The Instigator
Indophile
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

War should be mandatory

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 3 votes the winner is...
Chrysippus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,564 times Debate No: 19693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Indophile

Pro

Inevitability of War

War, in all its glory, seems to be a constant feature in the human landscape. From the first pile of poo thrown on a hirsute competitor by a presumably worked up proto-ape to the sophisticated nuclear powered explosive devices dropped on competitors by the advanced and enlightened homo-sapiens, the only thing that has changed is the manner and scale of killing.

I trotted over to Wikipedia to check on the wars fought over the last century, and was sufficiently surprised to find out that there were 4 years when no war was started. Namely 1923, 1949, 1951 and 1986. (I propose that generous research grants be endowed to study the reasons behind such lack of aggression during these years.) This, however, does not mean that no wars were fought in those years. Wars started previously continued in these years, just that no NEW war was started. [1]

It also seems that the century before that was as prolific in wars as this one, so I can conclude that wars are never going away, irrespective of all the oaths taken by the winners of beauty contests.

Cost of War

Given this, no country can afford to relax and not worry about defending its territory, and reasonably, no country does. Some even go so far as to defend territories of allies, or even territories they have no cause to defend, other than to frustrate an enemy trying to conquer said territory.

Needless to say, this leads to considerable expenditure in terms of resources and manpower, especially since they don't know when they'll be attacked, leading to them maintaining a standing army all the time, as well as employing diplomats and spies to find out if enemy nations are preparing for war. To be frank, this is a drain on the economy of under-developed and developing nations, who have other better things to spend their money on. Even highly developed nations find it difficult to balance their books, so it's high time that some steps are taken to put everything in order.

Benefits of War

On the other hand, many of the inventions made by humans that are highly useful now, have been made/popularized because of warfare. From tampons to trench-coats, microwave ovens to Medevac helicopters, VW Beetles to Hummers, nylon to plastics, rockets to satellites, radar to the Internet. Life as we know and live it, won't be possible without war. So, in a roundabout way, war is beneficial to humans (the ones that don't die in it, of course) and so must be preserved. [2] [3] [4]

Proposal

How do we balance these two things out?

To this end, I propose the following:

1.Do away with the uncertainty of war, and make it mandatory.
2.Fix a time period in which the war will be fought, as well as the duration of the war.
3.Fix the period between wars.
4.Limit the weaponry and manpower on both sides to a pre-arranged minimum.
5.Fix locations on a home-and-away basis.
6.Finally, the victor should be compensated accordingly.

These steps will provide manifold benefits to every country, however ahead or behind it is, in terms of economic and social progress, relative to the other nations.

Due to its mandatory nature, the people of each nation will have no choice but to contribute to the war effort in some manner. This maybe in terms of either signing up to be a soldier, or working on doing research, as well as having benefits in terms of encouraging fiscal restraint and promoting socially inclusive behavior by uniting all the peoples of the country against a common enemy. As everybody will be working, it might boost the economy in some manner, as some economists like to argue.

Fixing a time of year for the war will enable people to make travel plans accordingly, as well as allowing both sides to prepare strategies to tackle the physical conditions that might be prevalent at that time. Also, a fixed duration for the war will help no end in planning the resource allocation and keeping up the morale of the soldiers, who can look forward to a well-earned rest, if they come out alive, that is, or if they have been good all through their life. [5]

The periods of "rest" between the wars will enable the nation to enjoy peace without worrying about defending themselves from attacked. This time period will also help in recruiting new soldiers to replace the ones that have died, to drum up war hysteria against the next enemy on the calendar, enabling the people to learn the history and culture of their enemies, thus helping in education.

Of course, it all becomes pointless if any side is allowed to use weapons that can annihilate the opponents instantly. To ensure a fair fight, a worldwide campaign must be mounted to erase the phrase "All's fair in love and war" or at least the war part, from the minds of the people. Then both sides must agree in advance as to which weapons can be used and how many soldiers can be deployed, etc. etc. (not so difficult, as warring nations currently agree on methods of treating prisoners of war and many such matters). We can call this the Swiss Convention.

To ensure maximum variety in terrains and physical conditions, wars should be alternated on the home and away basis, so that every nation gets a taste of war, which is ultimately the point of the whole exercise. Nothing hits as hard as a home run, or a run in one's own home, or some such. This will also keep the tradition of a war being fought every year in some place in the world going.

