The Instigator
shockwave188
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Actionsspeak
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Is peace possible for the countries of Earth?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Actionsspeak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,244 times Debate No: 46100
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

shockwave188

Con

I think this question really is essentially about human nature. The most simplified version of the scenario I can imagine is can one human being peacefully coexist with another given that their environment is not large enough so that they can avoid each other forever, so that they must come into contact frequently. I do not think that they could coexist without some sort of danger to drive them together and force them to coexist. I think this has arisen from the primal nature of humans. During the infancy of humanity that we had to be brutal and merciless to survive. However throughout the generations it has become a more sustainable and realistic idea to be kind and compassionate. Maybe in a few more generations those traits will become dominant and human nature can change? What do you think?
Actionsspeak

Pro

Ok first thing is first, time for definitions.

Peace: a state in which there is no war or fighting.[1]

Possible: able to happen or exist.[2]

Country: an area of land that is controlled by its own government.[3]

Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.[4]

Nonintervention/non-interventionism: A foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.[5]

In the event that every country in the world agrees to non-interventionism not only is it possible to have world peace, but it's impossible to have war. You can argue that non-interventionism government's have wars but that's only if their attacked first and if all countries had non-interventionism then no country would ever attack another country.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
shockwave188

Con

First off great citation of your sources! Also I totally get what your saying and that makes sense. Also I looked at your profile and you're a great debater, it's a honor that you chose to accept my topic. Congratulations on your undefeated two win streak I think that streak will grow. I think it may help our debate to add some context. I am currently taking 21st century modern issues in my high school and moralities of everyday life through coursera.org(source1). In my modern issues class we are studying the modern events happening in the middle east. We are looking from the cold war and the Soviet and American involvement up to the continued presence of UN peacekeeping forces. In my moralities class the professor Paul Bloom has presented us multiple scientific studies that demonstrate that humans want to be good and live a peaceful happy life in which everyone is safe and content. Also through simply thinking about the topic of peace it seems like world peace should be an attainable thing. Yet in my modern issues class and looking online no country has been able to be conflict free for more than around twenty years. (source 2) I am in the midst of trying to convince myself that world peace is an attainable goal. I found debate.org a few days ago and thought that creating a debate on it would be a good way to find someone to convince me it is attainable, and here we are.

I think your scenario of non-interventionist countries would completely work. My doubts are in the feasibility of that scenario though. As stated in my first presentation it seems that although human nature seems to be slowly becoming more gentle and compassionate that on a global scale we are firmly rooted in pro aggressive tendencies. In countless polls and interviews and experiments the results clearly show that the citizens and leaders of most countries want peace. Yet the world has somehow been getting more aggressive even though the people seem to get more peaceful. Why do you think this is and how do you think it will be possible for all countries to be non-interventionist?

Thank you again for taking up my topic and I hope I prove to be moderately challenging opponent.

Source1:
A link to the moralities class: https://class.coursera.org...
Source2:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com...
Source3:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Actionsspeak

Pro

I would love to take this time to thank Con, both for accepting my friend request and for debating reasonably and honestly.

Con said: "I think your scenario of non-interventionist countries would completely work. My doubts are in the feasibility of that scenario though. As stated in my first presentation it seems that although human nature seems to be slowly becoming more gentle and compassionate that on a global scale we are firmly rooted in pro aggressive tendencies. In countless polls and interviews and experiments the results clearly show that the citizens and leaders of most countries want peace. Yet the world has somehow been getting more aggressive even though the people seem to get more peaceful. Why do you think this is and how do you think it will be possible for all countries to be non-interventionist?"

Credit to Con:
I would like to take this round to thank con he understood he was against an uphill battle and took the civil way. In my previous debate my opponent simple forfeited the closing round,[1]

Feasbable: reasonable, likely[2]

Before I argue of how my plan is reasonable I would like to first mention why it's possible, which is what this debate is all about. Government's have tested this foreign policy and in fact it's in use today by New Zealand, Sweden, and Switzerland. It was also formerly in use by the U.S. So I see no reason why other present day countries couldn't adapt this new-age foreign policy. I would also like to clarify if their is even a chance such 0.000000000000000001% at every country reaching peace that would mean I successfully proved Con's argument wrong. However he also knows this and it showed when he said
"I think your scenario of non-interventionist countries would completely work.".
Now that this debate seems finalized I would like to say that I agree that every year people seems to become more civilized and in favor or liberty. As for every county passing laws this year in the name of non-interventionism I would have to assume it's below 1%. However every European countries continues to crawl towards it, and I could see every European nation and Australia (who has strong European influence) having non-interventionism policies by 2016. I could also see African countries implementing it and possible even Eurasian Russia. Russia is being shown a side of countries with more liberty during the Winter Olympics and they love it. Their people also show a hatred to their current on-and-off leader Vladimar Putin[3] who is currently 61, a russian fun fact the average russian male life expectancy is 62.77[4]. By 2020 North American and Asian countries could realistically implament non-interventionism although the U.S. Has a presidental election coming in 2016 I see no canidate pushing for non-interventionism and typically China follows American political decisions. Finally, South American countries are incredibly divided although I see no reason a nation such as Brazil couldn't implament it today politics in South American countries are very Authoritarian so I think it will require a younger set of political leaders and will finally become reasonable at 2025.

Source:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
shockwave188

Con

if their is even a chance such 0.000000000000000001% at every country reaching peace that would mean I successfully proved Con's argument wrong. Pro is completely right. His solution is tangible and therefore beats my argument entirely. Once this debate reaches the voting period I would like to ask all voters to vote for my opponent. He totally won. So solidly that I don't even know what to put in for the rest of the rounds. Any suggestions? I look forward to seeing your other debates and it is truly a honor and humbling to be beaten so completely.
Actionsspeak

Pro

I would like to thank Con for showing a classy debate, and would like to mention I just finished my second round of:
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind. I would have typed an argument but this debate is over, so I will simply leave you with this link to my debate mentioned esrlier[1], and wish you luck in any other debates you participate in.
(Sidenote: I left the link since Con said
"I look forward to seeing your other debates and it is truly a honor and humbling to be beaten so completely.")

Source:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
shockwave188

Con

Your debate is already legendary. I wouldn't even know where to start. Congratulations on the win by the way
Actionsspeak

Pro

Thanks Con, I guess I may as well just wrap this round up with a short sentence.
Debate Round No. 4
shockwave188

Con

well here we are. the last round. Vote for pro
Actionsspeak

Pro

Thanks to con, and anyone who took the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheFinalLegacy 3 years ago
TheFinalLegacy
THE PRO GUY IS RIGHT! ^_^
THE CON GUY HAS A GOOD POINT BUT THE PRO GUY IS RIGHT, SRRY.
MY NAME IS ANGELA, I AM A sexy 7TH GRADE GIRL IN FLORIDA.
SOMEONE PLZ COME AND MARRY ME!
I'M LONELY!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
shockwave188ActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
shockwave188ActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, concedes. Arguments to pro. Typically I award a conduct point for concession, but pro made me read his entire life story before conceding.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
shockwave188ActionsspeakTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
shockwave188ActionsspeakTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. But both the sides did a good job. Well done.