The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
The Contender
futdraft123
Con (against)

Peace through tyranny (pro) or a destructive war (con)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
futdraft123 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 263 times Debate No: 93374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

Peace through tyranny is better than a devastating war. Think about it. If tyrannical peace was maintained for a long time and the inevitable revolution somehow stopped, would it be better or worse?
futdraft123

Con

But how would WW2 ended if the Americans didn't nuke Japan, TOTAL DOMINATION to Japan and the British had to bomb some old buildings to stop the Nazis from achieving what Hitler wanted, GLOBAL DOMINATION. Think about it, what would've happened if the Americans didn't invent the Nuclear bomb or the Nazis didn't invent the jet, yeah, no history for historians to discover, no Cold War, no Migs, no Hawker Hurricanes, that is what destructive wars can create.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

How would WW1 even started under a peaceful tyranny? Con says no history, but I think that would be good as there will be no old grudges from wars as well as more unity between countries. Plus, history is not only about wars and revolutions. Ancient systems could be studied and the different forms of society be known about.
Furthermore, while a peaceful tyranny may not be good, isn't it better than a war? At least there will be no loss of life. And there are many forms of tyranny. If the government is motivated to develop the country, than tyrannical methods against obstructions of progress can be used. Or extreme crime control and strict taxation laws could be defined as tyranny against the population.
As for inventions, while without war there will be lesser motivation, a tyrannical government would need power to maintain its hold, and therefore it would fund inventions of destructive devices so that they can intimidate the population through its display. The art of tyranny includes not pushing the population too far to cause a revolution, therefore devices such as jets, nuclear bombs would rarely be used but be required for occasional display and testing.
The only problem is a tyrannical peace always leads to a devastating war. But that can be avoided by doing some good deeds for development of the country, such as improving roads and basic facilities. You have to be tyrannical, but not destroy your country and its people in the process. Fear is a great motivation, but constant fear of consequences can make the person braver, as it would become something normal for them, and would give them the courage needed for revolution.
futdraft123

Con

If a war did break out due to tyranny, wouldn't that lead to anarchy in that country? People would lead a revolution and eventually, if not dealt with, will lead to anarchy. People would be killed in a revolution due to tyranny and losses would stack up, like wars do, I don't see the difference of a tyranny-caused revolution and a destructive war.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

We are talking about keeping "peace" through tyranny. The main objective is keeping peace with methods no matter how immoral or cruel. There wouldn't be a destructive war so long as we keep the peace through tyranny and keep to the mission objective. On the other hand, a destructive war is a destructive war.
Con hasn't shown how a destructive war is better than a peace through tyranny. Vote Pro.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheWaywardWriter 7 months ago
TheWaywardWriter
How can peace be obtained by despotism or war? That is foolish. In big concepts like this, everything must be consistent. The definition of peace is freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility; mental calm; serenity. How can one be at peace when one's government is oppressive, cruel, to the point of abusiveness? It just doesn't add up. However, if you're debating for the sake of choosing which is the lesser worse than the two, then go ahead, debate.
Posted by bballcrook21 7 months ago
bballcrook21
Seems pretty stupid to add the term "devastating" when you cannot define what that is. Hypothetical situations must have independent definitions.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.