The Instigator
stargate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

War is a necessary evil.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,656 times Debate No: 78805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

stargate

Pro

I will have to prove that war is a necessary evil. Whoever takes the position of con will have to prove overwise. I will also have to prove that it is evil.

There will be five rounds, you may include what ever you want in these rounds, just try not to make it into a flame war.

Also if you want to accept this debate then put a comment in the comment section. I will pick my opponent in four days.
kasmic

Con

I accept!

Defining of terms:

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. "

Necessary: "being essential, indispensable, or requisite"

Evil: "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked"

Pro has burden of proof. He must demonstrate that war is Necessary and Evil.


Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
stargate

Pro

Sometimes there is a cause worth fighting for. A cause that you have determined is why we must fight. Why we have to send our boys, and girls overseas to a country most people never heard of. I will tell you why we have to do it, and why it is necessary. First off let me ask you a question, what would the world be like if the USA never fought in WW2, or what would the world be like if we sent our of troops home after WW2? There is not always a true right or wrong slide. Sometimes both slides in a conflict are fighting for a good reason. Sometimes you need to pull the tiger of a gun, killing someone who might be a good person. When War World 2 started the USA didn't want to get involved. We didn't want to see more of our people die, plus we wanted to stay home and focus on well us. But then Peal harbor happened, we where forced into the war. The war was fight, or fall. We choose fight, thus the war was necessary. We where fighting for our freedoms, and what is right, and wrong. Great Britain was fighting to stay independent. The war was necessary, if they gave up the Germans would have rounded up the Jews, and other groups and send them to the camps to die. Germany was barbaric, they where killing civilians, some of whom had fought on there slide in WW1. If the allies gave up many more would have died, and the world would be a darker place. We have to be willing, and ready to give it our all when we fight in a war. Wars are necessary, sometimes you have to fight when talking fails.

Now sometimes there is no clear answer for the question who was the good guy in the war. WW1 could be one such example, the war began due to Serbian terrorists killed the price of AustroHungry. So Austria hungry attacked Serbia causing Russia and France to enter the war. The rest is in our history books, my point is the central powers had a good reason to go to war. While Russia and the allies had a good reason to go to war. Now I am not saying nothing bad ever happened, but both slides had a cause that in there minds was worth fighting for. The war was necessary, the war would have happened even if the price wasn't killed, it just would have been a different time, and different day.

Now isn't war evil? You are killing people you never heard of, now there could be a good reason to try to justify killing them. But it still counts as an evil act, sometimes both slides in war use tactics like children soldiers, car bombs, bombs inside people, killing those who speak against them. Other times it could be you and your friend, or your bother on the other slide of a battlefield. A battlefield where it is brother against brother, friends against friends, dad against mother. Sometimes you will have to make the discussion should I kill him or let him go. Isn't it evil to kill another human. Sometimes bad things happen, so you have to perform that evil act to try to create a better place. For example of you had the power to do a gobal war on all forms of terror, and evil would you do it? Many would did in this war many would think of you as evil, but the world could change for the better. No matter what you say, or how you justify doing the act it is evil, War is killing other people, yes the government could be evil, but not everyone is a bad guy, plus every war civilians die. What do civilians do to die, nothing, nothing at all other then being in the wrong place at the wrong time. War is evil, but sometimes you need to be willing to perform an evil act to make a better world.

This is a good start, at least I think so, now back to you con.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
kasmic

Con

The resolution presents two separate claims. Pro must warrant both to win this debate.

1: Is War is Necessary? "being essential, indispensable, or requisite"

Pro argues that “Sometimes there is a cause worth fighting for.” Much of the argument follows this line of thinking. Leaving pro with a case that presents an argument that war might be desired. This however does not support the claim that War is necessary. Thus pro has not provided any warrant to the claim that war is necessary. This burden will be hard to fill as the concept of necessity creates or explains the relationship between multiple things. For example, it is necessary to eat, in order to live. Saying that war is necessary is a partial statement. Necessary for what? Considering the millions of years that the earth existed prior to “wars” it is fair to say war is not a necessity of nature, nor of existence. War is not essential, indispensable, or requisite. War is not necessary.

2: Is War Evil? "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked"

Pro here leaves much open to opinion. He has not presented an ethic or moral standard by which to describe what evil is. He merely describes things that have happened in war that he thinks are evil. Unless he presents a concept that describes what evil is, or what makes something evil he cannot warrant the claim that War is Evil.

So I ask Pro. How is evil determined?

Can Necessary and Evil describe the same concept?

The definition I provided seems to pit evil as the opposite of moral. In Debates we often argue what “ought” to be. Or rather what the moral obligation is. Thus if something ought to be, it is a demonstration of morality

Ought implies can.

