The Instigator
beatmaster2012
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Peace and free will can't go together.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 21707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

beatmaster2012

Pro

I saw this subject in Assassin's Creed, and I think it's very interesting. The templars fought for peace and the assassin's for free will since the templars were planning to brainwash the whole society because they can't believe people with free minds can live together in peace.
I agree since I think people will always have different opinions and will always be willing to fight over them. Proof is the religious wars all over the world. I also think free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything so things will all go nice and easy.
I'm a new member, so try to go easy on me. I think this is more of an opinion topic than facts.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing that peace and free will can go together (not do, can)

First let me analyze the Pro's statements

"I think people will always have different opinions and will always be willing to fight over them"
First off, that is your opinion of the matter, an opinion. Second, people will not ALWAYS fight over their opinions, often they will debate or argue their side but they will never organize and take up arms to fight and exterminate those that dont agree with them. Take DDO for example, we have many die hard liberals and conservatives on here with many different values, opinions, and free will to think what they want. However people on DDO are not plotting to eliminate others who dont agree with them, one side simply argues their case and tries to convince the other that their stand on an issue is wrong. They never fight over it though.

"Proof is the religious wars all over the world."
Which wars are being fought only as conflicts between religious beliefs and nothing else? I fail to see any in the world happening right now

" I also think free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything"
Free will does not lead to war or conflict all the time though, in fact that doesnt even happen a majority of the time, it only happens in extreme cases. I for one believe fondly that late term abortion should be outlawed but the Pro thinks it should be legal. My free will to believe what I want to believe does not = My desire to force my ideologies and perceptions on everyone else.

Free will to think what you want = freedom of opinions
Conflicting opinions = disagreement and maybe a debate about who is right or wrong
Conflicting opinions =/= all out war to force ones opinions over another

Free will to think what you want =/= freedom to kill or maim anyone who disagrees with your opinions

I rest my case for now, back to you Pro :)
Debate Round No. 1
beatmaster2012

Pro


"I think people will always have different opinions and will always be willing to fight over them."
If we take a look back in time we will see that people do fight over their opinions and do kill people who disagree with them. Take for example Hitler, Mao Zedong or Ludwig. Of course this is not applying to every country but it is an example of my theory.

"Proof is the religious wars all over the world."
Al Qaeda is a good example of religious extremists conflicting over their beliefs.
Also note the Israeli-Palestina conflict that was caused by difference in views by jews and palestinians.
Are you also known with the Suni and the Shi'ites in Pakistan? I have more examples if you want but this proves my point I hope.

"Free will is more important than peace, since I personally don't want to live in a world where we have to keep our mouth shut about everything."

This is more of a personal thing but I've established that there are cases of disagreements which get out of hand and innocent people die because of it.

I hope I have made clear arguments.
imabench

Con

1) The two can coexist
"If we take a look back in time we will see that people do fight over their opinions and do kill people who disagree with them. Take for example Hitler, Mao Zedong or Ludwig."

You have three examples of people who started wars over their free will and desires vs the desires and free will of others, but just because there are three extreme examples of people taking free will to the max, that doesnt mean that peace and free will never can go together. This shows how free will and peace can conflict but the resolution is that peace and free will cannot go together, but free will and peace can go together.

Look at the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, you had the wills of the government and the people conflict and the situation resolved itself with minimum violence and minimal bloodshed. North Korea and the west conflicted over nuclear weapons but now peace has (temporarily) come as North Korea halts the nuclear program in agreement for food imports.

2) Religious wars
The Al-Qaeda conflict is a religious war in one direction, Al-Qaeda towards us, however the US war against them is not religious, rather it is a security/justice/vengeance conflict from the US towards Al-Qaeda

As for Palestine and Israel, thats more over territory rights than religious belief.

Pakistan is not at civil war with itself, and sunni's ans shi'ites do get along elsewhere in the world.

" there are cases of disagreements which get out of hand and innocent people die because of it."
Yeah, there are disagreements between peace and free will, but that doesnt mean the two cant go together ever....

Peace and free will can go together, just because there are cases where they dont does not mean the two fundamentally cannot go together...
Debate Round No. 2
beatmaster2012

Pro

I think you win this round, and I agree. While there are any exceptions like Hitler, people do seem to control their peace and be able to think freely too.

Nice job.
imabench

Con

Thank you for a fun debate anyways :)

(I ask voters to at least grant pro conduct points for being nice about it)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 5 years ago
Guitar_Guru
beatmaster2012imabenchTied
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 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: Although I see this as an easy win for Pro, he conceded. I'm forced to give arguments to Con. I give Conduct to pro since he was manly enough to actually concede.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
beatmaster2012imabenchTied
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: FF.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
beatmaster2012imabenchTied
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: Blah, pro only covered a low spectrum of situations. Con showed they can co-exist. Concession
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
beatmaster2012imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Besides the FF? Con just did a better job at refutations and argumentations than the pro did. Easy vote is easy. Conduct went to pro, as per con's request.