What's the point if the victor does not get anything? What should the nations fight for? Territory? Resources? Ego? Doesn't matter. This can also be arranged beforehand. As this whole exercise is an exercise in fairness, the manner of victory will be decided by the United Nations, which will take into account factors such as body count, GDP, population, technological advances, etc. before deciding the victor. For example, in a war between the US and Afghanistan, the loss of even one helmet will consign the US to defeat, while victory for the US can be achieved only if they manage to wipe out every single soldier without suffering even a nail scratch. Such terms can be discussed in the UN Security Council.

Since there's a high chance that the soldiers might die, every nation should see to it that soldiers are the highest paid people in the whole country. This will ensure that there's no dearth of applicants for this position.

Summary

Thus, if you favor a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace for civilians, I urge you to vote pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.history.com...
[3] http://www.cracked.com...
[4] http://abcnews.go.com...
[5] http://www.christiananswers.net...
Chrysippus

Con


I thank Indophile for this debate.

I have no new definitions to add.

To begin, I completely agree with my opponent in a number of crucial areas. War is not going away; wars are being fought all the time; wars begin almost every years; wars are very expensive; and many inventions owe their development to wartime innovations.

This narrows down the scope of this debate considerably. My opponent has an interesting proposition to cut down on the social, economic, and moral costs of warfare; his proposal is inherently flawed, however.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


1. No method of enforcement

At the present, no agency exists with the political capital and military backing needed to enforce such a mandate. It is obvious it cannot be one of the existing nations, since they would exempt themselves from the requirement and negate the whole purpose for it; similarly, it cannot be an international body with troops from all the member nations, since no nation would willing enter into an agreement to be forced into scheduled wars, especially considering the reasons I give below.

Pro gives no method of enforcement; without this, the mandate would be unanimously ignored and is void.


2. Social disruption

Pro's proposal would bring war to every country on earth by turns, even those countries which have successfully avoided warfare for generations. Japan, for example, has not fought any wars since WWII ended, almost seventy years ago. Switzerland has maintained armed neutrality since the Siege of Gaeta in 1861.[1] These neutral countries and other like them would now be forced to expend resources on war and re-train an otherwise peaceful population in the ways of hating other nations. The necessary propaganda efforts and re-education would would disrupt the balance of society; seeing the horrors of war enacted on previously peaceful streets because some trans-government organization forced them to fight would sour them on the idea.

America likewise has not fought a war within its borders since the Civil War ended in 1865. The populations, unruly even at the best of times, would not suffer suddenly being forced to allow other nations to invade and fight on American territory.

If this mandate were effected, these nations would revolt. Any one of the three I just mentioned would be strong enough to repel any efforts on the part of any imaginable NGO to enforce the mandate; there are many other nations in similar positions, who would never tolerate such an intrusion in their peace. Together, they spell disaster for anyone foolish enough to attempt such a mandate.


3. Political disfunction

International politics is a delicate game of power. Played well, war is unnecessary for most nations. Many nations, as I have just established, get along with most of the world diplomatically, settling their differences peacefully. On the rare occasions civilized countries go to war, it is because the diplomacy has failed, and whatever objective they seek is not available by any peaceful means. War is, after all, very expensive.

To mandate tiny wars for arbitrary reasons is to play havoc with the balances diplomacy needs to function. Over time, Pro's system will have every country engage every other country by turn in a war to some extent or other. Previous alliances and friendships are not taken into account. Since the decisions are arbitrary and semi-random, there is no basis for political arrangements between countries, as any two countries cannot tell how long they have before it will be their turn to fight. Friendships cannot be lasting, alliances are useless, and diplomacy is both impossible and useless.

I fail to see how this improves anything at all.


4. Economic ruin

My opponent and I are agreed; war is expensive. I think he fails to grasp just how expensive it is, though.

Scarcity is the bane of any economy, the driving factor behind all economics. Ignore scarcity at your peril. Any resources wasted in fighting these constant toothpick wars is resources that cannot be used to build up national economies. Every ton of steel left to rust on a battlefield can no longer be used to build railways at home. Every destroyer sunk represents a highrise that cannot be built; every bullet casing lost could have been used to make circuits instead. Every one of these useless little wars will drink irreplaceable fuel. Each one will kill off fit members of the workforce, some of which having potential far beyond that of a common soldier.

On top of that, my opponent would award the "winner" with resources or territory looted from the other country. Whether the two countries would have even thought these resources worth fighting over is never asked; the answer, given any two randomly picked countries, is probably no. There are over two hundred countries in this world, most of them small. The odds that two randomly picked countries would be close enough to share easy access to resources worth fighting over is small; if the country cannot economically access the award, the waste is even greater than if the two countries had not fought, since the loser can no longer use the resources either.

I ask my opponent to justify this waste, if he can.

Furthermore, every modern economy depends on investment capital. Rich people and corporations invest their resources, and products are made, research gets done, progress is made, and taxes are paid. Now suppose these rich entities knew that a war was imminent, and that it would take place in the cities and fields of their particular country. Would it be reasonable for them to remain in the country and risk losing their wealth?

This mandate would result in the rich keeping their assets fairly liquid, so that they could move them offshore when the war came. This means: no long-term loans, little if any infrastructure investment, few R&D investments (since most of those pay off only after many years of research), and little or no investment in the government.

Now imagine that investors all over the world no longer could rely on their assets being safe, even under the protection of the largest nations on earth. The resulting panic and withdrawal of investments would destroy the world economy and plunge us all into the greatest depression imaginable.

This mandate is economic suicide.



5. Intellectual chaos

My opponent mentions "drumming up war hysteria;" and he is quite right. For this to work, both sides of the toothpick war will have to employ thorough propaganda to get their population to go along with the war (if they even would then). The costs of this, in terms of real knowledge, is frightful.

Histories would have to be revised. Truth would have to be suppressed on a massive scale. At some point, each country in the world will be placed in the position of having to come up with a casus belli against another nation with which it will have had virtually no dealings; the re-education needed to make people accept such farfetched explanations would destroy the foundations of logic on which science and learning depend.

Truth and logic might be the true casualty of such a scheme; only confusion and anti-intellecualism can result from such universal dis-education.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


True cost

The true cost of such a mandate would, for these five reasons, be untenable.

In my opponent's words:

"Thus, if you favor a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace,"

Con is the only reasonable vote.


I return this debate to my opponent, with my thanks.

-C.


[1] http://www.constantinianorder.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Indophile

Pro

My opponent has indeed presented a strong opening, and I will present my counter arguments.

I also thank my opponent for narrowing down the scope of the debate considerably, instead of wasting our time arguing over the inevitability of war.

As a rebuttal to my arguments my opponent has pointed out certain flaws in my proposal and has raised 5 points. I'll address those points out of sequence.

But before addressing them, I'd like to make some things clear, which my opponent seems to have misunderstood.

My opponent thinks that:

Nations will have to go to war with randomly picked countries.
Wars will be fought in city streets and in areas where the populace will be affected.

I state that this was never the intention. As I stressed often in my opening arguments, everything will be fixed by pre-arrangement. If such is the case, why would countries choose to fight wars in heavily populated areas, critical locations and such?

Countries will have an option of choosing whichever nation they want to go to war against. It depends upon what a nation wants. If it wants a certain resource, it can go to war against a country that has that resource. There's nothing random in this.

Also, as I said, the time periods between wars can be fixed. As an example, the time period could be a generation. Thus, every generation will have faced a war in their times. This is supposedly character-building. [1]

I'll now proceed with my points.

1. It will cause intellectual chaos.

As wars ARE going on in the world every year, does my opponent think there is intellectual chaos right now? My opponent also thinks that wars will be fought between random countries, and as I said, this is not the case. The population only has to get along with the decision of whom to fight, as under my proposal war is mandatory. Nobody has to convince the population to go to war, it's just which country to go to war against. Maybe one party wants to fight Eritrea, while the other thinks Indonesia is where the booty is, to put it flippantly.

To give examples, World War 1 had no real underpinning reason to it. Did the population need to be re-educated and all the things my opponent says? Did it destroy the foundations of logic, etc.? The losing nations (or at least Germany) emerged stronger in less than a decade and in fact made giants leaps in technology, so much so that they regained much more than they lost in the previous war (at least for a time).