It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. . If obligations were not achievable, agents would waste resources attempting to meet the burden imposed on them. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed." (1)

If something is necessary we “ought” not try to change it. Such would be futile. Moral obligations cannot exceed the possible. Thus is something is necessary it is moral. Restated, something that is necessary cannot be immoral as we cannot change it and therefore “ought not” change it. This means that something that is necessary cannot be evil.

Conclusion:

Even if it is concluded that war is necessary or that war is evil (which has not happened.) it cannot be both. Pro has not warranted the claims on war made by the resolution. The resolution cannot be affirmed as Even if it is concluded that war is necessary or that war is evil it cannot be both

(1) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
stargate

Pro

Now with round one as my intro, I will bring up point about why war is a necessary evil.

By evil I mean moraly not accepted. Such as the killing of civilians.

If we never went to war then there would be more dictators, more wars, and more terrorism. If we didn't fight for what we believe in then there would be more chaos. We need to always stand up for what we believe in. Like it or not the usa is seen as the powerhouse of the west. When we back down it makes the whole west look weak. Such as our inability to send troops to Ukraine to stop Russia. This means that Russian, oh I mean pro Russian rebles you just happen to Russian military equipment. Russia is expanding, even when it means war. They are threating the worlds stability. ISIS is a radical terrorist cell. China trying to force everyone to allow them to basically take the south chineas sea.

Now you say that war is not necessary. You can not pick and choose what wars are, or not. Now you are saying that World war 2 was not necessary. If we didn't foght the war, if Britain gave up. There would be three super powers, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Germany and Italy, and Japan where killing civilians, they would kill you if you disagreed with them. The war was necessary, because if we didn't fight it more would have died. We where fighting for a cause worth fighting for, an war about what should happen. When you refuse to be willing to fight then you are allow your enemies to grow in numbers, and power.

For example after WW1 France wanted the USA to have our troops in there land, and for us to attack Germany in case they break the treaty after the war. France knew that we needed to be ready for the worse case scenario. Yet we wanted our men back home, we didn't want a war. So when Germany rose in power France, and Britain sat back hoping Germany would stop. This hope everyone agrees without war is dumb. It can not work.

Sure we sometimes lose, but we need to try to make the world a better place. We need to sometimes make an example of what will happen to a nation that has gone to far. That has crossed the invisible line that you should not cross.

You need to go to war to remove the bad, to help create a safer world. Will it always work, no but we can not give up and head home. It is to late for that, we are no longer able to stay home ane hope that things turn out all right. We need to be ready for when our enemies attack us, or try to attack nations to weak to stop them.

We need to help create a better place in this world. Even if it means kill, even if it means attack other nations. I believe that is we should make the world a safer better place.

When you kill someone no matter why, it is still evil. You may have a good reason but it is still evil.

Now back to you con.

http://www.foxnews.com...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...

http://www.reasons.org...
kasmic

Con

Pro begins this round stating that “By evil I mean morally not accepted.” I agree with the definition that evil is immoral. As Evil has been defined negatively… that is to say it is defined by what it is not (moral) it is important that we look at what morality is. Last round I mentioned that in Debates we often argue what “ought” to be. Or rather what the moral obligation is. Thus if something ought to be, it is a demonstration of morality.

Pro argues that “
If we never went to war then there would be more dictators, more wars, and more terrorism. If we didn't fight for what we believe in then there would be more chaos. We need to always stand up for what we believe in. Like it or not the usa is seen as the powerhouse of the west.”

Clearly, if there is a case where we “ought” to go to war, that is synonymous with saying the moral obligations we have would compel us to go to war. Making such instances moral, not immoral. Or in terms of this debate not evil, but good. Thus the resolution is negated as pro has just presented an argument that War is moral.

1: Is War is Necessary?

Pro rightly states that I argued “war is not necessary.” He argues that if that is the case using World war two as an example that if we had not fought that the world would be in bad shape. This does not argue war necessary, it argues war desired. Or rather that we “ought” to have fought. This is the same as saying that in the case of World War 2 my opponent thinks our involvement a moral imperative. In other words, not evil. This is confirmed when he states that “we need to try to make the world a better place.” This sounds to me like pro is arguing that war can be a moral imperative.


2: Is War Evil?

Pro now provides a example of what he calls evil. “When you kill someone no matter why, it is still evil. You may have a good reason but it is still evil.” This is incoherent with other arguments made by pro.

Evil is immoral
Moral is what we ought to do
Evil ought not be done.

Pro has given examples when…

we ought to go to war
If we ought to do something it is moral
War is moral

It is incoherent for pro to say something is evil and we ought to do it. War cannot be both moral and immoral. That is to say it cannot be both moral and evil. Based on the definition of evil we have agreed to, war is not evil.

Conclusion:

Pro has still not warrented the case that war is necessary. We see there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is evil.

As pro has argued the concepts of necessary and evil it becomes clear that something cannot be both necessary and evil.

Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent.

