The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

War its beginning and its necessity

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 58744
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




My place in this argument is that war id not necessary
The most likely beginning of war was when a tribe gained some form of advantage over its neighboring tribes whether by a good leader a good crop return it doesn't matter. It took over its neighbors and gained more population so it had even more advantage in the next "War". I am going to call those alpha tribes. They conquered their neighbors and gained even more power until they controlled lots of people and land. At some point they are going to meet an enemy that has just as much power and population through the same process.
They are both going to expect these battles to be over just as quickly as all the other battles. These are the first real wars. They fought the battles and when it didn't end they kept fighting still hoping to win. They used the same thing they used against tribes that at this point looked so weak to them; they used war, a process that shouldn't work because these two tribes are on the same level and have the same power.
These wars continued into the time of the Roman, the Persian, and the Greek empires. They continued going by the same outdated progress into WWI and WWII. But the casualties went up as the power did therefore it became more and more terrible. The deaths became very numerous. And they still used the process that should only have ever been used against an enemy that can"t put up a fight. The only "acceptable" recent war would be the revolutionary war, where America should have lost handily.
War is an outdated practice that should never continue to be used. You will notice I am not exactly shouting any replacements but the age of war needs to end because with the advent of nuclear weaponry the casualties will jump so much higher and War will become far too bad for it to continue.

War isn't necessary because it is an idea that is far beyond it's prime.


*puts fists up ready to fight*

Based on what you said my understand of your stance is:
War and war preparations are not a necessity since it origination and /or today.

I will argue that:
As an individual or group of people, you must prepare for war and be willing to go to war. My basis will be global thermonuclear warfare, personal defense, and history.

I am also willing to argue that:
Humans were fighting with nature to survive since their origin to kill/destroy anything that poses I risk to our survival. Because of this, if other humans pose a risk to our survival then we will fight them.

If your argument is that in a hypothetical world that humans could co-exist without needing to fight, well we don't live in this world do we :P so a debate on a hypothetical world that will never exist and really does not help in philosophical discussion seems a little pointless
Debate Round No. 1


You have taken my stance correctly it is the origin that shows what war should be used for. To make this fair and because you didn"t place an argument this is all I am going to post


As an individual or group of people, you must prepare for war and be willing to go to war. My basis will be global thermonuclear warfare, personal defense, and history.

1. Global Thermonuclear Warfare - Probably not the best idea title but I'll stick with it. This will act as both a rebuttal and and my main argument. The main point is mututally assured destruction. This means though we have nuclear weaponry, we wont ever use it. This idea was popularized in the famous movie, WarGames.

You said: "the age of war needs to end because with the advent of nuclear weaponry the casualties will jump so much higher and War will become far too bad for it to continue."

Since nuclear weapons will never be used, war will not end because of it instead proxy wars have become more popular. Look at Vietnam, Syria and Ukraine. (I left North Korea out because it was a more convential war).

2. Since humans grew from nature by the fight for survival, as long as another human or humans pose a threat to us, we will fight. Also as you said, as long as one group has to gain by fighting another group, conquering shall exist. War preparations will continue to be necessary because others will always have interest in your own resources. And by the idea of global thermonuclear warfare, if you have equal arms then direct battle decreases because no one has the advantage. This offers a form of protection for survival.

3. History - Nuclear weapons have existed since the end of World War 2 yet there has been the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War on Terror. The middle east has a nice list going of wars it has fought/fighting. South America has had a few different wars. Nuclear weapons have not decreased then number of wars. Casulaties are also not increasing dramatically. Though the death toll for the Vietnam war stands at a few million over 20 years, the American Civil War lead to around a million deaths in only 4 years when medicine was horrific.

You should have argued anyways in round 2, I am still trying to figure out you full argument :P Thanks for the respect (I feel like there is a better word) though :)
Debate Round No. 2


I would have posted but you had not clarified your arguments enough and would have obviously clarified them in your next debate. I used the origin of war to prove why it was unnecessary.
The proxy wars will continue. Unless the war era ends, the only way this could happen was if a single entity had hegemony over the earth (a government ruled the earth). The only way this could be done was if it was done the way that Peter the Hegemon did it (Shadow of the Giant, Orson Scott Card) by letting a global war play out but with as you said without nuclear warfare, and seizing the countries through democracy, as they start to lose their power due to their sheer number of enemies. And then seizing the few remaining countries.
If that occurred then the aggressors would be incapable of forming an army because their odds of winning would be far too slim for any people to join them so the "Alpha tribe" trend would be reestablished. And once it has been established the only thing that could change it would be another sentient species with equal or better technology than us; because it takes two alpha tribes to break the trend.
Defense of resources will not be necessary if there is nobody you need to defend them from except common thieves. This would be a job for a local police force. And how would rebellions be stopped? By democracy and the citizen direct power to vote to clear out the government on any level and obviously only those who are affected by the change.
While what you say is true when you talk about history there have not been any wars between world powers, which would be where nuclear war would occur, so there have been many wars but they have not provided an opportunity for Global Thermonuclear warfare. Russia is providing hat opportunity as we speak.


Rebuttal to the Origin of War

The origin of war you refer to is an original theory of the start of war. I will agree that this is a likely starting point. However for one of the orginal groups to go to war, war was necessary. Man inherently looks to benefit from action, arguably man inherently finds way to conflict with other men. There will always be those who choose to go to war for no reason beyond the possible benefits. But the one aggressed upon will find it that war is necessary to survive.

So since the start of time, war was necesssary for at least one of the conflicting parties.

Rebuttal to Your Proposed Scenario

Though I do love Orson Scott Card, lets remember that the universe he proposed has aliens, and lasers, and had a kid that led the worlds army to victory. I will agree that if a world power became strong enough to conquer most of the world, the rest would follow, there is a flaw in the series of events you proposed.

You point out that the final government would need to be a democracy to avoid rebellion and corruption, well democracies don't declare war on others. The only country with any democratic principles that ever has been the aggressor in a major war was Germany in WW2, if you count a one-party government that manipulates elections a democracy. Your events also propose an unlikely global war and that one country would be able to get other countries to join them.

The scenario is highly unlikely, and would require war to happen so.... It kind of proves war is necessary for there to be no more wars.

I am pretty sure my arguments still stand so....

and since this is the last round I am just going to kind of end here with a summary.

War is almost necessary for the one aggressed upon to survive. War preparartions are the only way to deter others from attacking you because you are weak. War will continue to exist, unless something really really unlikely happens. War and war preparartions are necessary.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
Your opening is really confusing compared to your title. You are Con, but you are giving an affirmative proposal for why wars start. What is your argument?
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Not going to noob snipe this...
However, without a proposal to avoid wars, there is only an assertion that war is bad. Whereas without going to war, people would have to put up with evil in their neighbors. Paraphrasing from Orson Scott Card: There will always be those who love war, therefore those who love peace must be better at war.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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: pro got two rounds of arguments, which managed to rebut con's arguments...not sure why con did nothing in round 2