2. It will cause social disruption

My opponent has given examples of certain countries that have avoided wars for generations. Japan, it seems, has not engaged in warfare for almost 70 years. Well, if that's the case, why then is Japan currently the fourth in the list of defense spending budgets by country? [2]

Since, irrespective of the lack of warfare, Japan IS expending resources in training people to ready for war without causing any social disruption, my opponents argument that this expenditure will cause social disruption is unfounded

Also, as wars will be fought in pre-decided locations, the peaceful population will not have to see the horrors of war, unless they wish to. They just need to know that a war is going on in their country, and they will be required to contribute to the war effort.

Moreover, my opponent is not taking into consideration the civilian lives my proposal will save. As wars are fixed, only soldiers will participate in it. The civilian death toll will be zero. This will in fact reduce social disruption by limiting wars to military personnel.

3. It will cause political dysfunction

As my opponent said, international politics is a delicate game of power. But when played well, it's always the people of the non-developed countries that get the raw end of the deal. To cite an example, such a well played game between the developed countries and the Libyan president, ensured that trade went on smoothly, without any concern for whether the money is actually going to the Libyan people. The diplomats just want to ensure that their country gets the resources with the least amount of expenditure. This is a bad deal for the Libyan people. Well, you can argue that the Libyans should have done something to prevent a tyrant from assuming leadership, but that's beside the point.

This game is heavily loaded in favor of the advanced countries, who have the money, the knowledge and the expertise, without going into seeing how they actually managed to gain all these.

If my opponent wants alliances and friendships to be taken into account, by all means. Wars can be fought between multiple allied countries on both sides.

How my proposal will improve things? Since war is mandatory, a leader has no option but to treat his people fairly, so that they will do their utmost to help the war effort. Nothing disposes a leader as quickly as a lost war. Of course, care has to be taken to see that the leaaders are not cheating or conspiring with opposition leaders, but all these things are necessities of my proposal.

4. It will cause economic ruin.

As we have seen, countries that have not fought wars in generations are still spending a lot in defense. I fail to understand how fixing everything, so that you know beforehand how much you will need to spend (to a reasonable extent) and damages with regards to environment, civiilian life and society limited to the utmost; will be a cause for economic ruin.

The current scenario, where a country always has to be prepared for an attack, especially if surrounded by unstable countries (like India/Pakistan or S/N Korea) as well as the never ending hunt for resources and their smooth deployment causing countries like the US to station troops in places far removed from their soil, and engage in wars against things like terrorism, etc. will cause economic ruin faster.

So, instead of the way my opponent stacks up examples of how bullet casings lost, destroyers sunk, fuel consumed etc. could have been put to further use, I can simply respond by saying the same thing in this manner, viz. every bullet casing made, every destroyer built, every single drop of fuel reserved for military vehicles for generations with the sole intention of NEVER using them, as in the case of Japan, could very well have been used for highrises and circuits and what not.

Also, soldiers volunteer for wars under my proposal (because they are highly paid, and it's also a matter of prestige), so the loss of their lives is not something for us to worry about. The loss of civilians in the current scenario however, is something that should worry everybody.

Some of the countries that don't spend much in defense do so because their defense is subsidized by some other country, but ultimately, the cost is being paid.

My opponent raises points about investments, loans, etc. But I fail to see how such things will be affected unduly. Investors will know exactly when a war will be fought, and what all could be lost. It's also not like a war will be fought every other week and on critical parts of the country. I'd take this over any kind of uncertainty related to war. Nothing is simple in economics, but the removal of uncertainty plays a huge factor in economic stability (I think I can get away with this statement without linking sources?)

5. There is no method of enforcement.

Well, yeah. A method would have to be found out. All the countries need to create something like the United Warring Nations. But is my opponent saying that if a method is found out, my proposal will become valid? Let us first debate the validity of the proposal before working out details in enforcing it.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Chrysippus

Con

First, had my opponent fully explained the conditions of this mandate, I could have argued more to purpose last round; his tactic comes dangerously close to moving the goalposts.

