for people. For example, a gang war is something that does happen, there may not be a country involved but there are 2 parties contending. Sometimes the result of death will occur over something that seems insignificant to an outsider. I will state that, to the general population, war is not the best example to use to solve problems. Therefore, other hostilities could be avoided to find a solution to a problem, and should be exercised entirely until it is absolutely necessary to start a "war".

According to the definition of war alone, any altercation is a war to an extent. Within those altercations pain, injury, or ruin occurs. Whether it be physically to the person, to their property, or their beliefs/feelings.

Debate Round No. 1


First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. Even as your opponent, as must admit you have a strong defense for the subject.
Now, I must clarify something. War is horrible, but not evil. Ask the families of all the Jews killed if war is horrible, and they'll obviously say yes. But ask them if USA was evil to come fight to protect them, and they'll say no. War is horrible, but evil? War can be used for evil purposes, but it can be used for good. If some maniac with a knife woke you up in the middle of the night, trying to kill you, you'd be a fool not to try to kill him. War against evil people like Hitler is the same thing, only on a larger scale. I eagerly await my opponents next arguement. Good luck.


You bring up good points. I wouldn't disagree that the Jews saw the good intentions of their rescuers. However, as I had mentioned earlier the head of the attacking party doesn't feel their reasoning for taking action as evil. I would assume the Nazi German soldiers would view Americans as evil, as they would with the Soviet soldiers and the British.

I will also remind you that during this specific time period Pearl Harbor had been bombed by the Japanese, another axis power in world war 2. After the time of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Military had set up internment camps for the Japanese Americans. (1)Over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese American individuals, mostly citizens of the United States, were placed in these camps living as a prisoner where some inevitably died. Germans and Italians were also relocated to these camps but not nearly as many as the Japanese.
Also, during this same time period the Americans, in retaliation to the Japanese bombings of Pearl Harbor, had dropped 2 nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki making the death total from 2 bombings alone anywhere from 150,000-246,000, including non-military personnel and children, some of which had prolonged death due to radiation poisoning and severe burns(2).

As for your statement of, "If some maniac with a knife woke you up in the middle of the night, trying to kill you, you'd be a fool not to try to kill him.", I think we can both agree that this maniac would have evil intentions. I would defend myself with whatever I could. I would try my best not to kill the individual, I don't think I could deal with the trauma of taking another life, and let the law take care of the maniac.

We have to remember we are dealing with 2 parties in a state of hostility. There is no way that evil can be avoided during this contention. To respond to your last point, "War against evil people like Hitler is the same thing, only on a larger scale.", again I will have to point out there are 2 sides to war and both view their opposing parties as evil. Also, when you have a ruler like Hitler, you have to think of who is following his orders. The Nazis, and the SS' Gestapo, are following the orders of an evil man. Therefore, all members following an evil party are performing actions that are intended for evil purposes, i.e. killing over 5,000,000 Jews.

With each war there are many facts overlooked and many war crimes to be accounted for. And with war crimes involved with war, I will note that (3)crime is directly defined as an evil act.

In my closing argument in this round I will agree that war is necessary to an extent. But, we can't argue that war is not evil. I will close this round with a quote(4) from Jimmy Carter "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."

Debate Round No. 2


You have many good points. But peace won't be made by not fighting for what's right. We can't hope things will go away.


I would like to thank you again for this opportunity.

I remind you and to all that is reading that I feel I have given credible proof that war is evil. I understand that sometimes you have to fight for what is right. But that's not what this debate was about.

I have given substantial proof that to be at war is to be in a state of hostility. To be hostile is to be unfavorable to health and well being, and showing enmity and ill-will. And to be evil is causing ruin, injury, or pain(all of these sources can be found within the first round).

Given the nature of war and all things attached to it's name there is no way war is not evil in any way. Look at the enemies(and how each party perceives each other), look at the battles(and how their carried out), and then look at the after effects(destruction, casualties, and war crimes).

The sources and arguments provided make a great case.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Connor666 4 years ago
Ok yea that was a stupid comment. Apologies. But in a more seriosu note war is osmetimes needed to maintain peace in the world. But overall yes war is evil
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Evil was defined in the first round
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
Nobody defined what evil means....that should mean that nobody could win the argument but, i didnt get to vote oh well
Posted by democrat435 5 years ago
awesome job, no matter what the result is, i'm still with the con!
Posted by democrat435 5 years ago
this debate is very interesting and war is one of the very hard topics to debate and to come out with a ones sided conclusion. I'm backing the con on this one.
Posted by tory98sh 5 years ago
I am very interested with this debate, very good, and i've got to go with Con for this one
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
War is a natural occurring event ,look at chimps

This will be a good debate.
also dolphins are evil...
Posted by democrat435 5 years ago
the best of luck my friend. you're doing a fantastic job, im with con for sure
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
That what i ment by clever trick :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest, assertions from Con, well developed argument from Pro.