The Instigator
GorillazDebate
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
LlamaMan
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

War isn't needed.

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 7 votes the winner is...
LlamaMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 841 times Debate No: 21445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

GorillazDebate

Pro

War is bad for mankind & is putting the U.S. with more conflict & debt.
Conflict: War is not needed, it is utterly unsuperior to create war over something such as religion, we all in this world want to spread the word of our religon. Most wars are caused because of revenge. To most human beings conflict is the key to winning. Conflict was used to conquer freedom but Martin L.K Jr. was a believer in Ghandi. The both used non-violence acts to get freedom. Talking is the key, is what most say. Conflict is never the answer.

Money: A side winder costs average of 1 million dollars,includes maintenance of weapon(s).A nuke can cost in the 10 million+ dollar range including maintenance and storage costs. Costs to develop ,maintain and training to use maintain and develop: 5.5 trillion. Just the entire cost of war since 2001 increases every single second. The cost of war increasing right now is about $1,305,421,780,928. As of said before, the cost increases more.
LlamaMan

Con

The topic for this debate is stupid and doesn't give me much to debate about. But I will attempt to debate it.

War is needed because it brings bad leaders to justice.

That is my argument. Enjoy!!
Debate Round No. 1
GorillazDebate

Pro

Well since you think its so stupid then don't bother.
LlamaMan

Con

Doesn't mean that I would not enjoy discussing it...
Debate Round No. 2
GorillazDebate

Pro

GorillazDebate forfeited this round.
LlamaMan

Con

I shouldn't have said that this topic is stupid, I probably ruined the debate.
I will rebut my opponents opening statement
Conflict: Conflict is the answer when millions of people are getting burned in ovens.
Money: I would pay one million dollars to save innocent people, wouldn't most of us.
I will also open some new arguments
Population: Throughout history two things have kept the worlds population down, germs and war. As we can clearly see now, if one of those two is eliminated our human population will consequently skyrocket. When populations skyrocket bad things begin to happen. With the population on such a high increase since we eliminated many diseases, many scientists believe that there will be areas on earth with severe overpopulation, lack of drinking water and lack of food. Or in english, poverty is going to skyrocket. With poverty on the skyrocket the people in poverty are not going to be very happy and we are just going to plant further seeds for conflict and eventually conflict. So in short, the war cycle is going to go on forever because of mutual conflicts for a varied amount of reasons and this war will perform the scientific neccesity of keeping an organisms population low enough so it is not overpopulate the world and destroy other organisms previously unaffected.
Vote Con!!!!
(or pro it is really your opinion)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
It could be argued that war is natural, but neither of these people did it.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
Guys, bringing up new arguments in the last round is abusive.
Posted by LlamaMan 4 years ago
LlamaMan
I'm NOT a Troll #Yep
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
No no, the resolution is fair. U just have to think slightly deeper.

There are arguments that war is a neccesity due to human nature, and also that it keeps our population down.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Unfair resolution is unfair.
There's no legitimate argument that says humans need war.
To make the resolution more fair, you should could make it one of the following, and your case would still apply:
"War is bad."
"War causes more harm than it solves."
"War should be abolished."
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Can we as an organized group of debaters just ban debates like this? They're impossible to really judge! I end up giving the round to pro because a) con trolled. Not much more to say there, b) pro gave the only legit argument in the round. Con presented something, but in the last round, so I don't weigh that, and c) the resolution was slanted in pro's favor to begin with, and con never solved back for it. Since the debate was horrible, I only give pro one point. Llama, stop trollin'.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, but only because he was frustrated about the fact that his arguments about cost was never addressed. The Con's assertion in Round 1 was unwarranted. Conduct to Pro because the Con brought up new arguments in the last speech. That is unfair because it does not give the opponent a chance to refute them. Countering the votes that give args to someone who is being abusive: 2 points given even though 5 have to be countered.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, actually made an argument in the last round...
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: A good ole non-debate....Pro ff Con was an @ss in the first round...so neither get conduct atm. the only valid arguments con brought up were in the last round... guess what? Abuse at its finest...since both "arguments" were equal...I am not voting there...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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 Also she dropped his questionable argument. But he didn't respond and both sides args where bad
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
GorillazDebateLlamaManTied
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: Abusive Resolution, when is war needed in any given situation? Clearly war is not a necessity, but con did not stress is, or argue well for that matter... so this wasn't a real debate in my eyes. FF by Pro however, con gets conduct even though he is a TROLL