Second, though he says "Countries will have an option of choosing whichever nation they want to go to war against," the fact remains that those countries which do not desire war are being forced into it. War, however limited, is still a bad thing for any country. My opponent seems to think he can isolate the effects; where does he think he can stage these wars where cities will not be damaged, vital infrastructure will not be destroyed, and civilians will not die? This is patently ridiculous. Most countries do not have the vast open spaces the US has; there is literally no-where in Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Ivory Coast, Portugal, Japan, or Taiwan that you could stage such a war without killing civilians and destroying agriculture and industry.

My opponent also has given no reason why these wars will stay limited. War rarely stays confined to the expected limits; the Union thought the American Civil War would be over by Christmas, and were wrong by four years. I could give many, many more examples had I the time; suffice it to say that a desperate opponent will hardly conform to the rules, and these wars will escalate to involve the whole nation, and all the horrors associated.

The existing points, in my opponent's order:

1.
For reasons of time, I have to concede this one. Had my opponent cared to fully explain his position, this one would not have been necessary.


2. It will cause social disruption

"My opponent has given examples of certain countries that have avoided wars for generations. Japan, it seems, has not engaged in warfare for almost 70 years. Well, if that's the case, why then is Japan currently the fourth in the list of defense spending budgets by country?"

For defence. Japan does not want war, but it has strong, greedy neighbors; it wants to make sure it isn't an easy target. The social disruption comes from the propaganda, the loss of life (NEVER a popular thing, and has ended governments before this), from the war-time fear. Who would willingly invite that?

"Moreover, my opponent is not taking into consideration the civilian lives my proposal will save. As wars are fixed, only soldiers will participate in it. The civilian death toll will be zero. This will in fact reduce social disruption by limiting wars to military personnel."

This is utter nonsense. Japan is very densely populated, as is Singapore and the Netherlands. There is no way one could wage war in these countries without massive civilian losses, unless these troops are armed with paintball guns.

3. It will cause political dysfunction

"As my opponent said, international politics is a delicate game of power. But when played well, it's always the people of the non-developed countries that get the raw end of the deal. To cite an example, such a well played game between the developed countries and the Libyan president, ensured that trade went on smoothly, without any concern for whether the money is actually going to the Libyan people. The diplomats just want to ensure that their country gets the resources with the least amount of expenditure. This is a bad deal for the Libyan people. Well, you can argue that the Libyans should have done something to prevent a tyrant from assuming leadership, but that's beside the point."

Red herring. My point was, international politics is a carefully balanced game; this ham-handed mandate would destroy that balance, and all the trade and alliance benefits of it.

"If my opponent wants alliances and friendships to be taken into account, by all means. Wars can be fought between multiple allied countries on both sides."

Moving the goal posts again. If the voters will let you get away with it, I have nothing further to say here; I have no time.

"How my proposal will improve things? Since war is mandatory, a leader has no option but to treat his people fairly, so that they will do their utmost to help the war effort. "

This comment shows a poor understanding of history. Some of the worst tyrants were great military leaders, or fought wars through their entire tenure. Examples: Alexander the Great. Hitler. Caesear Borgia. Frederick the Great. Napoleon Bonaparte. The list goes on; this point is utterly wrong.

4. It will cause economic ruin.

"As we have seen, countries that have not fought wars in generations are still spending a lot in defense. I fail to understand how fixing everything, so that you know beforehand how much you will need to spend (to a reasonable extent) and damages with regards to environment, civiilian life and society limited to the utmost; will be a cause for economic ruin."

That spending is nothing compared to what id spent in wartime; and very little of the peacetime spending ends up on the bottom of the ocean or blown up. Vast amounts of the resources expended in wartime are completely wasted. Who would volunteer to put their country through this pointless cost?

What is the cost if someone should carpet-bomb another in order to win one of these contest wars? Can you put a price tag on the infrastructure destroyed, on the environment pointlessly ruined, on the steep civilian casualties, on the terror and anguish?

WHAT SANE COUNTRY WOULD AGREE TO THIS MANDATE?

The answer is simple. No country would. No-one would ever agree to let someone else tell their country when and with whom to war.



"My opponent raises points about investments, loans, etc. But I fail to see how such things will be affected unduly. Investors will know exactly when a war will be fought, and what all could be lost. It's also not like a war will be fought every other week and on critical parts of the country. I'd take this over any kind of uncertainty related to war. Nothing is simple in economics, but the removal of uncertainty plays a huge factor in economic stability (I think I can get away with this statement without linking sources?)"

