The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
GaryBacon
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,910 times Debate No: 2872
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (16)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

As Pro, I am going to be defending that war (the fighting killing kind) is good for absolutly nothing. I'm going to try something different, and take all my points from War's (the band) song "War". It will be up to my opponent to rebutte all of these points using logic and examples, not just subjective opinions, and if they are good they will also give reasons why war might actually be good for something. This isn't an attack on the current war, World War 2, the 7 years war (etc), directly; just one on war in general. I'll highlight (with ***) the main points that should be specifically adressed:

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
***Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives***

***War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives***

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

***War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker***
***War, friend only to the undertaker***
Ooooh, war
***It's an enemy to all mankind***
***The point of war blows my mind***
***War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation***
***Induction then destruction***
***Who wants to die?***
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
***Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean***
***Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days***
***War can't give life
It can only take it away***

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
***Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today?***
***They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way***

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing
GaryBacon

Con

This is a very original and highly amusing means of presenting an argument. I commend you on your creativity.

I will first begin by showing that war may sometimes be necessary. From there I will use examples to show that it is good for more than absolutely nothing. After the basis of my argument has been laid out, I can address all of the points in the song lyrics.

Although war is often construed as a means of destruction, it can in many cases be a means of liberation. A brief look at history can show examples where war served as the only means of obtaining freedom. Take Scotland in the late 13th and early 14th centuries for example. The Scots were constantly being tyrannized by the British and were subjected to many injustices. Although the movie Braveheart dramatized and perhaps exaggerated some of the details, atrocities such as prima nocte really did occur.

Another example can be seen in the Anglo-Zulu war. The British invaded the territory of the Zulus, and the Zulus decided to go to war and die rather than allow others to take over their land. This may seem pointless to you, but many would consider it brave and noble. The Zulus with primitive weapons actually defeated the British in the Battle of Isandlwana, and although many died, they died nobly. I know that in the end the Zulus lost the war, but this does not mean that people should allow invaders to take over without consequence.

One more example to mention is the French Revolution. Things were so bad with unemployment, malnutrition, and even famine that people literally had to fight for their lives. Death was going to come anyway. Should it come by means of slow and torturous starvation, or should it come through a revolution that could possibly pave the road for change?

In cases such as these, war can be seen as a means of self-defense. Now to address the points highlighted in the song.

"Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives"

In the cases I mentioned, many innocent lives were already being destroyed. Even in cases where death is not the means of destruction, the constant tyrannical oppressions that make life unbearable can be viewed as a way of sucking the life out of innocent people. When such is the case, rising up to fight for self-preservation becomes more noble than allowing the injustices to continue.

"War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives"

I have no doubt that this is true. But when tears are welling up in the eyes of not only mothers, but entire populations yearning for justice, then the tears shed for those who died fighting the good fight pale in comparison.

"War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker"

For oppressed populations, war can actually be heartlifting rather than heartbreaking.

"War, friend only to the undertaker"

It is also a friend to those who have been freed by it. In fact, even corrupt coalitions that start wars to take over land may still view war as their friend if they come out victorious. They may not be good people, but it still serves to show that war is not friend ONLY to the undertaker.

"It's an enemy to all mankind"

See the previous rebuttal. Not all mankind views war as an enemy.

"The point of war blows my mind"

Many wars probably are rather pointless. But not all of them. There can be a very good point to starting a war. Allowing others to steamroll over you cannot be considered a valid alternative to war.

"War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation"

War has done more than this. It has very likely caused unrest with people of every generation. But this cannot be used to condemn the wars previously mentioned. These people were already in a state of unrest.

"Induction then destruction"

The destruction point was previously addressed. Being inducted into a war and then destroyed is probably better than sitting and waiting for destruction to come.

"Who wants to die?"

Those with extreme suffering often choose death as a means of escape. When it comes to the oppressed, a voluntary death may be better than a life of suffering.

"Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean"

I cannot contend that war has left many people disabled. This is a sad tragedy. But the bitterness is probably much more present when the disabled view the war as pointless. Many (perhaps most) wars are pointless...but not all.

"Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days"

The words 'these days' seem to refer to the present. I must say that in the present day I have often felt that we may actually have to fight another revolutionary war within our own country. Atrocities such as the Patriot Act are taking away the very freedoms that made this country so great. And as the grip gets tighter and tighter, it may only be a matter of time before both you and I must choose whether to live under a dictatorship or rise up and fight.

