The Instigator
Bluesnailok
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Codename_X
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

War has been more of a positive factor for Human development than a negative

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 2 votes the winner is...
Codename_X
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 391 times Debate No: 83355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Bluesnailok

Pro

I believe that throughout History, war has had a positive impact on Human development throughout the ages.

During most wars the rate of discovery for major technologies and the like have boosted. In some cases war has caused the destruction of old ideas and allowed new ones to be ushered in, hence allowing the progression of enlightenment to be enhanced by a larger amount.

Therefore, despite the destruction, death and panic caused by war. It seems that despite it's negative effects, on a broader horizon than just one restricted to life and the belligerent factions in the war it would appear that war has allowed the world to surge in its understanding of science, society, life, technology and so on and so forth.

A good example for this would simply be how war has allowed Empires to be built, these empires have allowed countries to become so powerful that living standards were improved, it also allowed medicines from varying cultures to be collected together in order to discover the most effective medicines.

It has resulted in countries boosting in scientific spending in races for superior technology between nations. Because of this, I have concluded that, at least from what I see, War and battle has allowed Humanity to progress more than peacetime.
Codename_X

Con

I accept this debate.
I will give definitions for keywords in the resolution, as pro has not done so.

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
Positive:Showing pleasing progress, gain, or improvement
Impact
Development: A specified state of growth or advancement
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;

A. New Technologies
"During most wars the rate of discovery for major technologies and the like have boosted"
Yes, war has produced new technologies, but would these be needed if the world was in peace? The atomic bomb was invented in World War II, but in peacetime, atomic bombs are not necessary. Many technologies have been developed as a result of war, but that does not mean they positively impact human development, as they lead to more destruction and death, something negative. Yes war helps lead to new inventions, but many of these inventions being negative instead of positive, just leading to more death and destruction

B. Empires
"A good example for this would simply be how war has allowed Empires to be built"
But, these empires were not a positive development. Let's take the largest empire in the world, the British Empire (1).
"become so powerful that living standards were improved"
The living standards might have been improved for the citizens, of that country, but not for the majority of the people being affected, the people of the land being colonized/taken over. The British empire owned lots of land in Eastern North America. They gave their citizens new land, but at the cost of killing many Native Americans, and forcing them to leave their land (2).
"it also allowed medicines from varying cultures to be collected together in order to discover the most effective medicines."
Examples and sources please.

C. Scientific Spending
"It has resulted in countries boosting in scientific spending in races for superior technology between nations. Because of this, I have concluded that, at least from what I see, War and battle has allowed Humanity to progress more than peacetime."
Examples please? If you are referring to the Cold War, this does not meat the definition of war in this debate, as there was no "armed conflict". (see definitions)




Sources
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...;

Debate Round No. 1
Bluesnailok

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank the opposition for participating in this argument and I apologize if any mistakes are made in the following argument. Now moving onto the counterargument.

"The atomic bomb was invented in World War II, but in peacetime, atomic bombs are not necessary." The Atomic bomb may have been an instrument of death but it paved the way to better understandings in nuclear physics for more civilized technologies such as nuclear energy. This is true that a large number of inventions have been for use in War. But a large amount have been gateways to more peaceful inventions. Take the Enigma code breaking machine for an example, this was an invention that can be deemed to be the foundation to computers. Without it, we probably would never have computers or the at least kind we see today.

"The living standards might have been improved for the citizens, of that country, but not for the majority of the people being affected" In this case, I was not focusing on the quality of life for the occupied citizens but for those of the Empires homeland and the point was it might not have overall improved lifestyles for the majority, but it raised the bar on what was the best for public quality of living in the homeland. A great example of the positive effects of Empire would be looking at the Roman Empire, the Romans frequently progressed in technological understanding through wars. The injured allowed surgeries that progressed anatomical knowledge at the time, the Roman form of governing helped develop some tribes into more technologically-advanced peoples as they were integrated into the Empire.
Should the Roman Empire not have entered any wars with any nation, they would not have spread their technologies through most of Europe and North Africa and the develop of the continent would probably have been a lot slower.

