The Instigator
Dik_Dawg
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
angrymen
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Life for humans would be somewhat safer if there was only peace, and no war

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 3 votes the winner is...
angrymen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 22541
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Dik_Dawg

Pro

The amount of harm done to humans would be slightly reduced, due to the fact that war would not exist. Therefore, the life of some humans, and therefore humans as a whole would be less likely to be in danger, and thus safer.
Sorry no room for Definitions
Can my opponent come up this some way to refute this?
angrymen

Con

War has provided humans with some of the greatest contributions to all parts of life. When World War 2 came it forced companies to develop penicillin on a industrial scale which has become one of the biggest life-saving drugs.
Without it the Roman Empire would have come to be, and we might never had the numerous contribution they have made to modern society.
There are many more examples though history.
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medicine_and_world_war_two.htm
www.jstor.org/stable/view/2510229
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
Dik_DawgangrymenTied
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: A rather abusive topic with only one round...I didn't see much from Pro but con actually gave an argument.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
Dik_DawgangrymenTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Since this is a one round debate (for whatever reason), I assume I'm being asked to judge one position against another. I see no reason why the advancements that were made because of war would not have been made anyway in the absence of war. Indeed, if the early Christian church had not declared war on reason itself, thus interrupting progress for centuries, we'd likely be colonizing the stars by now.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Dik_DawgangrymenTied
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: One round debate? WTF is this? Con showed how war gives us things that help us.