"War can't give life
It can only take it away"

Is this really true? Cannot it not be said that the Treaty of Edinburgh (the end result of the conflict between Scotland and Britain) gave life to the subsequent generations of Scotland? In the French Revolution, war gave life to some who would've died of famine.

"Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today?"

There certainly should be a place for them. But it is impossible to have all people of all nations on the same wavelength. Consequently, many people that only wish for peace can sometimes find themselves in a situation where war becomes the lesser evil.

"They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way"

I've been arguing a similar point. If there is a Lord that does know a better way, he certainly hasn't informed anyone of what this is. In fact, there are many biblical accounts in which the Lord supposedly helped one side defeat another in battle. So even for those that choose to believe in some omnipotent force, a better way has yet to be revealed.

My main point is that war is good for more than absolutely nothing. It is good for obtaining freedom from all types of oppression and invasion. It may even have further uses that I will explore in later rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Well thank you for that compliment. I must agree with Logical-Master, and I too would have been quite amused if you had found a rebuttal song. But back on subject.

On Necessity: While I cannot refute that wars have served a purpose, I have to disagree that that makes them necessary. What happened to politics? Is it always necessary to result to fisticuffs when you don't get your way? Is there no way that talking it through could not have solved anything? You might say no but I say yes.

What you will say is that nothing would have been accomplished. The French would still be poverty. Scots would never have had freedom. Zulus would have lost their land. That is, of course, assuming both sides had engaged in combat. Hindsight shows us the mistakes of the past. The aristocracy of France should just have let the lower class into their political system. The British shouldn't have invaded Scotland or Zulu territory. We can see it now, why couldn't they? Did it really take all those lives, all the wounds, all the nightmares to figure that out? The truth is they could have without war, but were blinded by the manipulations of their past. The common law was if you needed something take it, by any means necessary. Everybody viewed everybody as an enemy, as something less than themselves, as different. But really, are we different at all? Did the Zulu's not have 5 fingers on their hands like the British? Didn't the British have two legs like the Zulu's? Didn't both sides of the French have kidneys, Livers, Lower Intestine, Bladders, Femurs, Molars, Eyebrows, Rib cages, etc? Was there no possible way that neither side could see that? Why neither could treat the other as friend rather than foe? All the examples you have stated so far are all situations were reason and understanding could have just as well have prevailed over the gun, spear, and guillotine. Its wasn't self defence, it was close minded fear. People wanted results fast, not results right. Either way it could have reached the same
outcome. So again, what was the use of war?

"Because it means destruction of innocent lives"
You claim that people have to fight to better there lives. Well, as I just pointed out, all it would take is reason and even the strife could have been avoided. The poor conditions of the people were caused by ignorance, and selfishness of those in power. With enough political involvement, these tyrants could have been userbed without deadly force. With a bit of consciousness, peoples lives could be better. Again, human stupidity stalls that. So another case were it could have been avoided, but rather than efficiency, people wanted speed and money. So these lives were still lost needlessly.

"War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes when their sons go to fight and lose their lives"
Can there really be any good fight? Its not just one mother, its thousands, even millions, and not just those on the "good" side but on the other as well (a good exemplification of this is the film 'All Quiet on the Western Front') To both sides, their 'good' fight is the bad one for the opposition. Many don't even know why they are fighting, they just are. Especially when a draft comes into effect, and people who would rather not fight, die for a cause they didn't support or did not want to get involved in. Do you still think 'the good fight' would matter to those mothers?

"War, it ain't nothing but a heart breaker"
War is still a heart breaker, even to the oppressed. No sane person smiles when they hear of a loved ones death on the battlefield, even if it was for a cause. A cause which could be solved with diplomacy.

"War, friend only to the undertaker"
Couldn't those corrupt coalitionists be seen as undertakers? Profiting off the dead? I believe War meant 'undertaker' as general statement. But there is no doubt that war must be a happy time for funeral businesses.

"It's an enemy to all mankind"
Incorrect. All mankind view war as an enemy. What people like is the 'reasons' behind the wars. War is an enemy to the human race. It's purposeful self destruction of our species, aka, murder. We are legally endorsing the job that we condemn people like Charles Mason and Timothy McVeigh for doing. A B52 pilot can easily beat the damage done in the Oklahoma City Bombing. A Marine can kill ten times more than Charles Mason. Why is it that no one else seems to see that war=murder. That is War is saying. We are killing ourselves. Reasons be damned. Any issue can be resolved with words, yet we still resort to death. Without the reasoning its still murder. And because the reasoning can be resolved some other way. So we are killing ourselves needlessly! War is an enemy to everyone, no matter what story you tell yourself to sleep at night.

"The point of war blows my mind"
Give me a good reason to start a war. This means that reason could not, in any way, be resolved peacefully. There would have to be a good, legitimate reason that would progress mankind. There cannot be any ill will, or vengeful motivation behind it. All of these are in direct conflict with what war really is. But if you can find me 1 'good' war I will concede this point. I would suggest trying to find a few, as I'm sure I will be able to knock them down easily.

"War has caused unrest within the younger generation"
War messes everybody up. The father of a son dies. The sun wells up hatred. That son becomes a world leader, and declares war. That war kills another dad, with another son, and the cycle continues. War only fuels distrust, hatred, and revenge. It hinders progress because it scars people, physically, mentally and emotionally. The only reason its still alive is because we keep it alive, and say it's right. Patriotism is just a nice sound way of saying "I will kill anyone for this dirt". Allegiance and loyalty are just the politically correct term of saying "I don't trust my fellow man". War is bad, and always will be.

"Induction then destruction"
Destruction is always bad. It means death. Many people view death as being a bad thing. Again, diplomacy can spare us all the trouble.

"Who wants to die?"
An escape for a temporary situation. Nothing that can't be solved with reason. In fact, many survivors of suicide come to that same realization. Life is precious, why stop it prematurely? I'm sure if we could talk to those dead in wars they would say the exact same thing. Beside, wouldn't they prefer to see the effects of their sacrifice?

"Ooooh, war, has shattered many a young mans dreams, made him disabled, bitter and mean"
So you concede to this point for the most part. Every surviving soldier I have met from a war is haunted with bad dreams and memories. Those with disabilities are loathsome of the cause. They lost their hand because two leaders could not shake theirs. Truly a waste.

"Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days"
Again, without the distrust, with a little brains rather than brawn, with compassion, we would never have had to fight the wars of the past. If we do fight any in the future (undoubtedly we will) it will only be because we still haven't realized this fact.

"War can't give life it can only take it away"
The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation. Wars destroy, people create. You've only viewed the outcomes of the wars, but those all could have been reached with diplomacy. The acts and treaties came after all the death. Why not skip a step?

"Peace, love and understanding tell me, is there no place for them today?"
But war is still evil, yes? What would be so wrong about getting people to understand each other? It would take time, perhaps some harsh words here and there, but any positive result that doesn't require a gun is worth looking into.

"They say we must fight to keep our freedom but Lord knows there's got to be a better way"
Diplomacy. Education. Reason. Understanding. LOVE. Just a thought.

22 Characters left.
GaryBacon

Con

Coward Of The County by Kenny Rogers

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.
He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama named him Tommy, the folks just called him yellow,
But something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong.

He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison.
I looked after Tommy 'cause he was my brothers son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy:
"Son, my life is over, but yours is just begun.

Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It wont mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope youre old enough to understand:
Son, you dont have to fight to be a man."

Theres someone for everyone and Tommy's love was Becky.
In her arms he didnt have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was workin the Gatlin boys came callin.
They took turns at Becky.... there was three of them!

Tommy opened up the door and saw his Becky cryin.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace and took down his daddy's picture.
As his tears fell on his daddys face, he heard these words again:

Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It wont mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope youre old enough to understand:
Son, you dont have to fight to be a man.

The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom.
One of them got up and met him halfway cross the floor.
When Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! old yeller's leavin."
But you coulda heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and blocked the door.

Twenty years of crawlin was bottled up inside him.
He wasn't holdin nothin back; he let 'em have it all.
When Tommy left the barroom not a Gatlin boy was standin.
He said, "This one's for Becky," as he watched the last one fall.
And I heard him say,

I promised you, dad, not to do the things you'd done.
I walk away from trouble when I can.
Now please dont think Im weak, I didnt turn the other cheek,
And papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man.

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.

Although this applies only to one individual, many of the conflicts previously mentioned could be analagous. After all, what was the conflict in Scotland during the late 13th and early 14th centuries if not a case of the Gatlin boys picking on someone? The only difference is that there were larger numbers on both sides. Even the rape of Becky took place in the form of prima nocte.

I have read through your arguments, and I suppose the main problem I have with them is your over-optimistic viewpoints. Of course if there are two viable options: one being war and the other being a logical discussion to work out the differences, the discussion is to be preferred. The problem is that there are many people that do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss things or to bother to try and understand an opposing viewpoint.

When you state "Hindsight shows us the mistakes of the past" I must ask what the 'us' refers to. If it refers to you and I, then you are correct. But if it refers to the human population in general, I beg to differ. Despite the many claims you may hear about humans being a superior species, I can assure you that most humans are actually quite lacking in intelligence. Not only are there many that cannot see the mistakes of the past, they will almost certainly repeat those same mistakes in the future.

You say "All the examples you have stated so far are all situations [where] reason and understanding could have just as well have prevailed over the gun, spear, and guillotine." Is this really true? Do you really believe that the Scots could've said "Hey wait! Let's talk this out nicely."? Even if they could, would you want to resolve the issue with a nice discussion after somebody had just raped your wife? Of course they would claim that it was a legal right, but this it is still unacceptable. As the penultimate line of Coward of the County states: "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."

My main point is that reason and understanding cannot be implanted into the minds of others. When you state "The aristocracy of France should just have let the lower class into their political system. The British shouldn't have invaded Scotland or Zulu territory" you are absolutely correct. They shouldn't have done these things. The problem is they did. If a child decides to stick up for himself and hit a bully back after the bully starts with him, the child that fought back cannot be condemned. Of course anyone can still make the correct statement "The bully should've never started with him in the first place." This is true, but it is what bullies do. Similarly, when the British invade Zulu territory, the Zulus cannot be condemned for starting the Anglo-Zulu war. Did the war have to be fought? No. But that doesn't make it wrong. The child could've let the bully pick on him and avoid a fight as well. But letting issues get resolved through such passive action is not good. People should have the right to defend themselves.

You claim "Any issue can be resolved with words, yet we still resort to death." This is not the case. There are a great many people in this world that will not be affected by words. They either won't care or they won't have the intelligence to understand them. I know this may seem like an extremely uncivilized and savage claim, but bullets, missiles and bombs are the only reasoning that many of these brutes will understand. As unsophisticated as this may sound, it is sadly the truth.

I don't have the space to reiterate all of the lyrics to War and go through them all once more, but there are a few other points I'd like to make concerning some of them.

"Who wants to die?"
You claim that it is only an escape for a temporary situation. But an excellent point is made in the movie V for Vendetta. When the character V tortures Natalie Portman he shows her that death is actually not the worst thing. There are some principles that exist that are worth dying for. This ultimate realization came to her, as it did to V at the end of the movie. He knew that he would die on that final night, and yet that paled in comparison to his goal of changing the corrupt government and giving hope to the other citizens. You ask "Beside, wouldn't they prefer to see the effects of their sacrifice?" Perhaps if they could, but this is an impossibility. The point of many of these sacrifices is that the principle was worth more than life.

"Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days"
To this you state "Again, without the distrust, with a little brains rather than brawn, with compassion, we would never have had to fight the wars of the past." Now this may be true, but not realistic. Brains cannot be instilled in those that are not learned. Your view is extremely optimistic, but in reality a leopard cannot fully change its spots. Those without brains will never become intellectual. And when these unintellectual brutes start trouble, no amount of compassion or brain can persuade them.

"War can't give life it can only take it away"
You say to me "You've only viewed the outcomes of the wars, but those all could have been reached with diplomacy." Once again, the intelligence needed to reach a conclusion through diplomacy is not present. It would've been better, but it simply cannot happen. You also say in reference to this "The acts and treaties came after all the death. Why not skip a step?" I'll tell you why they couldn't skip a step. It is not that it was physically impossible. It is that it was impossible in terms of the mental capacity required for such acts.

I have no space left, but my main point is that your optimistic views are not realistic.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Ah, you found a rebuttal song. Very nice.

Well, what exactly was it that Tommy achieved by beating up the Gatlin boys? Did he take the rape back magically? Did the boys feel bad about what they did? Did he prove he was a man? No, he accomplished none of these things, all he did was show he could punch people. That's about it.

After reading your last round it seems you completely agree with me that war should be avoided. So then you concede this debate? Your stance is that all war is good for something. But in this last round you've taken the stance that "war should be avoided, but it just won't". I cannot deny that what was done in the past was done and served a purpose. I can't deny that wars will continue to happen due to lack of human intelligence. But that is not the case I am making. I am saying it could have and should have never happened in the first place. There is potential for us all to come to terms peacefully, and while there is that possibility there is reality. My views are optimistically realistic. I can see the better parts of man and know that we can do it. So none of my claims are preposterous, just highly unlikely. As far as they can apply to the real world I know that they will probably never come into action in the real world. But again, this is not my stance. My stance is about what should and could happen. That is what War is singing about. He is not saying war will never happen, he's jus saying they shouldn't. On this point it seems you agree with me, thus making my stance victorious. But now to discuss your point that they have no ability to ever stop. In summary, it seems your concerns are: Honor, intelligence, ignorance and one sided-ness.

Honor: In concerns to the Scot and Tommy. What real good is honor? Honor cannot feed you. Honor will not help you walk. Honor will not keep you alive. Honor is a made up human concept, and can easily be restored with counseling. The only judge on honor is yourself, no one and nothing else's. So, is fighting a war based on rape a good idea? Does it make the war just? No, it does not. It would still have been better for the Scots to have engaged in a peaceful negotiation. It would have been better for Tommy to call on the cops and let them suffer in a concrete room. The only accomplishment they made was gaining revenge, another self induced concept. Neither honor nor revenge will help humanity, only yourself. So this is not a good reason to continue fighting wars. SO your lyric should not read "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man", but rather 'Sometimes you wanna fight when your a man'.

Intelligence: You claim that people, both now and then, do not have the mental capacity to settle things peacefully. This is half-true, I can't deny that. Never the less, they still have some modicum of intelligence to see that life is better than death. So even in the most unintelligent leader, they still have the ability, just not the will. It is still not an excuse, only an observation. But we all do have the ability to raise the intelligence of man kind, low as it is today. The budget on the War on Terror currently is in the trillions. Do you have any idea how many new schools could be constructed with that financing. I'm not talking about a lot of little 'podunk' badly constructed schools. This kind of money could build thousands of university level institutions. It could re-furnish every American school twice over with new books, new desks, new computers, new everything with cash to spare. Yet it all goes to bullets, bombs, missiles and the things that fire them. All of these are good to only use a few times, but a school can last generations. So intelligence is not totally out of the question. Yes, right now human brain poser is less than satisfactory. True, the mental states of people in the past were less than a modern middle schooler. Yet we in the here and now have the ability to stop further destruction. We can teach those who will live beyond us the folly's of the past, and make war nothing more than a definition in a text book they will read. So low intelligence is not an excuse either, only an obstacle.

Ignorance: True, there are some people who will not change their blood thirsty ideals until they've been released of their own mortal coil. But that can all be solved with education, as stated above. People only know as much as they are taught. Right now, people are being taught to distrust their fellow man. They learn that they 'other side' only wants you dead, and that you need to wan them dead more to stay alive. People just need to start teaching acceptance of 'the enemy', because once your enemy is your friend, you have no enemies to fight against. Because this can also be avoided, this is also not a reason why wars should be fought.

One sided-ness: A misconception you seem to have is that only one side should turn the other cheek while the other will continue to slap. This is not what I am saying. Both sides need to stop the violence, and can. War is a double edged sword. You cannot just sheath one side for it to no longer be a threat. Both sides must go into sheath. Both sides have the capabilities to stop war, thus both are accountable. Starting a war mainly falls upon 1 side, but it ends up being both in the end. Both sides need to stop war before it happens. As Riley of the Boondocks once said: If you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing. The same is true when it comes to war. In V for Vendetta, the British Government shouldn't have take the peoples rights, and Evy wouldn't have needed to be tortured by V because V would have nothing to fight against.

