The Instigator
Yarely
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
litnb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

War can sometimes be justified

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Yarely
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,868 times Debate No: 19667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

Yarely

Pro

I'll will be arguing that war can sometimes be justified while con will try to argue that war can never be justified
1) First of all, the idea that we can negotiate with every leader and prevent every war by simply negotiating, is simply naive
Who can negotiate with people like Hitler?
Neville Chamberlain has attempted negotiation with Hitler and created the Munich Agreement with him. But of course he broke the pact, because he simply couldn't be trusted
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk......
It would be fine and dandy if everyone was peaceful, honest and had great intentions at heart. But honestly, that isn't true at all. Not everyone is going to cooperate in negotiation. That is just the way it is.
The Civil War had caused plenty of destruction and carnage, but all in the name to stop slavery. That was a cause worth dying for. There was no stopping the Civil war. The South was definitely not up for negotiation. They wanted slaves and that was final.
http://www.newsinhistory.com......

2) Self Defense is "just"
If a country attacks you, obviously you can't defend yourself by "negotiating" with the
country. You have to take action, or that nation will take over and attack your country. It isn't being paranoid. It's just being realistic.
Just like when somebody tries to attack you in the street. If you know how to defend yourself physically, then you will instinctively attack back. What if someone picks a fight with you after you've had some problems with them and you say, "Let's negotiate."? What if they continue punching you and ignore what you are saying? Are you just going to let them beat you up? You may think that is all they are going to do, but soon if you don't do anything they are going to start hunting down your family and destroying their homes. Are you just going to let them do that to your family?
That is like war. You have to stand your ground if you want to live in peace

That rests my opening arguments. :D
litnb

Con

You said how you believe that in cases of self-defense, war can be justified. These kinds of wars however, shatter the land you are attempting to protect. Need clarification? If we are battling for our country to protect our people, we are constantly taking their resources as a means to build machinery for the war, causing a tremendous amount of hypocrisy to our nation's democratic name by enforcing martial laws, internment camps and conscription. We are defending our peaceful society, and ruining it by spreading the message across that it is alright to use violence to solve our issues. What kind of a message are we sending to the children? They would grow up scarred for life from the constant fear of what would become of them from the war, unknowing whether their fathers would ever return, surrounded by death and gun shots rattling their ears as they fall asleep amongst the chaos.

http://www.critic.co.nz...

War always violates people's rights. You also said that war can be justifiable because negotiation does not always solve issues. Are you saying that it is alright to solve them by causing great havoc to our soldiers and to our people, to traumatize our children and to demolish our country's name? We are a democracy, and we have gone through war after war constantly. We are yet in wars with other countries, and evidently, these wars are not solving anything. If our issues were to be solved from such a hideous thing such as war, we would not still be in it.

Furthermore, war's cons far outweigh the pros. War is mostly a means of profit to large businesses and does nothing for the soldiers whom have died in vain, and our nation's people.
Debate Round No. 1
Yarely

Pro

If we are battling for our country to protect our people, and we believe we need to defend ourselves, then there is nothing wrong with the citizens helping out and providing resources to help out in the war. If our lives, country, and liberty are at stake, are we just going to sit there and let them attack our country helplessly because we believe that defending ourselves using violence isn't "just?" If our country is in danger then we will by all means pay higher taxes and help as much as we can to protect our liberty. Because war affects all of us and we as citizens have a job to ensure to that our liberty is still in tact. If we let a country attack us and take over our country, then we are all penalized our rights and freedoms. No violence isn't the right way to solve all of our issues but is that really significant when we are faced with the peril of our rights and liberty? Yes, violence is a last resort. But it still should be a resort. Do you seriously think that it is more important to be non violent that to protect our liberties?
What about the American Revolutionary War? Was that war "unjust?" Would you honestly prefer to be under control of a country with no freedoms all because you vowed to be "non violent" and attempted to negotiate (Though negotiation would have probably not worked.) Or would you prefer to be an independent nation through the sacrifice of peace? We definitely have things dying for and that should be our country.
What do you mean war does nothing for our people? What about the Holocaust? Did that not count? What about the American Revolutionary war? Yes war can be a means of profit but that isn't always the case. Don't forget, when wars are won, the economy improves significantly for the nation's people
litnb

