The Instigator
StraightWhiteMale
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
WheezySquash8
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Is world peace even possible, at all?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
StraightWhiteMale
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,312 times Debate No: 34752
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

StraightWhiteMale

Con

World peace is completly impossible. since the beginning of mankind we've had differences, it would not be possible in any way to maintain religion, pondering about life or even going to a sports game without eventually starting a war over one another's opinions. We can not live in constant peace and have constant gratitude towards everyone with 7 billion men, women and children without having conflicts between nationalities. There's always crazy people out there who want to cause trouble and corrupt the world.
WheezySquash8

Pro

You think that world peace isn't possible? I accept your challenge. First of all if countries would begin putting their differences aside and actually working together, we could probably get somewhere. If countries would trade resources and set good examples, the people probably would be happier. Yes you can say that there are those countries that are corrupt and violent but if we would get off our butts and work together to make the world a better place than it could be possible. Countries could take example from other peaceful nations such as Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, etc. Not only would the world benefit from world peace, but also the people would. Crime rates would probably begin decreasing until it gets to the next generation. The next generation would then take example from what they have learned and be better people. If we would all spend more money on education and welfare, than people would become happier decreasing our crime rates. So as you can see, world peace is possible if work together. Say what you have to say. Bring it on.
Debate Round No. 1
StraightWhiteMale

Con

Eventually, two superpowers will HAVE to collide, for instance, if the USA were to go to the moon and get a new energy source for them alone to power their country, other powers will start a total war over it, and we're bound to run out of fossil fuels, so there will be a huge sharing problem, anyways. And no matter how much you try, crime will always remain, and that will be because there will always be one man richer than another. Also, how are you willing to have two nations such as Russia and America work togheter without even one politician being corrupt and trying to steal, lie or hide anything? Or for instance, how are you willing to make all the countries in the Middle-East get along? Someone will eventually kill someone over his or her belief. And last but not least, you say that generation B would learn from generation A, but that's not entirely true, is it? Don't/Didn't you have a grandfather who would always go 'In my day it used to be better..'? Youth will always revolt the previous generation, as the 70's did with the previous generation(s). It was an attack towards the previous strict generation. And then there's always sociopaths and mentally sick people, of course. Your turn, friend.
WheezySquash8

Pro

Your theory of a fight for moon resources is irrational. On January 27, 1967 the Outer Space treaty was signed by all of the main world powers except on. The treaty states that space exploration will be used to benefit all countries and that places such as the moon are owned by no nation. The treaty also states that no nation can use weapons of mass destruction in space.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also during space exploration, countries will be spending enough money on getting to where they need to go. I doubt that war would be declared. There's also been an attempt to add to the treaty. The addition was called the Moon Treaty. It failed however, but the Euro Space Agency and NASA will attempt to add to the treaty as space advances continue.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the Middle East, peace can happen if we stop using fossil fuels. There then wouldn't be as much conflict over there. Our policies on resource use could also become more strict. This brings me back to my first statement which says that nations need to join because then we will all have the same resources. For murder control, we can simply can a stricter police force which could control. Our advancements in technology could also get nations that are desperate out of their desperate moves.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
StraightWhiteMale

Con

Some good points, here and there, really, but ahh, There we go, i was waiting for you to say it. 'a stricter police force', see, if you make everything more strict, or world will turn into an Orwellian nightmare (BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING US), and i assure you that my argument about the war of the moon-resources are very rational. "There"s going to be a scramble for the moon by the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans. This is real. There"s going to be a conflict over it, who controls the moon is going to be rich by unimaginable amounts." says Bruce Gagnon, the space weapons expert who runs The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com...

+ Again, a religiously motivated group will eventually, always, no matter what era or world we live in, attempt to spread its faith by violence, or will try to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices.

But back to the moon and, back to space. Of course, we'll work togheter as one to attempt to get us somewhere, and we'll work togheter if it's about achievments for mankind itself, but if it's about resources, food and energy there's bound to be a war. Imagine if there's four people on a boat, and they're lost, frustrated and annoyed, if one of those four had five fish and all the rest had only one, the three people would eat their fish, which results in the fourth man having four fish left, when the others start getting hungry, there WILL certainly be a fight.

Also, not using fossil fuels anymore isn't something that can be done in a heartbeat, we don't have any useable, and very reliable alternative energy sources right now.

Back to you, frank.
WheezySquash8

Pro

If can learn to reform like our world's founding fathers and historical figures then we can do it. Yes, it would take a while to stop using resources but it's already beginning. Some places/nations are converting to things such as solar panels, wind turbines, etc and where are your sources? You're saying that countries would go to war even with that treaty? Show me your sources and I will maybe consider what you're saying. There's also many other ways to start world peace. Some ways are disagreed with in many ways and some people would like. For example people think Communism would get us out of this (I disagree with this).

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com...

World Peace is kind of like a trail. Along the trail are several conflicts and then at the end is complete peace.
World Peace can be possible in some form. You cannot decline that. There are several solutions to our problems that can cause world peace that I haven't even stated. It can be in a religious, political, or economical way. You have to accept that. Thats like saying that you cannot become one of the best basketball players even though it's possible through practice and determination. Now show me where your info is coming from and I will maybe consider what you're saying more.
Debate Round No. 3
StraightWhiteMale

Con

Alright, Final round, I'll show you my resources, and I'll add just a few more arguments as to why the whole idea is just bullocks, and then we'll quit debating, it was very interesting debating with you, sir.

Sources i used:
- http://www.smashwords.com...
- http://en.wikipedia.org...
- http://www.insidehalton.com...
- http://en.wikipedia.org...
- http://www.godlikeproductions.com...
- http://answers.yahoo.com...
And I actually came up with a couple myself, but all the facts were checked of course
Now, I'll add just a couple more arguments.

First of all, peace depending on a contract or treaty is useless and impossible, when Carthage and Rome signed their treaty after the Second Punic War, all that did was cause another war when Carthage broke a rule by crossing the borders [1] . And if you want a more recent example.. Since 1945, the United Nations and the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK) have worked to resolve conflicts without war or declarations of war. However, nations have entered numerous military conflicts since that time. [2]

So, if you think about it, world peace is somewhat of a paradox. Even if we do achieve it, people will quickly get bored and look for stuff to do. So even if we COULD achieve it, it wouldn't last for very long. Look, even if you, for example give all the children over the whole wide world a fun and peaceful youth, very safe and happy, you'd still have some people grow up to be murderers, rapists, etc.. Nobody teaches children bad things; they invent them on their own. That's not to say people can't overcome these impulses, but I don't believe that you'll ever get everyone in the world to do so. So living in perfect harmony and bliss without crime is impossible [3]

Just the idea of the complete absence of conflict among and within nations, and perfect bliss is total baloney. Creating utopia's for ourselves to live in, such as the idea that we could all live in peace, is unattainable,just, think of Jonestown, what was Jim Jones trying to do? Creating a christian, utopian society, however, it turned out in mass murder, religion causes more human war and misery than any other man-made cause. [4] [5]

When the Earth still contains people, a greedy species, Wars still explode. [6] You know you can't deny that, that'd be like denying 9/11. I really understand what you're trying to say, and, in history, there have always been quiet, easy, war-less periods, but eventually, peace'll never turn out a permanent thing, it's just not the way humans work. And certainly not world peace. And absolutely, never, ever, ever will there be peace between every single individual of 7 billion people on this planet, disliking people and murderous tendencies are just things that will always be around.

In any case, i really did enjoy debating with you,
peace (but not world peace) and love.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] this was from a forum, but sadly i lost the link
[4] http://history1900s.about.com...
[5] http://www.beliefnet.com...
[6] http://www.frihost.com...
WheezySquash8

Pro

Thank you for showing your sources. World Peace as stated could be cause with propaganda. I agree with that over time, nations would go in conflict or people would go into rebellion. Here's how these things could be resolved.

Nations In Conflict
Nations have been in conflicts FOREVER so how would we solve it? It's simple. The generations of people later on that believe in peace that I talked about could rebel against wars peacefully. There doesn't have to be violence to solve things. Take Ghandi and Martin Luther King for example. People don't have to rebel with violence. Many people have rebelled in peaceful ways without violence and succeeded. The people are the main important thing for world peace. If they work together to overcome their differences and try to resolve to something, they will make a difference in their community. As Ghandi once said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Nations don't need to solve differences with violence. There is NO solution out of violence and I don't think anybody realizes this. If nations would realize that war destroys the balance of our lives than maybe we would stop. We are ignorant species right now and we just don't realize that. There are several ways of rebellion without violence as should in this link.
http://www.aeinstein.org...

Need more evidence?
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com...
Source: http://www.aeinstein.org...

Crime Control
I have to admit that this was a hard topic to think about, but here is what I have. What are the main causes of crime? Desperate measures. What I mean by this is that many people that are for example depressed or angry cause crimes. According to one of the articles that I found that is listed under my sources, states that one of the main causes of depression or anger are the following:

1.Lack of money/financial aid.
2.Betrayal
3.Death of Loved ones
4.Being raised poorly (could go with #1)
5.School depression

You may be thinking about how these things could be solved. There are several ways that I have not stated but here are my favored ways. Each number goes with it's issue with the same number.

1.More money spent in welfare.
2.Making closer relationships with that person at an early point in your life/ seeing help.
3.Knowing that when you die you'll be able to see that person again/knowing that person is in a better place.
4.Not listening to your bad influence.Try your hardest no matter what your parents/adopter are doing.
5.Try your hardest to be more popular.Respect people even if they don't respect you.

Source:http://www.historians.org...

People Becoming Bored
Ok first of all, how would people become bored? They probably will have things to do such as a job, goal, and so on. Second, if you're bored that's a sign that you need to do something in your life whether it's riding you bike, running, working out, making friends, etc.

And Finally The Whole Document Thing...
Yes I agree with you on this one a little, but that's why I was saying that the people could rebel peacefully against the government's choice. Another way could be that countries turn their trade routes off completely with that nation and use propaganda against that government. If the nation declared war than they will simply lose fast because they will lack resources to continue. Eventually they would give in. There could be many other ways to solve this whole treaty thing but this is the idea that I thought was the best. Oh yeah and by the way check the link below because it states that the UN has a law against breaking a treaty.

Source: http://treaties.un.org...

Great debate dude and good luck!
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by edithbaby 3 years ago
edithbaby
Hello, I am
How are you? hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health. Please I went through your profile and i read it and took interest in it, please if you don't mind i will like you to write me on this ID (edithtoure65 @ y a h o o .i n) hope to hear from you soon, and I will be waiting for your mail because i have something VERY important to tell you.
Lots of love
Edith!.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
I note that the word "extinct" did not appear in either the Debate text or the Comments. Isn't it obvious that if humanity became extinct, "world peace" FOR humanity would have been achieved?!?!
Posted by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
It's fine if I lose honestly...I admit that this was a hard debate, but I gave it my all and that's all that matters. Thanks to the people who understanded that I had a hard topic to go thru and decided to vote for me.
Posted by jay_kang 3 years ago
jay_kang
Lucian09474/ What do you think about 'theory of democratic pece' by Kant.
Posted by Lucian09474 3 years ago
Lucian09474
Absolute peace is not impossible, at least now in the way we think. Nothing lasts forever, even good things and bad things everything has to come to an end.

Mankind nature is that of competion, competition brings war. A long as there are man there will be war as Plato once said "only the dead has seen the end of war"

However I still believe that there will come day when mankind can truly understand one another and live at peace, this will not happen in my lifetime that's for sure maybe as long as there is a society there will not be absolute peace.
Posted by StraightWhiteMale 3 years ago
StraightWhiteMale
imabench2 if an insect killed another insect after you blow humans up that still counts as war
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
If humans blew all of themselves up through war then after they were all dead there technically would be world peace
Posted by jay_kang 3 years ago
jay_kang
WheezySquash8> I think you are idealist. In international relations, UN hasn't been almighty. As you know, look at the East-nothern Asia. Has north korea listened careful to UN's advice? As aramer1919 said, We still have wars ALL OF THE TIME. Treaty is just paper.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
WeezySquash8 the UN already exists and they already try that. We still have wars ALL OF THE TIME.
Posted by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
Ok here is how the treaty could last.

1. The UN would remove any country from its group if they break the rules.

2. Nations use propaganda to convince the war desiring nations to stop.

3. Nations update the treaty as our space exploration continues.

By the way the Cold War has ended and the use of Nuclear Weapons is also banned to top the Space Treaty so if you were you do both of these things, the UN would most likely take you out of UN nations would do war. Countries in fear would not want to cause the UN nations to do war since many powers such as the United States could kick their butts.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
StraightWhiteMaleWheezySquash8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It's really not even debatable
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
StraightWhiteMaleWheezySquash8Tied
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: Pro showed that it was at least possible for there to be word peace, thus he deserves the win. If the resolution was "Is world peace even probable, at all?" or "Is word peace even plausible, at all?" then this debate would have been much closer. However, this debate was "Is world peace even possible, at all?". No matter how implausible or improbable; Pro showed it was at least possible. For this reason, I believe Pro deserves the win.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
StraightWhiteMaleWheezySquash8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took a hard debate to win, and I do not blame him for not being able to out-debate con.