They know when, but they have no guarantee of it's limitation. Investors will not build factories to let them get destroyed by bombs; will not build railways to have them seized by troops. You cannot remove the uncertainty from war, when the only sure thing about it is its tendency to get out of hand. You cannot prevent a commander breaking the rules - you cannot enforce any "rules." This is war. People play to win. Adding some pre-school "rules" will impress no-one - especially not the investors who stand to lose everything, and the civilians who stand to be killed for your little social experiment.


5. There is no method of enforcement.

For a body to be created which had any sort of enforcement power, the military associated with it would have to be significantly stronger than the US's. Again, a HUGE waste of resources. No-one would contribute to it, for reasons given above; the soldiers who joined it would be treated as traitors to their country, and finding capital to keep it going would be virtually impossible.

This purposal is enormously impractical, dangerous, and harmful. The good sense and inertia of the nations would doom this idea should it ever be purposed, because they understand what I have outlined here: War isn't certain. Peace is worth keeping. Mandatory war is pointless and wasteful, and could destroy the nations involved; who is going to sign up for this?

If a nation wants to fight another, they will do it, without giving the other nation the luxury of rules and an overseeing body enforcing them. Everyone else wants peace; mandatory war is worse than counter-productive for them, and so they won't join.

-C.
Debate Round No. 2
Indophile

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his argument. Before I continue, I'd like to assert that I never had any intentions of moving the goal post. However hard one tries, it's hard to think of all the points beforehand. So, when my opponent points out a flaw that I should have addressed beforehand, I can do naught but accept his point.

One other thing. In this debate, if my opponent points out that my proposal will not work because it cannot be enforced, no country will agree to it and more such points of this nature, I'd address all such points with this one statement, as well as reminding the voters, that the contention is not whether this is possible or whether the countries will accept this. The contention is whether mandatory war is good or not.

Otherwise, any and all propositions can be shot down at the initial stages itself by saying this can never happen. (For example, when the UN was thought of, people could say, never will all the countries accept the requirements, so let's not waste time in this)

Let me proceed with my arguments now.

1. The intellectual problem

I'm sorry if my opponent feels like I've shifted the goalposts. It was not my express intention.

2. The social problem

My opponent concedes that Japan has to spend such a large amount of resources just to ensure that it does not have to go to war, and that it does not present itself an easy target.

This is the core of my whole proposal. There is no way to know how much a country should do to deter anybody from attacking it, and defense budgets could spiral dangerously with just the right amount of paranoia. An opponent need just make the right noises about going to war, and Japan will have no choice but to increase its defense budget.

My proposal will ensure that they know well beforehand who, where and how (since the weapons to be used are discussed beforehand) they will go to war. This can ensure that there is no wastage of resources, civilian casualties will be limited (if not nil)

My opponent argues that Japan is heavily populated and there is literally no space available for conducting a war. But, almost half the population of Japan is concentrated in only 6% of the landmass and moreover 50% of Japan is forested and uninhabited. [1]

I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that almost every country in the world has wide open spaces somewhere, with some city-states as exceptions. Some solution will have to be found to include these countries into this proposal as well. Maybe, they can conduct their wars in some neutral location.

3. The political problem

My opponent claims my previous argument is a red herring, and continues to state that international politics is a carefully balanced game.

I'm not at all denying that it is a carefully balanced game. I'm just stating that this game is heavily loaded in favor of the "rich" countries. My proposal will ensure that every nation has an equal footing from the beginning. Every advance made and resource exploited from the time when my proposal comes into effect will be fairly won. No more hood-winking third world nations by smooth talking diplomats or by the minions of totalitarian governments (like China strip-mining most of Africa. I wonder how beneficial this will prove for Africa in the future)

My opponent then states that most of the tyrants in the world fought wars all the time. Well, I'm not denying it.

However, those wars were not fixed. And most of those wars were fought in foreign lands, where the local populace cared for it as much as a certain rodent's backside.

Under my proposal, a leader has to not only fight wars abroad, but also at home. Keeping in mind that the wars need co-operation from the local populace, it's hardly beneficial to the leader to become a tyrant. Nobody, not even a tyrant, can last long if they keep losing wars.

4. The economic problem

My opponent says that wartime expenditure will be very high.