Debate Round No. 3
stargate

Pro

The world would not exist as we think of it without fighting for what is needed. If we didn't fight then there would be more deaths, and our nation would be under a different flag. War is necessary, war is necessary when there are no other options other then fight, or give up. I will tell you here I refuse to think that we should give up, and fall just becoming a memory.

Now usually during a war civilians die, and usually there are some cases of rape. Now when it is a first would nation, they have better armies. They are better trained and work better under pressure. So there is less of a chance that these cases of rape, or killing of civilians happen. But when it is a third world nation, ruled by a dictor it can be a war based of evil. When these wars happen it is the civilians that if die the most. They are the ones to lose in those wars. A war is evil when it is not within the civilians best interests. The following are acts the prove war is usually evil.

http://www.rollingstone.com...

https://www.hrw.org...

http://www.rt.com...

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

These are only some examples of the horrors of war.

Now war is needed, if we didn't fight then there would be one government most likely a dictor who kills anyone who dose not agree with him. That goes against our constitution, and that is worth fighting for.
kasmic

Con

Pro says that “The world would not exist as we think of it without fighting for what is needed.”

This neither shows war necessary or evil.

Pro has still not warranted the case that war is necessary. We see there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is evil.

As pro has argued the concepts of necessary and evil it becomes clear that something cannot be both necessary and evil.

Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent.





Debate Round No. 4
stargate

Pro

Now not all wars are necessary, not all are evil. But my point I want to make is a good amount are needed. While at the same times the others are usually well evil. These other wars usually are in third world nations. These nations have suffered under years of oppressive rulers, and years of civil war. So for these nations sometimes war is a necessary. It is needed for them, they want to create a better lives for themselves and for there familys. So they rise up against the evil corrupt governments. But while they are fighting for a just cause usually things start to turn bad. Usually these rebles become as bad if not worse then the same government they are fighting. They will kill those that oppose them. They will attack areas that have civilians, all in the name of peace. Yet more civilians are dieing then they did before the war. Isn't that evil? But it was necessary at first, someone needed to try to stand up for whats right. How about this world war 2, that war was necessary. Because we where fighting to keep our freedoms, and protect those that would die if we or the britian would fall. But at the same time we where mass bombing any lands under germanys control. This lead to thousands of civilians deaths, and sometimes not even hitting the target.

If we never fight for what we believe in, and never stand up for whats right. Then this world would have one leader, most likely a dictator. He would most likely kill those he hates, not allow basic freedoms. You need to sometimes stand up for what you know is right or wrong. Even if it means you need to kill people, because sometimes if you don't do anything then who will stand up for the little guys?
kasmic

Con

Round 1 pro stated "I will have to prove that war is a necessary evil." In the comments he clarifies that he "need(s) to prove that it is necessary and a evil." Pro has neither shown war necessary or evil. Both claims remain unwarranted.

Pro has conceded that there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is inherently evil. Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent.

Thus we see that by the definitions provided the resolution could not be affirmed as it is incoherent. Even if this was not the case, pro has failed his burden and the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
Yeah I messed up, I did mean tigger.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
bballcrook21
Who did you agree with before the debate?Pro
Who did you agree with after the debate?Pro
Who had better conduct?Tied
Who had better spelling and grammar?Con
Who made more convincing arguments?Con
Who used the most reliable sources? Pro

Let me start by stating that I agree with Pro, but I find that Pro debated this topic very badly, which sure is unfortunate. Conduct is tied. Grammar is given to Con, as Con made a much more advanced argument (writing wise). Vocabulary was much less common in Con's argument than in Pro's, which made it seem as if Con had a more serious argument. Nonetheless, Pro also made quite a lot of errors as well as contextual problems, such as changing topics quickly or not sectioning off any parts of the debate. Pro also wrote "Sometimes you need to pull the tiger" - I understand that this is meant to be trigger, but I do not think your day will end well if you randomly pull at a tiger. Con had better arguments as he rebutted claims completely. He also noticed that much of Pro's arguments are subjective and opinion based - there is no legitimate proof that states that war is necessary and evil at the same time.
Posted by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
stargate, do you mind if I quote you? "Sometimes you need to pull the tiger".

I like it :D
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
I will
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Put it in the debate haha
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
It can be both, for example I kill my friend. But what happens if that friend was your best friend sense you where born. He was nice, wouldn't hurt a fly and would alaways listen to you. Yet due to war you end him. Isn't that evil?
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
I think I will just do it then haha.
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
Well I would like to do it as soon as possible, so you wouldn't be able to post debates for every round?
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@Stargate, thanks for choosing me, I have had a few things come up this week and wont be able to devote as much attention as I would like to this debate. If we could wait a week that would be great. If not, It would probably be in your interest to pick another contender.
Posted by stargate 2 years ago
stargate
IMay the best man win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
stargatekasmicTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that pro won the evil argument until round 5, when he conceded his victory.