Con

I do not feel that there is anything wrong with aiding our country as citizens, but how much is enough? We already assist our government with our income taxes and every other tax that they can think of imposing on us. 30% of our hard earned income goes to our government, and we never have a choice and are unaware of where are money is going. We are owing money just for being paid because every dollar we earn is that dollar plus interest. War affects us in so many ways, but do you really think we would be pleased if the money we work for goes to destruction of others instead of education? We already have enough weapons to supply us for a lifetime, and there is no country insane enough to even think of attacking us because of the quantity of weapons we own. Plenty other countries buy their weapons from us. So there is not even much of a likelihood of any other country aiming to attack us. We are much too powerful.
You also said that we are penalized our rights and freedoms if we simply let a country attack us, which is not much of probability if we have not done anything to provoke the need to, but what really penalizes our rights and freedoms is when a nation is much too cautious about preventing attack. Recently, there has been a bill proposed in Congress that allows the U.S. military to operate as our police and that even citizens may be arrested without due process because of terrorists. This means we are not told why we are being arrested, given any rights, thrown in jail without a proper trial, and remain there for as long as they feel they should keep us. We really should avoid being extreme in situations such as this. This is when we are REALLY having our rights as human beings destroyed.
By avoiding war, we are protecting our liberty because war causes suppression all of the time. When I said that war does nothing for our people, I had meant nothing positive. The Holocaust was incredibly significant to our people but a negative significance. If war had been avoided, the six million Jews would have never suffered through the starvation, the work, the constant sleepless nights, the torturous death walks and sickening experiments, and being separated from their loved ones forever. I find this most appalling and tragic; this was a most inhumane occurrence that occurred from what? War. I am not saying that war always has awful outcomes, because once in a blue moon it does have a few positive ones, but that it should never be justified or encouraged by our society.
Debate Round No. 2
Yarely

Pro

Since this is the last round I am only allowed to state my conclusion and no longer debate. Even though I'd really like to. I thank my opponent for debating with me on this topic. :D
So in my conclusion, I believe that "some" wars can be justified. It would be extremely ridiculous to say that every single war in history is "unjustified." If we would have never defended ourselves in war, we have never had the freedoms we have now. A war such as the American Revolutionary war are "just" because we never would have shaped our country to the way it is otherwise. We would have been able to have the freedoms we have now such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and so on and so forth. We never would have developed our country to the way it is today. We never would of had immigrants who flocked to this country for opportunity who flocked here to have the freedoms in America that they couldn't express in their own countries. We never would have established a democracy, inspired France to establish a democracy, have all the rights that we have in the Constitution. We never would have progressed half as much as we have now. We have definitely made mistakes in the past, in wars, but we learn from our mistakes and that makes up who we are as a nation.
litnb

Con

In my conclusion, I believe that war cannot be encouraged by our society or justified for the reason that war causes so many deaths, that it places our youth in chaos and provides them a horrid message, that it destroys our country's good name, and that the negative effects outweigh the positive. War is romanticized in movies and stories of fantastic and victorious battles that influence us greatly; it convinces us that war is alright and well. But the reality, is that our soldiers are being trained to murder the enemy. Large businesses use it as a means of profit while the remainder of us are losing grasp of the money that we would need for ourselves. When war occurs, we lose a great bundle of our sole rights for the reason that it is a time of crisis and apparently to the government, it is better to be safe and oppressed than to be free and in risk. When war occurs, nothing else matters in our society. We are putting our children in a difficult position for the fact that they will grow up amongst death, amongst weapons, amongst destruction and a rumpus of desperate and fearful citizens. They will believe that in order to solve our problems in life, we must murder every living being that is causing it, and that negotiation is not even considered. They would have to see their fathers go away to war without knowledge of whether or not he will ever return. If you are reading about it in a textbook, it does not sound so bad. But when you actually experience it for yourself, it almost does nothing positive for any one of us. War is, without a doubt, a most awful and destructive part of our history that, at rare moments has a couple positive effects. But for the most part, it is something you would sincerely wish to avoid as much as possible. I'm afraid that war would never truly cease for the fact that it is a simple option; we should learn it will be incredibly difficult to maintain peace. But that does not mean that it is impossible.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Doctor 4 years ago
Doctor
Look up the Just War Theory.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Ditto to the previous RFD's.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree with previous voters.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument seems to be that immediate surrender to an opposing force avoids trauma. That's an extraordinary claim, and Con didn't come close to justifying it. Pro made the correct arguments. Pro should skip a line after each paragraph to improve readability.
Vote Placed by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Round one to pro. Con failed to address the issue of defense in a reasoned way. Round 2 to Pro, same reason. Round 3 to Pro.
Vote Placed by Reid 4 years ago
Reid
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were a majority of sob stories, about how bad war is and kids dying. However, if countries didn't fight for what they believed, society except for the one who chooses to act crumbles. Pro had a stronger argument all around and was much more logical. My vote, as well, goes to pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
YarelylitnbTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: the resolution was that wars can sometimes be justified, cons complete counter argument is that war is never justified because people would die but pro showed how negotiation can fail and that even without war people may be killed, so arguments went to Pro