Under my proposal, the wars are for a limited duration. Thus, costs can be kept in balance.

My opponent asks what if countries carpet-bomb other countries or break the rules.

This argument is absurd. It's like I'm setting up a game with some rules, and then my opponent saying the game is no good when the rules are broken. Well, of course, the proposal will be flawed if the rules are not followed.

Then my opponent brings up the most humorous (at least to me) point.
"What sane country would agree to this mandate?"

The point that is humorous is that any country can be called SANE in the current scenario where a handful of nations possess the power to destroy the whole of humanity, some or the other country in the world is conducting a war all round the year causing civilians to die, rich countries impoverish poor countries by taking away all their natural resources in the name of trade, etc.

So, I hope that no country is sane and this proposal be accepted.

5. The enforcement problem.

I already conceded that there is no method of enforcement currently. But, if my proposal finds favor, then methods need to be worked out to find an enforcement body. But that is another debate.

Summary:

If my proposal is correct, then as demonstrated, the result will be a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace for civilians.

I urge you all to vote pro.

[1] http://www.stat.go.jp...

A NOTE TO THE VOTERS:

Before voting, please remember that this debate is about the benefits that will accrue if my proposal is found to be valid. Do not dismiss this by just thinking, this is ridiculous, this will never happen, no country will accept it, so on and so forth.
Chrysippus

Con

This debate is whether war should be mandatory; and in particular, whether the small sport-wars that my opponent has described should be mandatory. He argues, at the beginning and end of his last round, that you should not pay any attention to whether they are ridiculous, and that the support/acceptance of the counties involve to his plan is irrelevant. We should just debate on whether the proposal is good or not.

This is a fun line of reasoning, and all sorts of things can be justified by it.

"Everyone should inject themselves with live plague cultures. Don't argue about how ridiculous this claim is; just about whether it is a good idea or not."

I have shown that these additional wars will:

- send countries to war that do not want to fight, and have successfully avoided fighting for decades or even centuries;

- destroy valuable infrastructure, resources, forests, fields, and lives;

- disrupt current alliances and diplomacy, which help prevent the larger wars from occurring;

- scare off investors and ruin national economies;

- and require the creation of a massive and highly unpopular extra-national armed force, which would invade any country who did not comply - making war a constant, even in those countries who otherwise would be at peace. This also requires the outlay of vast amounts of resources annually, which would otherwise be available for more productive uses.

His answer to all of this has been his opinion, unfettered by those pesky facts. He assures us:

- International politics is unnecessary anyway;

- The rules of warfare are always scrupulously followed, so these little wars cannot escalate into anything more destructive;

- Resources are already being spent on defense, so why not more?

- The details of enforcing his plan are irrelevant.


He is unable to tell us WHY he is so sure his plan will not bring economic disaster, or how exactly increasing the number of little wars will reduce the number of small ones, or how in the world this plan will balance the budget, etc.

He claims, by forcing people to go to war, everywhere in the world, that civilians will finally be able to enjoy "undisturbed peace."

This is nonsense.


A vote for Con supports sanity, and peace for those who will have it.

A vote for Pro supports additional wars, ruin, and world-wide destruction.

You choose.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Indophile 5 years ago
Indophile
Thanks for a good debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
And that's that. Thanks for a great debate, Indophile!
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
I apologize for the rushed nature of last round; I was within a few hours the deadline, and I didn't know if I was even going to be here today.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Well, then it would be like the Olympics, except the US would dominate........ :P
Personally, this has got to be one of the worst ideas in history. Why do we go to war? Because of disputes, differences. So why would all these countries agreed to go to war with us every so often? This reminds me of the Hunger Games.....
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol.. You "force" countries to go to war, by invading them XDDDDDD!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
WTf
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol this is funny... We have paintballs, air soft guns, and BB bullets...and last but not least, video games ;)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
IndophileChrysippusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I would counter vote bomb leal..... but I read the debate and I sort of agree with him...
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
IndophileChrysippusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 was looking for the argument that war does not occur naturally and needs mandatory subsidation. Oh well... I think con wins this one.
Vote Placed by LeoL 5 years ago
LeoL
IndophileChrysippusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Indophile provided reasons why war is good, but not why it should be mandatory.