WW3 will not be a nuclear war.
Thanks, questions? Please comment
A world-spanning industrial war, the third of its kind.
1: expressing the future tense. (Applicable; WW3 has not happened and is not happening.)
2: expressing inevitable events. (Applicable; belief in an inevitable non-nuclear WW3 is possible)
3: expressing a request. (Non-applicable; Pro is not requesting Con to make WW3 non-nuclear.)
4: expressing facts about ability or capacity (Non-applicable; the resolution isn't about whether a nuclear war will be possible at the time of WW3 (I think).)
5: expressing habitual behavior (Non-applicable; WW3 isn't a habitual behavior.)
6: expressing probability or expectation about something in the present (Non-applicable; WW3 is not in the present.)
A war involving nuclear weapons.
As such, the resolution means "A world-encompassing war, the third of its kind, not involving nuclear weapons, is inevitable in the future."
1C0B: Burden of Proof
The burden of proof (BOP) is solely on Pro, because Pro must assert something while Con doesn't have to assert anything. If Pro fails to fulfill Pro's BOP, Con wins.
Pro is asserting the inevitability of a non-nuclear WW3. In order to disprove this, I must merely show the possibility of an alternative or alternatives. (Because if something is inevitable, it has no posssible alternatives.)
1C1A: Possibility of Non-Existence of WW3
The non-existence of WW3 is entirely possible, because it is possible for any non-necessary thing to not exist. Until Pro proves that WW3 is necessary, the resolution is negated. (If WW3 doesn't happen, then obviously it can neither involve or not involve nuclear weapons; hence, Pro could not fulfill their BOP and Con would win.)
1C1B: Possibility of a Nuclear WW3
Nuclear war is entirely possible, because it is possible for any non-contradictory (internally or externally) thing to exist, and a nuclear war is not readily contradictory to itself or the universe. It is furthermore possible for a world war (such as WW3) to be or include a nuclear war, because a world war is not in contradiction with a nuclear war. Until Pro proves that a nuclear war is impossible or contradictory with world war, the resolution is negated.
1C1C: Lack of Perfect Knowledge
In order for Pro to assert inevitability, they must additionally have perfect knowledge; otherwise, it is possible that they have missed something, and inevitability does not hold. (Or at least perfect knowledge of all relevant details; in order to determine what is relevant, they must know what it is.) Pro must prove that Pro has perfect knowledge, or else Pro loses the debate.
1C2: Nuclear War Probability
Pro may accuse me of resolution-sniping; while I can neither confirm nor deny this, I'd also like to defend my case outside of inevitability.
Senator Richard Luger's survey of 85 national security experts puts the probability of a nuclear attack in merely the next 10 years at an average of 29 percent (2). This gives a reasonable likelihood that nuclear war will occur, regardless of WW3.
Furthermore, consider what events could possibly start off a war the scope of WW3. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of wars have occurred since WW2. Yet WW3 did not start. It has been 69 years since the end of WW2, while WW2 was only 21 years after WW1, and WW1 was preceded by decades of enmity. Clearly, this peace is more durable. What could shatter it? Not Korea or Vietnam or Afghanistan, all major proxy wars. A nuclear strike would do just the trick, however, and might be the only thing big enough to upset the balance of power.
Also consider the possibility of a nuclear regime, such as future Iran or North Korea or Israel, which believes that a nuclear strike is its only hope at survival. This could start a major war, and paranoia is all too common.
The governments no this, they are not stupid, they understand. They have them for military muscles. If anything were to happen first thing an true official oath treaty or some measure to to stop that from killing billions of innocents and fight like real men because hey they draft people!
I don't really like to use sources, these are opinion debates not factual, or do i have to say that in the beginning?
1: Pro has not objected to any of my definitions. As such, they are extended and the preferred definitions of this debate.
2C0B: Burden of Proof
1: Pro has not objected to my explanation of the burden of proof (BOP). As such, it is extended and the preferred BOP of this debate.
1: If Pro does not prove (2C1A) that WW3 will inevitably happen, (2C1B) that WW3 will inevitably be non-nuclear, and (2C1C) that Pro has perfect knowledge of the future, then the resolution is negated.
2C1A: Possibility of Non-Existence of WW3
1: Pro needs to logically prove that the existence of WW3 is *necessary*, but has not. Pro has posted merely one source, critiqued in 2C3, about why some person thinks WW3 will happen, which is both flawed and not logical proof that it *must* happen. As long as it is *possible* that WW3 will not occur, Con wins. Thus, Con is currently winning.
2C1B: Possibility of a Nuclear WW3
1: Pro needs to logically prove a non-nuclear WW3 is *necessary*, but has not. Pro has two arguments, critiqued in 2C4, about why nuclear war is, to him, illogical, but not logical proof that it *must* be non-nuclear. As long as it is *possible* that WW3 will not occur, Con wins. Thus, Con is currently winning.
2C1C: Lack of Perfect Knowledge
1: Pro needs to logically prove that they have perfect knowledge, because they must prove inevitability and therefore must take *all* factors into account, but has not whatsoever. As long as it is *possible* that WW3 will not occur, Con wins. Thus, Con is currently winning.
2C2: Nuclear Probability
1: Pro has not argued against my nuclear probability argument. If there's a 29% chance in the next 10 years of a nuclear strike, then (a) a nuclear WW3 is very possible, affirming 2C1B, and (b) the distant future is very likely to have a nuclear war, which (as I have argued) is probably one of the few things to set off a war of WW3 proportions.