As for Scientific Spending, a good example would be World War Two, the Nazi's were keen to develop new technologies including rocket technology (See the V1 and V2 rockets). These may have been for war, yes, but the concept of rockets would go on to be used in other ways like the Apollo Moon Landings.
World War Two also saw the ability to mass produce penicillin, without the war, Florey and Chain would not have been funded to develop Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin and this crucial medicine might not have ever been developed into a medicine for the masses.
Pressurized Air Cabins in planes, the gyro-powered torch, the Jerrycan, Radar, Synthetic Rubber and Oil, Jet Engines and the Worlds first computers were all products of the Second World War. None of which seem like discoveries that are purely for use in war.

It's not just World War Two, the First World War introduced X-Rays into mainstream use, Wrist-watches, artificial meats, zips and pilot communications were all either discovered in WW1 or brought into mass-use.
And neither are inventions exclusive to the Great Wars...

...Hospital Conditions were improved during the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War caused a rivalry between Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch which caused a surge in knowledge on germs and germ theory, Wars during the 1500's allowed Ambroise Pare to reintroduce ligatures and Wars allowed the Roman Empire to spread Bath houses, Aqueducts and Sewers throughout Europe.

These are all examples of innovations that have been created due to or have been put into knowledge of the majority thanks to war.

Sources:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.angelfire.com...
http://www.history.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Codename_X

Con

I would like to thank pro for making their argument, I don't want this dreadful forfeit glitch to happen, as it has in all of my other
debates.

"The Atomic bomb may have been an instrument of death but it paved the way to better understandings in nuclear physics for more civilized technologies such as nuclear energy."

The average cost of fuel for a nuclear power plant (as of 2014) is 0.76 cents / kWh, the maintenance costs 1.64 cents / kWh, and waste management is 0.1 cents / kWh (1). 2008 estimations for the cost to build nuclear power plants went as high as $9 billion (2)! Adjusted for inflation that would be $9,941,998,021.39 (3)! Out of all of the United States' 100 nuclear reactors, they produced 798 billion kWh (2014)(4). With this in mind, that is an average of $6,064,800,000 for fuel, $13,087,200,000 for maintenance, and waste management is $798,000,000. Add it all together and you will get $19,950,000,000, divide this by 100 so it is per nuclear reactor, $199,500,000, then if you divide this by 798, you will get $750,000. Now, split the building cost by the average energy production per reactor, anualy (7.98 billion kWh), for the answer of $1,245,864,414 / 1 billion kWh, and then divide this by the average lifespan of a nuclear reactor, 80 years (5), for the answer of $15,573,305 / 1 billion kWh. So altogether, the total cost of making nuclear energy is $16,323,305 / 1 billion kWh.

Now, I will compare the cost of nuclear energy to wind. There are no fuel costs, maintenance costs anualy 2% of original turbine price (6) (I will get into this later), and no waste management. A 2.5 MW wind turbine can produce 6 million kWh anualy (7). A 2.5 MW wind turbine costs an average of $22,000 (8), 2% of this is $440, generating 6 million kWh annually, this is .007 cents / kWh. Multiply this by a billion to get $70,000 / kWh. $22,000 divided by 6 million gets you $3,667 / million kWh. Then, divide this by the wind turbine's life span, 25 years (9), to get $146.68 / million kWh. Multiply both sides by 1,000 to get $149,600 / 1 billion kWh. Finally, ad $70,000 to get a total result of $239,600 / billion kWh. As you can see there is a huge difference in cost effectiveness. So, was nuclear energy really positive?
Sorry for all that math, I love doing equations and research like this.

"Take the Enigma code breaking machine for an example, this was an invention that can be deemed to be the foundation to computers."
The enigma code breaker was relatively unimportant in the history of computers. The first mechanical computer was the Difference Engine, the first programmable computer was the Z1, the first electric programmable computer was the Colossus, the first digital computer was the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, and so on (10).

"Should the Roman Empire not have entered any wars with any nation, they would not have spread their technologies through most of Europe and North Africa and the develop of the continent would probably have been a lot slower."
The roman empire was formed by war, by the battle Actium (11). If there was peacetime, different peaceful nations in Europe would be able to create there own useful technologies (for agriculture, building, etc.), and spread them across europe via trade.

"the First World War introduced X-Rays into mainstream use, Wrist-watches, artificial meats, zips and pilot communications were all either discovered in WW1 or brought into mass-use."
X-ray's were invented in 1895, and the inventer received the Nobel prize for physics in 1901 (12). WWI expanded the use of the x-ray in military usage. The wrist watch was created by Abraham-Louis Breguet in 1810 (13). Artificial meat was invented by John Harvey Kellogg in 1896 (14), the zipper was invented in 1851 by Elias Howe (15), and air traffic control was invented in 1922 (16), after WWI.

"Hospital Conditions were improved during the Crimean War"

"These stations were poorly staffed, with insufficient supplies, and the medical and sanitary conditions were awful." (17). Clearly not.

So in reality, war has not had much of a positive effect, causing many deaths, and only the military related wide spread usage of different inventions. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I apologize for how late I posted it.

I am out of time, sorry for being so late. Have been piled with stuff to do. "i cri i cri everytim"

Sources
(1) http://www.nei.org...;
(2) http://www.ucsusa.org...;
(3) http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...;
(4) http://world-nuclear.org...;
(5) http://www.scientificamerican.com...;
(6) http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com...;
(7) http://www.ewea.org...;
(8) http://www.renewablegreenenergypower.com...;
(9) http://www.edf-er.com...;
(10) http://www.computerhope.com...;
(11) http://www.ancient.eu...;
(12) http://www.medicaldiscoverynews.com...;
(13) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
(14) http://www.motherjones.com...;
(15) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
(16) https://en.wikipedia.org...;
(17) http://understandinguncertainty.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Bluesnailok

Pro

Bluesnailok forfeited this round.
Codename_X

Con

A shame my opponent has forfeited.

Anyways, I will conclude this debate, and show the key points that were adressed.

War leads to many inventions, but many of them inventions of war. The different examples pro gave either were not invented during or as a result of war, not useful in peacetime, or did not have a positive impact on humans. War has not had a positive impact throughout human history, and the absence of it would make human life better.

Thank you pro for starting this debate, and thanks to the readers for reading, and hopefully voting on it.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
It's fine I completely understand.
Posted by Bluesnailok 1 year ago
Bluesnailok
Hey folks, just a heads up that I originally did intend to make a post, but I came to make it 3 hours after the time threshold had reached its max, all I can say in this small comment is that I'll just have to take this as a two round debate and that I didn't optionally forfeit. My actual argument was going to possess information about the numbers and his sources, how he relied on a statement at the start of the Crimean war before Florence Nightingale's impact and my statement of war was that it invented as well as bring new ideas and inventions into mass use. How he disregarded crucial things like Penicillin and I was going to add that the invention of the NHS was prompted as something to be introduced after WW2.
Again, sorry I was too late.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
Well don't mind my last comment. The third round has proven my earlier comment wrong.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
Honestly though, out of my firs 6 debates on this website, you are the first person who hasn't forfeited; and the website doesn't even let me post my argument after someone forfeits!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sdio 1 year ago
Sdio
BluesnailokCodename_XTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate. I actually enjoyed reading this. Only negative I have for Con is he didn't present any of his own arguments, he primarily relied on rebuttals to Pro's points, rather than bringing up his own. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. Although I agree with Pro, Con wins this one.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
BluesnailokCodename_XTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF