The Instigator
frankfurter50
Pro (for)
The Contender
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)

War is bad

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
passwordstipulationssuck has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 103831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

frankfurter50

Pro

War is literally the act of slaughtering your fellow man. Humanity should have advanced past it.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

Hello again, Frankfurter. Round 3. FIGHT.

To begin I will state my position. Con's burden is not to prove that war is good. Con's burden is to show that war is not always bad. As such I will argue that war is sometimes a necessity.

Thus I offer the following contentions to negate the resolution.

Contention one. War is sometimes necessary to defend the citizens of a nation from an impending threat. If a nation, neighboring or distant. Commences a behavior that threatens the citizens of a state then that government is justified in using any means necessary to defend their population. In regard to social contract theory, the operation of consent was to some extent automatically guaranteed by the fact that in order to carry the conventional weapons onto the field, individuals collectively had to agree to fight the war. Hobbes acknowledges the operation of consent in the substantiating actions of conventional soldiers when in Behemoth he writes, "If men know not their duty, what is there that can force them to obey the laws. An army, you will say. But what will force the army?"
I start by invoking the words of Kant and Hobbes because everyday life continually puts before us the claim that in the emergency of war when our own survival is at stake, some of the operations of consent have to fall away because of the speed required to respond. I want to emphasize the fact that in contract theory in general, as well as in one very specific social contract, the American Constitution, provisions were made so that consent and the express act of contract become more explicit, not less explicit, at moments of the war. If a government believes itself above war and as such places the lives or sovereignty of its citizens at risk, then it has violated the social contract in refusing to fulfill the obligations that a government has to its people. For example in today's political climate, no one would blame South Korea or Japan for taking preemptive actions against North Korea in order to prevent being caught by surprise by an invasion or nuclear strike from the North. North Korea is a threat to the stability of the world and a threat to the well being of the people of several sovereign states.

Contention two. War is often justified in the face of evil. As far back as recorded history goes there have been evil people. Sometimes, those evil people get into positions of power. When evil people get into positions of power they have a tendency to use that power to do evil things. Throughout history when the forces of freedom are weak, tyrants emerge. When tyrants emerge it's often the case that the nations of the world are called to arms to stop them. When the Allied Powers went to war to stop the advance of the Nazis, when the United States went to war to stop North Korea from annexing the entire peninsula, and many other examples were times when war was necessary to stop terrible things and prevent atrocities. seeing as evil doesn't care if war is right or wrong, all nations need to ready and willing to defend themselves and others against it. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone except for the evil dictators were anti-war pacifists. When one nation intended to conquer another that nation would have no defense against the forces arrayed against it anyone could simply march in and take over whatever they wanted. If they could garner enough support from other nations around them, the conqueror could avoid economic sanctions and other measures imposed by the other nations of the world.

In conclusion though we may find war to be distateful, there's no denying it's necessesity to defend the innocent and to prevent the spread of evil.
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter50

Pro

I agree with your resolution and look forward to this engaging debate.

Contention one. You state that war is sometimes necessary to defend against a threat. Why, exactly? Why do we need to defend against a threat? Well, first off, we must, as citizens, decide whether they are truly a threat. This is a very important step, because it separates the ignorant from the knowledgeable. First, we have to put ourselves in the enemy's shoes. What principles, morals, and other qualities do they have? What is causing their citizens to obey their orders? Is it because they are sheep who obey everything their leaders tell them to, or do they like what their government promises? They must have some reason for doing it. What if our government is the evil one? What if we are the sheep, being tricked into believing that the opposing party is bad when, in reality, they are the good ones? is all the information put out by our government propaganda and a lie? In other words, we must free our minds of bias. many evil dictators have had their good sides. Hitler was an artist before becoming contemptible. Fidel Castro promoted dairy products. We say that there is a black and white line between good and evil. There never is. People are complex creatures, both good and evil equally, and sometimes more one than the other, but if the propaganda put out by our government generally shows the opposing side as being evil without providing any reasons why they are evil, what morals they have, etc. then we should know that our own government is lying to us, and thus, we should be traitors, perhaps.

Even if an oppressive government does take over, it only affects things legally, You are still the same person. You still have the same beliefs. And you can fight the other side, if you want, even after they have won. You can still consider yourself a part of your former country, even if it does not exist anymore. Taiwanese people, for instance, are constantly oppressed by China, and told that they aren't a country. But the Taiwanese people consider themselves a separate country all the same. It doesn't really matter what the government thinks you are. It matters what you think you are.

Even if an oppressive government does win, they will eventually fall, and things might turn back to normal. Nazi Germany collapsed after just five short years, the soviet union died in less that a century, and so on. In Ancient China, there was a concept known as the mandate of heaven. It said that if a government did evil things, then it would fall out of power sooner or later. This is true. Every evil empire, any place with flaws or inconsistencies or a corrupt government, has died out. Eventually, the citizens see the evils being committed upon them, and choose to rebel. This is a universal law. Good really does, in most cases, win over evil. If citizens are opposed to a government, the government will die, no matter what rules it enforces. All rules are legal. the human spirit cannot be restrained by petty laws.

Contention two-war is often justified. Is it, really? Americans always boast about how wonderful they are, how they are the greatest government on earth. This is a bias. Other countries believe the same thing. We all think we are the best. War is not justified. We are babies throwing temper tantrums to prove that we are the best in the world. it is a matter of the ego, and nothing but that.

We Americans claim that our military is good, and just, and created of only the finest men, and that we are civil and justified when it comes to war.

In world war two, Japan bombed us. They bombed us on Pearl Harbor, which was on Hawaii, a state which didn't even exist at the time. They bombed one military base.

In world war two, we bombed Japan. We bombed them on two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both important to the well being of Japan's people, and we bombed several people who may not have supported Hirohito, who may have wanted to fight with us, but they couldn't, because we were bombing them. We bombed women, children, all civilians. We gave them cancer and death.

How is this justified?

In world war two, Hitler jammed thousands of Jews into concentration camps and gassed them. We did the same thing to Japanese people, thousands of them, and I am ashamed and degraded to say this, but one of those concentration camps was right here in Colorado.

How was that justified? It seems the same to me.

Killing people is never right. It is murder. Any system, such as warfare, that makes murder legal is wrong. If a man killed twenty people in Oklahoma, he gets the electric chair. If a man kills thirty people in Vietnam, he gets a medal. How about we set Charles Manson free while we're at it?

war is never justified. there are always alternatives. When another country threatens us, we don't have to fight them. We can be the bigger man. We can step down. Maybe, if we step down, for once, the other country won't see us as weak, but they'll see us as a country with integrity who aren't savages, and aren't worth fighting, and they'll befriend us and stop being a bad country?

But no. The world isn't like that. We're babies, and when another baby asks us to fight it, we will. We'll kick it around, and when the dust settles, there will be bandages and blood and knocked out teeth.

war is bad. I await your next argument.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 4 months ago
frankfurter50
Hello? Anybody there? better get at it, sir. Only under a day left.
Posted by frankfurter50 4 months ago
frankfurter50
Hello? Anybody there? better get at it, sir. Only under a day left.
Posted by frankfurter50 4 months ago
frankfurter50
that it should never happen at all.
Posted by A341 4 months ago
A341
@Frankfurter50, are you arguing that we should never engage in war or simply that it is bad?
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
Well someone will think it is not so great, ( the murder and the Rapist) ... So the war on/fore truth.. Or simply winning... is a never ending story...That is basicly..Evolution..
Posted by Anirudh075 4 months ago
Anirudh075
Canis 2 Wars can get pretty bloody but they are a way we learn and advance for ex. if ww1 had never then civil rights and women's rights in the US would have suffered serious setbacks. UN would have never come to be about. From each war blood is shed yet something great is invented
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
@ Burns.. Winning, (getting what you want) is not about suffer.
Posted by Wylted 4 months ago
Wylted
4 rounds at 5000 characters a round and I will agree to debate. Send me the challenge, I will be ignoring the comment section
Posted by MrBurns2017 4 months ago
MrBurns2017
Not necessarily Canis12. Some people find jail easier than others.
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
If a rapist or murder is put in jail..The "system" has won its war.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.