The Instigator
WarWorld
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Kaynex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is War necessary for World Peace

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...
WarWorld
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,058 times Debate No: 64974
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (1)

 

WarWorld

Pro

I believe that war will lead to World Peace because if one country can destroy all the rest of them would that not lead to Peace. If 1 country can rise up and destroy the rest that makes that country the sole inhabitant of the world which leads to no one to fight against. If that is succeeded than we can focus all of our efforts on things more worthwhile than the constant manufacture of weapons and violence. we can focus on curing Diseases, increasing our knowledge of the Universe, and eventually leaving Earth and terraforming other planets. Which leads to the prosperity and well-being of the Human race. It is necessary for even Innocent people to die for the Greater good of our continuation of our species. If millions and even billions of people have to die to achieve World Peace then I say it is a small price to pay. You can always make more people replace the one that we have lost. Sooner or late the Earth I going to run out of fresh water or space or us all getting blown up by nuclear weapons. Which will lead to War over these things and these things will be used up in our petty struggles for Dominance. Thanks
Kaynex

Con

Hello, Warworld! Nice debate topic, I think it pertains to everybody.

I certainly think that through enough war, world peace could be attained. However, I do not think this is the only way it may be done. War is not necessary for world peace.

In your examples, you mention world peace through world dominance. While war could make a country dominant, there are other ways. Through the UN, peacekeeping missions, or presence in other countries, one could say that the US is taking over the world through diplomatic means. Similarly, through extreme productivity, the fastest growing economy, and a world-wide market, one could also say that China is taking over the world through economic means. It's all a matter of blending other nations in with your world views, until they want to become a part of your nation.

Otherwise though, I don't necessarily hold that dominance is the key to world peace. I think it's all about strong treaties, and happy economies. I also think that key differences, such as oppressive religions, would need to be seen past.

On the whole though, the ends should never be used to justify the means. Going to war with the idea of creating world peace is something I wouldn't condone. It is our job as a unified world to come up with better solutions.
Debate Round No. 1
WarWorld

Pro

Thank you

I still believe that only when you are alone Peace can be had. When 2 forces come into contact with each other they can very rarely be in peace together. It is possible to tolerate the other person, but that only works to a degree. Sooner or later those forces will come into conflict until one is eliminated and the other one can now retain that peacefulness that they once had. World Dominance is not the only way to achieve peace I agree but to me it seems like the one that would guarantee future peacefulness and happiness
Kaynex

Con

Unfortunately with a debate like this, neither side can show conclusive evidence of their side, because the world has never seen world peace before. I guess it will be opinion specific. I remain with my point that the ends of any action should not justify the means of any action.
Debate Round No. 2
WarWorld

Pro

I believe that World Peace probably will never be attained until some catastrophic event can bring Humanity together. World Domination is a win-win situation, because only 2 outcomes are possible. 1. All the other countries will be conquered and Peace shall follow. 2. The rest of the counties will band together and destroy that country and will continue to work together. This is my opinion only so it's kind of shaky with no evidence, but it is what has to happen for us to come together as a species. The only other alternative is for us to all die of Starvation and dehydration.

Thanks for the fun I hope we can clash minds again. Farewell
Kaynex

Con

Thank you for this interesting debate, have a good one!
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deablo1 2 years ago
Deablo1
I was reading back through, and I meant real WORLD, not real work, my apologies
Posted by Deablo1 2 years ago
Deablo1
And if you ever question the corruptedness of people, look at a baby. It will take a toy from another baby, then cry when it gets taken away from him. Who taught that baby to be selfish? No one. That is a way to tell that people are naturally corrupt
Posted by Deablo1 2 years ago
Deablo1
People just need to stop assuming that people are good. The good debate between Locke and Hobbes. So, Locke said that we need a small government, because people are naturally good and do not need guidance. Hobbes said that people are naturally evil; therefore, we must have a large government that can suppress the evil in people. I agree that people are evil, but the flaw in Hobbes plan is that the people in the government are corrupt. So the government should be small and weak BECAUSE people are corrupt. I would love a world where communism works, any governmental system can work if the ruler looks out for the people. I personally do not like a democracy. Since people are corrupt, their voting is corrupted as well. I believe in a society where each town/county elects a mayor. Those mayors elect people to the electoral college (based on population). Then the electoral college elects a president. That is my real work solution.
Posted by WarWorld 2 years ago
WarWorld
Then what would you say about world peace. War is many things but not pointless. War is sometimes good take the American Civil War that was not imperial dominance. That was us trying to make up for our own failures as human beings. People don't agree to slavery if they really agreed then why do they try to escape or rise up against their enslavers. Grudges are not all bad either they can bring people together or rip people apart, and War is not the only thing that breeds grudges.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
I used to think wars were cool, but now I just think they're a waste of time.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
War sucks. It's not necessary for anything but exerting imperial dominance. War triggers more war, creating reciprocating grudges for decades or centuries. Why? Because while it seems sound in theory, complete elimination of the enemy has been attempted. It does not work. So wars are really ended on agreements. All of them. Even slavery is an agreement- the enslaved party agrees to be enslaved to keep its life or lives.

And as long as there are agreements- as long as there are people left on the other side- there are people around holding grudges. That's why wars are actually detrimental to world peace. They start on the ideas of a few collated to form the ideas of the many. This has horrible and far-reaching effects.

Just grow up and stop fighting, everyone.
Posted by WarWorld 2 years ago
WarWorld
That is a good idea if none of the governments work all we have to do is make a new one. If we do not move forward then we shall die "Let us move forward together." Also go back to where to the time of Calvary and marching in rows. Wars are won by Technology not force those with the better tech live those without die.
Posted by WarWorld 2 years ago
WarWorld
Heres the link for the commercial http://www.opposingviews.com...
Posted by Deablo1 2 years ago
Deablo1
Who doesn't think that?? Honestly, we cannot raise taxes. In fact, we shouldn't even have an income tax. I agree with you, America needs to change, or it will fall. But we need to go back, not go to communism. We basically agree on where we are, but not how to get out
Posted by sgiuggio 2 years ago
sgiuggio
I also agree with you WarWorld on the topic of the U.S. I don't particularly like our government and believe that we import far to much more than we export (a country should alway export more than they import). To go back to communism I do think any dictator will abuse there power though and communism just wont work with a dictator or a democracy ( or any other government for that matter) because eventually those on top will become corrupt and abuse the power of distributing resources. Even if people are represented they can be easily fooled or bribed into believing the actions of the corrupt are just. In my worldview as in Deablo 1's there is no perfect government so the best we can get out of a government already thought up is a republic not making use of communism. Though because of my interest in history and government I would be willing to look into developing my own theory on government to try and make theory that allows communism to function better when implemented. I would also appreciate a link to the ww1 commercial if you have the time, it seems interesting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PChanGOP 2 years ago
PChanGOP
WarWorldKaynexTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro