The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Scyrone
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.

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: 12/20/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 716
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

bsergent

Pro

Other than extinction, we cannot avoid war so long as we allow governments to continue to exist.

Government is the only institution thats needs and is capable of waging war. The people never war. Rioting is the closest thing to war people directly engage in, with lynch mobs and individual fighting being lesser forms.

People left to their own devices will not systematically exterminate an enemy. For that you need a bureaucracy to first define the enemy and then over see it's annihilation.

Intermediary steps require the sale of an idea. "If enemy continues existence you may not." Government sells us the idea that other government is responsible for our suffering. War is a means to an end. People are content with the end typically.

If given a choice most any person if not goaded by government and fed loaded questions will opt for peaceful solutions for perfectly rational self serving reasons.

War's primary function is waste so that replacement resources can be loaned to us at interest.

War in our era is not even about conquest of one government over another, effectively there is only one government. and it's only conquest is the continue exploitation of our resources.
Scyrone

Con

"People left to their own devices will not systematically exterminate an enemy."

I do not believe this is true. People, if left to their own devices, would do whatever they wanted. A state of violent anarchy would come into play. If we leave people alone to believe what they want to believe, then someone will always want to attain power. In a perfect world, and only a utopian society, can people not wage War.

How would we go about destroying all explicit forms of government? One government or a group of governments would not destroy all other governments and then give up all their power and say, "Well, War cannot be waged now, so we are all retiring."

As I said before, someone else is always going to want power. And if all governments are destroyed, then another government is going to be formed.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for this to happen. I would love for no War and everybody just accepts things the way they are, but I simply do not think it is possible. We rely on the government too much. They supply most of our education, they supply us with food and shelter. They supply us with security, they challenge us sometimes to think outside the box. They provide many of the things that we need. But as the nature of man is, out of 7 billion people, we can't say not one of them wants to not attain power.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"I do not believe this is true. People, if left to their own devices, would do whatever they wanted."

Heh, yea ok, so then I don't think they would want to systematically exterminate an enemy. Defeat is enough.

"If we leave people alone to believe what they want to believe, then someone will always want to attain power."

Yes, exactly, power, as an end, not death of an enemy. Power over an enemy is far more enjoyable than the annihilation of that enemy. War is about conceptual annihilation.

"How would we go about destroying all explicit forms of government?"

Simple. (but not easy) Remove the infrastructure demand which requires the existence of government in the first place. Government exists for the same reasons that factories and cities exist, because they are logistically required. In time technologies will develop that will obviate government. (That's a debate in an of itself I'm sure.)

"I would love for no War and everybody just accepts things the way they are.."

Not to go Buddhist on you but we have no choice. Things are as they are, our only ‘option' is to lie to each other about it. But regardless of how closed our eyes are, the world is still there. Unless of course you are into Solipsism, at which point the debate ends because I do not exist. :P

But I know what you mean. you're saying war is in human nature, and I would ask you to demonstrate this. Because I disagree. Fighting is, and killing is, but war requires a government. That would be the point of the debate.

My head hurts and this is my third debate reply today, I could have done better. :P
Scyrone

Con

"Power over an enemy is far more enjoyable than the annihilation of that enemy. War is about conceptual annihilation."

No, America is a powerful nation, yet we attack other nations and pick sides and help fight almost immediately, physically. Destroying an enemy is far more enjoyable. Which is why we would disagree here, and this argument between us proves my point. You think one way, I think another way. If you think gloating your power to an enemy is much more enjoyable and I was that enemy, I am going to attack you. Your people would probably attack back, and if you would not attack, you are sacrificing their freedom to prove a point, which they would impeach you.

"Remove the infrastructure demand which requires the existence of government in the first place."

And what will we put in place, and what governments will do this? No government, even if told by it's whole people, would not do this.

"war is in human nature, and I would ask you to demonstrate this"

Because men are power seeking and we constantly seek to improve ourselves. That is why we have cities and governments now when we only had towns and small forms of government back then. War has happened all through out history. Anglo-Saxon, Visigoths, British Empire, China, Japan, Korea, Russia, every nation has had War. It might not be necessary but we do have it.

"Fighting is, and killing is, but war requires a government."

Fighting and killing is War.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"No, America is a powerful nation, yet we attack other nations and pick sides and help fight almost immediately, physically."

I( don't see what this has to do with anything but I'll answer it anyway. We haven't been to war since WW2, during which we annihilated nazi germany as a country, that was the point. Our other conflicts were not wars because we did not attempt to annihilate anyone or anything other than vague opposition to our interests and arbitrary representations. This is not circular, it is part of the definition of war. Anything else is a fight. It's like the difference between shooting someone in the head and punching them. War is shooting them in the head.

We did not annihilate Vietnam, we did not annihilate north Korea, we did not annihilate Iraq, or Afghanistan and so on.

In any case what America has done is irrelevant, I'm talking about all governments, and all war.

"And what will we put in place, and what governments will do this? No government, even if told by it's whole people, would not do this."

You're not understanding what I'm saying. In the absence of a need for central infrastructure no government can exist. Governments already aid this process because they have no choice. As they seek to solve the problems of hunger shift shelter and power needs in the face of growing scarcity of resou4rces they develop and provide the technologies that will obviate their own existence. If they fail to engage in these researches they face massive die offs of their population, which often result in revolt. Government, in the long term is doomed from either direction unless it established a permanent cyclic illusion of progress as per 1984, which while theoretically stable would be doomed to stagnation and eventual death.

"Because men are power…"

This is not a demonstration of war being a part of human nature, merely that it's a part of national nature, and that actually supports my point. War is a function of nations and nations are governments.

Nations are not people, they are merely composed of people, and can therefore have radically different properties, much like the properties of a blood/skin/nerve etc cell and a full human. Or the behavior of an ant compared to the behavior of an ant colony.

"Fighting and killing is War."

No, it isn't. Granted war is composed of fighting and killing, but it is not defined by it. For one just imagine a single person fighting and killing another, is this war? For two, imagine economic attempts at annihilation, such as the cold war between the united states and the USSR, which only ended when one was annihilated. Granted the people and land that make up the USSR remained but the target of the war did not, namely the organizational structure known collectively as the USSR.

For three a simpler set of examples of how war requires annihilation as its goal can be found in our war on various abstract concepts. The war on drug abuse, the war on poverty, and the war on terror, etc.
Scyrone

Con

War is not annihilation. It can be. But we are in a War now, and even though it looks like we are out to get our enemies, we have more resourceful things in mind.

"In the absence of a need for central infrastructure no government can exist."

Okay, then let me put it this way. Who is not going to need a government? Who will run the hospitals? Who will run education? I'm not going to be taught by some farmer when I go to University, about life. I want to be taught by someone who has the ability set out and trained first of all by the government, because they have the best ability to qualify these people.

"demonstration of war being a part of human nature, merely that it's a part of national nature"

No, it is human nature. We want to gain power. It was said in one of the comments better that as men we are "inherently evil".

As I have said before, even though could give up their governments, there will always be someone to take the position back.

I know my arguments are not as complicated or are more infrastructured as yours are; but I tried to take down the topic you set out.

"The only way to permanently end war is the annihilation of all forms of explicit government.
"

To end War you must cause War is what you are saying. I personally think we would "all die out" before that happened.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"A) made up yourself"

Examples?
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
bsergent, what I find weird is that throughout this whole debate you use definitions of things that you either A) made up yourself, or B) very few people believe in. Don't try to redifine words that have no reason to be redefined.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
P.S. You can annihilate something without using a bomb. Despite what CNN tells you.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
I did not realize how robotic we have become. The slave mentality here is overwhelming and deeply saddening.

anyway...

"But we are in a War now"

We haven't been in a war since WW2, and even that's arguable because no appreciable (if any) land was annexed.

"Who will run the hospitals? Who will run education? "

Wow, throughout the whole debate you never once grasped what government is. It is an organizing principal required for logistical material reasons. Obviate those logistical needs via decentralized technology and the rest will drop away like a scab.

A hospital is a central point of medical care required because we don't have the technology to fit the effect of a hospital into a backpack. How childish do I have to make this for you to understand? Think medical droid from star wars that folds up.

Education will be as it actually is. A function of experience and communication with others, and access to reference materials generated by experimentation.

The purpose of formal education has not been to educate for decades. Its primary function is indoctrination to the ideology of the state. And clearly its working if you and those reading this are totally unable to even imagine not needing government.

Go watch shift happens, read Kurzweil, put "telescopic evolution" into google. The whole idea of formal education is a fool's errand in today's world, and will be an out and out absurdity in the future.

This is disgusting.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
as long as pride and greed are present, there will always be war. it is inevitable.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Locke:
"The fact pertaining to this argument is that mankind is inherently evil, meaning that without explicit forms of government, exactly what Scyrone said would happen would come to pass. Most men would become enemies with most men, making for more war and not less. The only time such a thing as a utopian society will occur is after the return of Christ. If you ask me, this argument is rather pointless, and should have been figured out with a couple minutes of thinking."

It's pretty ironic to hear Hobbes speaking from someone who calls him/herself Locke.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
someday way down the line (3- 500 years maybe ) we will live without governments and borders

borders in the end are whats meaningless

but we need them for now (I think)

Communist and Islamic "governments" are scary, to be sure- but they are more criminal cabals than "governments"
Posted by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
War is the health of the state..
Posted by Locke 9 years ago
Locke
The fact pertaining to this argument is that mankind is inherently evil, meaning that without explicit forms of government, exactly what Scyrone said would happen would come to pass. Most men would become enemies with most men, making for more war and not less. The only time such a thing as a utopian society will occur is after the return of Christ. If you ask me, this argument is rather pointless, and should have been figured out with a couple minutes of thinking.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
bsergentScyroneTied
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 mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentScyroneTied
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 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
bsergentScyroneTied
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 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
bsergentScyroneTied
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 
Vote Placed by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
bsergentScyroneTied
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 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
bsergentScyroneTied
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 
Vote Placed by BeDazed 9 years ago
BeDazed
bsergentScyroneTied
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