2: Pro has not argued against my world-peace-is-hard-to-break-except-with-nuclear-weapons argument. What could *possibly* set off the majority of the world's nations to take up arms? Anything short of a nuclear weapons seems unlikely. Hence, a nuclear WW3 is almost necessary.
2C3: Rapture Forums
Pro, defending a coming WW3, posts only 1 source from Rapture Forums. Again, this is not logical proof of WW3's inevitability, and, as I will show, is flawed.
1: Rapture Forums is biased. It's a place for fundamentalist Christians to talk about the (apparently) soon-coming "rapture". This does not set one up for an unbiased look at whether WW3 is coming.
2: WW3 is not the "rapture". The "rapture" involves all Christians being picked up by God while everyone else dies on Earth. WW3 would presumeably not spare Christians.
3: Both Rapture Forums and this article assume that the Bible is accurate, and all of its arguments rely on the accuracy of the Bible. Unless this is proven, the source cannot be accurate.
4: "Daniel prophesied that the Roman Empire would be revived(.) ... (I)ts fulfillment ... came after World War II, with the formation of ... the superpower called the European Union."
The European Union, entirely forged by mutual agreement and led by a council of elected leaders, is quite a bit different from the Roman Empire, largely forged from conquest and led by a near-hereditary Emperor. They don't even rule the same places -- Rome never ruled Germany, Poland, or the Scandinavian countries, and the EU doesn't include North Africa. This is a great example of shoehorning, nothing else.
5: "The Bible pictures a great power ... in the 'remote parts of the north.' This nation will ... lead an invasion of Israel together with its specified allies, all of which are modern day Muslim states(.)
Russia ... fits this description perfectly."
Please present evidence that Russia and the Muslim Middle East will team up and destroy Israel.
6: "All the nations are prophesied to come ... against Israel ... over ... control of Jerusalem(.)"
Please present evidence that the entire world will come together and destroy Israel over control of Jerusalem.
7: "The 20th Century was one of unparalelled war. Like birth pangs, the frequency and intensity of war increased exponentially(.)"
As I pointed out, war has become increasingly less common. As Joshua Goldstein states ,
"Political scientist James G. Blight and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested earlier that year that we could look forward to an average of 3 million war deaths per year worldwide in the 21st century.
So far they haven't even been close. In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper. Far from being an age of killer anarchy, the 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace.
Armed conflict has declined in large part because armed conflict has fundamentally changed. Wars between big national armies all but disappeared along with the Cold War, taking with them the most horrific kinds of mass destruction. Today's asymmetrical guerrilla wars may be intractable and nasty, but they will never produce anything like the siege of Leningrad. The last conflict between two great powers, the Korean War, effectively ended nearly 60 years ago. The last sustained territorial war between two regular armies, Ethiopia and Eritrea, ended a decade ago. Even civil wars, though a persistent evil, are less common than in the past; there were about a quarter fewer in 2007 than in 1990."
8: Furthermore, let's temporarily assume Pro's source is correct and that WW3 *will* happen. According to Pro's source,
"The development of nuclear weapons seems to be foreshadowed by ... Luke 21 that speaks of people 'fainting from fear' due to 'the powers of heaven being shaken.' The incredible carnage of ... chapters 6 and 8 of the book of Revelation indicates that the Antichrist will conquer the world through ... nuclear weapons. .... (E)vidence that this is a nuclear holocaust is found in Revelation 16 where we are told that ... the survivors will be covered with sores that will not heal(.)"
2C4: Governments WILL Use Nuclear Weapons
"[Really bad stuff that nukes do, unsourced.] The governments no (sic) this, they are not stupid, they understand. They have them for military muscles. If anything were to happen first thing an true official oath treaty or some measure to to stop that from killing billions of innocents and fight like real men because hey they draft people!"
1: Sources, please.
2: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA used nukes to (a) end a war quickly and (b) show off to the USSR.
3: Why draft people and face massive pain and suffering from your countrymen when you can just kill your enemies, instantly, explosively, from your office, at the push of a button?
4: "Military muscles" don't work to scare others unless backed up with the threat of actual use. Let's imagine that the DPRK gets some good missiles for once and nukes the USA. What would we do? Sit here and do nothing? Or nuke them back, so that other nations know that the USA is for real? In some sense, it's like a jail. If you're seen as weak, you're dead. If you've got a knife, you have to use it sometimes.
5: When have governments (or corporations, or even most people) worried about morality? Power trumps all.
6: Cross-apply 2C2.
Nuclear weapon use is possible. WW3 not occuring is possible. Pro does not have perfect knowledge. Pro has not fulfilled the resolution.
CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Please extend my arguments.
This will be my last debating round. I have agreed to forgo the last round, because the debate was "FRA" (First Round Acceptance) and, unknowing of this, I posted my argument in the first round. Pro has agreed that this nullifies any conduct violation.
As such, I will be presenting my summary this round.
Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro forfeited a round; Con did not. Further, Pro and Con have agreed to ignore Con's first round posting in return for forgoing next round, which Con will do. As such, Pro has the only conduct violation.
Grammar: No vote. Neither debater was significantly different, for better or worse, in their spelling and grammar.
Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro did not prove that WW3 is necessary, that a non-nuclear WW3 is necessary, that Pro has perfect knowledge, that WW3 is likely, or that a nuclear WW3 is unlikely. Con proved, with reputable sources, that a nuclear WW3 is not unlikely and, if WW3 is going to happen, possibly necessary to break the hard modern peace.
Sources: Clear Con vote. Pro's only source was from RaptureForums, which is biased and flawed, while Con cited Senator Richard Luger's survey of national security experts and Joshua Goldstein of Foreign Policy.
CountCheechula forfeited this round.
|Who won the debate:||-|