War Cannot Be Prevented
Debate Rounds (4)
-a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
-a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
-a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
-active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
-a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
-armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
War, as seen above, has no real definition by words. But it is known commonly as a violent, bloody battle between two sides. How people could have thought of causing such a battle that would kill humans is unknown, though frequent "battles" between people are found every day. Whether it is playfully or in hatred, wars, no matter how small, are seen as normal. These are all still acts of hostility towards someone. Animals seen in the wild are seen as doing the same.
War is natural towards all creatures to either find resources, solve a conflict, etc. Yet the ultimate goal for the human race is to obtain world peace. World peace can never be accomplished due to the human race, because the world shall never be in peace.
This is the beginning of my argument of seeing as wars cannot be prevented.
War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
By this definition a playful competition between friends would not be defined as a war. Now as my opponent is instigator of this debate, he will have the burden of proof. It will be his responsibility to show that war cannot be prevented and my responsibility to refute his arguments. I will attempt to show my opponent's arguments and then move on to refute them.
"How people could have thought of causing such a battle that would kill humans is unknown, though frequent "battles" between people are found every day. Whether it is playfully or in hatred, wars, no matter how small, are seen as normal."
Here my opponent basically says that war goes on a lot. I will not contest this however I do not share my opponent's conclusion that because war is common, it can never be prevented. At one point, belief that the earth was flat was common and if you asked someone at that time if the perception of it would ever change they would probably disagree. I believe that with the rise of modern science, one day war will be a preventable phenomenon. Science will allow humans to do more with their limited resources and one day hopefully humans will not be addicted to oil. Science can end wars over limited natural resources.
"War is natural towards all creatures to either find resources, solve a conflict, etc."
While war may be a natural response by people who cannot think of any better option to get what they want, humans have evolved beyond this. As I stated above, through the use of science we can one day end the need to fight over resources and hopefully end most forms of conflict with that.
I look forward to my opponent's response.
NeverWakeUp forfeited this round.
War has been and is a part of history. From the earliest of battles fought with sticks and stones to the potential nuclear war in the future. War has been hailed as an answer to problems. It has also been used as a theme for many books, such as the Iliad, Odyssey, and even a story in the Bible.
World peace, as said in the first argument, is the ultimate goal to humans. However, because of human nature's blood lust towards war, it can never be accomplished. This fact of human nature is often overlooked by people, but it is indeed everywhere. War can be caused by many things, whether it is the government, economy, lack of water/food, etc. There will perhaps never be an eternal Golden Age, as is found with some ancient civilizations. All of the once existing Golden civilizations have fallen, and will continue to fall.
Humans' greatest achievements have been wars, the only answer to solving problems. Peace has been used by many to try to solve a problem, but humans will often not listen to reason. Soldiers have the highest power in a society. In Libya, for a recent example, if the soldiers had decided to side with their leader instead of the protesters they had been ordered to kill, who knows what could have happened. The greatest societies have been the greatest for their massive and powerful armies, such as Rome with their conquests.
Some have tried to find peace within themselves, such as Gandhi and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) but their accomplishments to have peace died with them. The world is not in a bigger state of peace than it was in the past.
As stated by my opponent, war can be prevented due to the evolving science that can end wars that cause limited natural resources. If this is true, than wars still cannot be prevented. All wars are not about natural resources. In the past, when civilizations had resources, they still battled each other. Science can also benefit the wars, making new weapons and technology that can perhaps build new soldiers to battle each other. Evolved medical devices can only repair any injuries. Technologies may be evolving, but it may be the fall of the human race.
War is part of the past, present, and future. It cannot be prevented.
My opponent's next argument is that war is natural to humans and animals alike. This point really does not prove anything in that sex and self gratification are natural urges in humans and we are able to control that. In fact, some people(priests, nuns)go their whole lives with no sex and limited self gratification. So the argument that war is a natural way for humans to wok out their problems is a hollow one.
My opponent also claims that people like the Buddha and Ghandi have tried to end violence but have failed. This does not mean that ending war is impossible. It only means that perhaps people are not yet ready to give up war. However the world is changing. A thousand years ago most people believed that natural disasters were caused by angry deities or that the earth was the center of the universe. However with time also comes progress and we as a species have progressed greatly in just the last one hundred years.
My opponent has shown no reason why war between humans will never be erradicated. And for this I urge a vote for Con.
We are evolving in technology and science, but perhaps not in our own nature. War is, and will be, all around us. Humans are a dominant species, we think of ourselves. Although we have no wings; sharp, teeth, claws, or talons; or the ability to breathe underwater, we are still dominant. We are weak to high or low temperatures and some of us can barely battle. Animals can easily kill us. But the only thing that keeps us dominant is the fact that we have weapons such as rifles and blades. The earliest weapon we had was fire, which warmed us and could burn. Weapons have only been evolving since then to easier take down each other, human and animal alike.
Take away one's weapon, you take away his defense and offense. If humans had no weapons, we would have been like the dodo: extinct. Yet we shall never run out of weapons. Some kill for pleasure or to get their way. These people can be you or I, if desperate. War will always be around.
Humans have tried to end war and have not yet succeeded.
War has historically come naturally to humans.
As my opponent's two contentions were not defended in the last round we may assume that my opponent has conceded them. Now on to my opponent's points which he has made in the last round.
My opponent's main point is that, regardless of whether or not humans are capable of ending war, humans cannot afford to end war. However, the resolution did not state that humans cannot 'afford' to end war, that humans would be left indefensible, but that war was actually impossible to prevent by the human species.
Cannot means impossible as in, "Humans cannot breathe underwater". My opponent has brought up some points as to why humans 'cannot' end war, and when I properly refuted them my opponent switched his argument to state that humans 'should not' end war. This is not in line with the reosolution and so should not be taken into account when voters decide on who wins this debate.
As I have refuted my opponent's contentions about how war cannot be prevented and my opponent did not respond to my refutations and simply argued that humans could not afford to end war I suggest that voters vote Con for this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's basic winning point was that the past does not necessarily predict the future, and Pro fundamentally argued that it did. Note that citing just one war that was prevented would have sufficed, so Con should have done that.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.