The Instigator
bludaisy96
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: states ought not go to war

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,394 times Debate No: 13527
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

bludaisy96

Pro

States shouldn't go to war because this is immoral. War is immoral because t kills innocents and threatens the economy of every state that is involved with said war.
Just think of nagasaki and hiroshma. these were innococent people whose lives were taken from them beacuse of where they lived. They had no ties into ww2 other than living in a rogue state. Right now we are in a war with afganistan. I now ask you this question how is are economy? These are my rerasons why you should affirm the resolution Resolved: States ought not go to War.
Mirza

Con

Thank you. A lot of my recent debates resulted in forfeits from my opponents, which is why I will make this round short and let my opponent prove his case.

1. Definitions

1.1 War

"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."�

1.2 Immorality

"the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct"�

2. Arguments

2.1 War is not necessarily bad

When you look at an apple on a tree, do you think that it is bad? I suppose not. Apples taste good and benefit our health. However, one could pick an apple from a tree and use it to hurt another person. Does this make usage of apples immoral? Nary one fair minded person will say that it does. Similarly, we should ask ourselves about the intention of a war; is it necessarily for oppression? No. Is it necessarily due to hatred? No. It could be, but not necessarily. War can be a result of the intention to help an already oppressed people. If there is a state in the world which hardly oppresses its people and lets them live lives of high qualities, is it moral to let it stand defenseless against a nation which might attempt to invade it and let corruption and oppression be a normal thing for the innocent people? Indeed not.

2.2 War can be moral

My opponent makes an invalid claim, which is that war is immoral and that innocent human beings are being killed. However, this is a void claim and has no logical sense whatsoever. What if a government already kills its citizens and actually damages the economy of neighbor states? Is it immoral to wage war against it in order to prevent this from continuing and causing more catastrophes? If not - which is the correct answer - then how can war be immoral? If it is the only way of deterring immoral killing of human beings, then there is nothing immoral about it. The only logical way with which we might conclude that war is immoral is by saying that many nations use war as a means of expanding power. However, this does not hold water either because in order to counter such an immoral wage of war, we need to use a method of warfare. There is no immorality involved here.

In brief, war can be useful for several things:

• Limiting or breaking the power of corrupt nations who attempt to invade well-functioning, humane states
• Defending innocent people
• Reducing the number of innocent people being slaughtered
• Weapons manufacturing; part of equipment for war - boosts the economy

I thank my opponent and I look forward to reading her response.

-- References --

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bludaisy96

Pro

what my opponent clearly and quite plainly says is that war can be moral. I answer that with a question: is the killing of innocent people moral? Was it moral to kill the people o Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No that is not moral. They were brutally MURDERED because of one thing and on thing only They lived in a rogue state. That is the stupidest reason that i have every heard of and trust me i have heard a lot. The isn't moral in fact it is immoral. another thing my opponent said is that war is not necessarily bad. How can this be true if innocent people are killed and murdered every day? they also said that war is used to defend people. That is a new excuse. so our war in Iraq is to defend us? that is putting the value of American lives over the value of others. We as Americans made the concept all en are created equal. That "Defend Citizens" does not go along with that concept. My opponent also says that war reduces the number of lives slaughtered that is not true. In Afghanistan families are killed in the cross fire of amerian soliders and the terrorists. This proves that war doesn't reduce the casulaties of war.

i thank my opponent and wait to hear her response.
Mirza

Con

Thank you. I want to correct my opponent that I am a "he" and not "her." I prefer the former in under all circumstances, thank you very much.

1. Rebuttals

1.1 Killing of innocent people

I already stated that wars can save innocent people. My opponent merely looks at war from one perspective, which is that innocent people will die, therefore war is bad. I see no refutations to my points at all.

1.2 The rest...

My opponent makes the entire concept of war look bad in all cases. She does not single out even "one" good thing about war. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities of a country which attacked the U.S. Just because the method used for bombing the two cities was immoral does in no way mean that the U.S. retaliation was bad. Should the nation have let Japan invade it and slaughter innocent people? Moreover, assume that Russia wishes to invade Finland, a nation which might be entirely innocent. The Russian plot could be to simply destroy anything and murder anyone who is confronted inside and outside a battlefield. If Russians plan to eliminate a nation of over five million people, would it be better to let that happen, or let e.g. the U.S wage war against Russia and be able to hold it back from committing genocide on millions of innocents? This could lead to a quick cease fire, too, since the two very powerful nations would rather not wage war against each other.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, these two examples are poor. Just because there are "some" cases where a supposedly defensive war goes wrong does in no way mean that it applies to any defensive war. The war in Balkans was a war of aggression on one side, and a war of defense on another. Does my opponent believe that the nations of Croatia and Bosnia would be peaceful today had they not defended themselves against an aggressor? Also, what if the citizens of North Korea protest, and 1/4 of them got captured and gassed, slaughtered, etc.? Would a war against North Korea not be justified, perhaps? People would die anyway. A war would only make things better in this case.

I hope that my opponent an provide a more detailed response next time and address my points.
Debate Round No. 2
bludaisy96

Pro

my oppponet says that war saves people but it also kills people as well. in fact more people are killed than those who are saved. although i look at this from one perspective this is the perspective that the most people aggree with. my opponet says that i did not single out one good thing about war. This is because war has no good things for me to comment on. war it self is immoral. It hurts nations economy to the point that it could take them years to rebuild. It hurts mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and children. it hurts them beacuse they have lost a loved one. my opponet says that the iraq war is a poor example. How can this be true? the iraq war was started beacuse of supposed nukes. AND there was none. every example of is not poor beacuse war kills people. that is the point i am trying to make. No matter which war iraq, afganistan, ww1 and ww2 they all have two things in common. One they hurt the economy and they kill people. my opponet says that war would make things better... Howw in the world does it do this??? that is my question.
Mirza

Con

Unfortunately my opponent did not invalidate any of my arguments, and I already answered her questions.

"my opponet says that war would make things better... Howw in the world does it do this??? that is my question."

Simply said:

If North Korea plots a plan to invade an economically strong but militarily weak China (for the sake of argument) and kill 500,000,000 people, then the U.S. could invade North Korea, and although millions of people would die, it would still be less than if nothing prevented North Korea from invading China. If China got invaded, not only would many more innocents die, but the world economy would be weakened, too. My arguments are clear, and I thank my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
That is why I said "her."
Posted by bludaisy96 6 years ago
bludaisy96
by the way i am not a him i am a her
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
I agree!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I really was gonna, don't doubt me. You're just lucky you're in Europe, 7 hours ahead of me
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Never!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I would've taken it :P
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Do not fear, Mirza is here.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
bludaisy96MirzaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mb852 6 years ago
mb852
bludaisy96MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 6 years ago
zach12
bludaisy96MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
bludaisy96MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
bludaisy96MirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05