The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

War isn't just

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 40606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Many men from different countries are sent off to fight. They leave their families behind to defend their country. In wars, people, families, children and babies are whiped out just because of the disagreement between countries. How can the slaughter of innocent people be justified?


Although war is, generally, a massive waste of time, we need to remember that a lot of these men, and now women as well, chose to fight for their country.
Those on the aggressing side chose to rise in the name of a leader that they all trusted to lead them to victory. It was their choice to charge the lands of 'innocent' people, who likely have as much blood on their hands as they do.

On the other hand, the people being attacked have the right to defend their homes and their land - should they be labels as sinners and killers for trying to defend what they hold dear to their hearts?
Debate Round No. 1


In previous wars, for example the Fauklands and World Wars I and II, men, and young boys from the ages of 16, were forced to depart their families and defend their country. Do you really think that boys who aren't even men yet, want to fight? If they didn't they would be shamed upon by women and feel like they haven't served their country properly. War does nothing but cause destruction, deaths and promotes agression. If all the money that has been spent on Nuclear weapons was exchanged for eduction funds, all children in the world would be able to have an education. So, hundreds of thousands of men are dying and leaving behind families and destroying areas. But because of the ignorance of war competeing countries, the education of children is being ignored. How is that just?


Those men and boys that were forced into the war still had a choice. Yes, it would have been seen as highly dishonourable, but these men had all the chances to run or surrendered themselves or just refuse to fight. No one wants a soldier that won't raise his gun.

Also, the education systems in the majority of countries - namely the ones that partake in wars, actually - are spectacular and haven't exactly suffered from the effects of war. The United Kingdom, America, Canada, Germany: a handful of the main aggressors in all three of the wars that you have just mentioned. All of these nations are currently leading in world education and research.

A lot of war is deemed senseless and, as you say, purely destructive, but if it weren't for war, places like Poland, Greece, Italy, The Republic of Ireland, England itself, would all still be trapped and subjected to a totalitarian rule and no one would have freedom, save those who stole the world powers.

War does have benefits. As a result of the London bombings, yes, much of London was destroyed, but it gave the city a chance to rebuild and renew. Masses of council houses with no indoor toilets and very poor general hygiene standards were destroyed. This gave the people living in these appalling standards a chance to build a new home and claim better living quarters for themselves and their families.
Debate Round No. 2


You're missing my point about the educational systems. You're stating that countries that partake in war are leading in world education and reserach. Correct. However, I was stating that the countries who are less fortunate than those countries, do not have a chance. For example, third world countries have terrible education. If the money that is funded in the building and distribution of weapons was converted, then all children would have an education. How is war more acceptable than education? Children in certain countries know how to use a gun, not a pen. War is making people live in fear and become paranoid and generally unhappy. War is bad for people, the economy, the environment. You would think that people would have learned that war is unacceptable because of previous wars, it causes nothing but devestation. The killing of hundreds of thousands is not, in any way, justifiable.


This is a flaw of causation. You're trying to say that war is the only thing causing a drop in educational vitality around the globe, but what about personal greed? How much do we throw away on pop stars and celebrities when we could also be spending that on the less fortunate?

Besides, since when was it our duty to look after the world? Yes, there are people out there that are less fortunate than us, but why are we all more focused on people in places like Africa, when we can't even help the homeless in our own country? Did you know that a starving man in Kenya is more likely to recieve sympathy than a starving man in the streets of your own city? A child in Milawii who hasn't been allowed an education is more likely to have funding given to them than the same child in America or even Britain.

You are repeatedly appealing to emotion. Thousands of people die every day from illness, starvation, depression and mistreatment, but you still focus on war, as if it were the only world evil and the cause of every malady about the globe?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Fox32 3 years ago
Here are my 2 cents.

War is based for thing: Making money.

And no, making money is not always for the whole population. Just how Prescott Bush made 'donations' to the Nazi's in the early 1940's. So what is the mix and steps for war?

Motive : Money
Explanation : Propaganda
Result ; The investors get there money tripled back.

Propaganda is not something old, it was clearly even used in the first gulf war:
Posted by JUDGE_MILLER 3 years ago
if youre going shop can you get me some crisps??? thank uuu :) x
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO made more convincing arguments in this debate.