My stance is that wars are good for absolutely nothing. I have proved that to be true. We can avoid war. Because we can we should. Continuing to do so just idiotic. There is no dispute that can only be settled with violence, people only think it is. Every obstacle can be overcome with learning, with understanding, with compassion. It is not mere optimism that fuels what I say, its the examination of other, more profitable routes we can take. My stance isn't just a sermon, it is a presentation of possibilities and facts. Basically a science. There is as much realism to my points as there was for the idea's of flight and electricity. Right now, war is equivalent to the ideas that the only manner's of transportation will ever be horse drawn buggies and that candle light is the only way to see in the dark. The only difference, and I do mean the only, is that instead of one man making this brilliant proposition and then the world accepts it is that everyone in the world must be apart of the proposition and accept it. War is a global disease, and must be handled on a global level.
Undeniably war has happened. Undeniably it has had some positive effects. But in every case it did not need to be settled by war and could have been solved with non-deadly words. Thus war has never accomplished anything that couldn't have been done some other way. Therefore they are good for absolutely nothing.

To GaryBacon: Good debate. You've challenged me with your historical knowledge. I'm also impressed with your V for Vendetta analogy. Also, out of curiosity, what is your picture of? I've been trying to figure that out for some time now.
To the audience: I'll remind you that your voting is not determined by what stance you prefer but which side proved theirs better, be it mine or GaryBacon's. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote you can do so in the comments area. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
GaryBacon

Con

When Tommy took on the Gatlin boys, it is true that he could not undo the rape, nor could he instill guilt in people of such a brutish nature. However, he did show much more than the fact that he has the ability to punch people. He showed that he would no longer allow himself to be pushed around. That one act and the statement made by it could've quite possibly turned Tommy's life around for the better. In this case and many others, the saying "Action speaks louder than words" is applicable.

In my previous arguments, I have possibly been misconstrued. The fact that most wars were unnecessary does not indicate a concession on my part. I clearly stated in Round 1 "Many wars probably are rather pointless. But not all of them." My stance is not "that all war is good for something." Rather, my stance is that war is good for MORE than absolutely nothing. There is a difference between these two views.

Now when it comes to my examples of people fighting for their own self-defense, their dignity, and their honor, you ask "What real good is honor? Honor cannot feed you. Honor will not help you walk. Honor will not keep you alive." But cannot the same things be said of the morals and compassion you mention? These too can be viewed as "made up human concepts." If concepts such as these render an argument invalid, then your arguments stand to lose just as much validity as mine. You also claim that "Neither honor nor revenge will help humanity, only yourself." But when that self is multiplied by a large number, as was the case in Scotland, then a large section of humanity has been helped.

In the section on intelligence, you say that people can still see that life is better than death. Even this may be debatable given some of the stupidity I've witnessed. Nevertheless, this is not what needs to be understood. The issue is whether or not the majority of people have the ability to see someone else's perspective on a situation. Many people do not have this ability, and I do not believe that an unintelligent leader would either. George W. Bush is a leader that barely has the intelligence to comprehend a coloring book. Does it seem like he can understand the viewpoints of others?

Mentioning the budget for the War on Terror can only speak against that war and others similar to it. It cannot serve to counter the rationale behind the wars I mentioned, which took place long before such budgets were associated with the act of war. (Note: I did check off that I'm in favor of The War on Terror in my profile, but this does not mean I agree with any of the budgets, policies, or methods used.)

When it comes to the points on ignorance, you seem to think education can enlighten everyone. This is sadly not the case. I have been in countless classes where people would simply not understand a concept no matter how often it was repeated or how many times it was explained. Teaching acceptance of others also would not work. Oftentimes two opposing viewpoints are irreconcilable. If this were not the case, a site such as this could not exist.

On your other point, I do realize that if both sides stop violence, then my self-defense reasoning does not apply. The problem is that even this is not as simple as it seems. You state "Starting a war mainly falls upon 1 side, but it ends up being both in the end." But the dynamics involved in the beginnings of a war are rarely so cut and dry. What Riley from the Boondocks needs to understand is that there are situations in which neither side realizes that anything is starting until it is too late. Look at the current situation in the U.S. Rights are being taken away, but both the government and the majority of the citizens feel that it is justified. If and when the situation turns ugly, which side will it be that "started" something? The chain of events that can lead to war is highly complex, dependent upon many factors, and very dynamic. It is not one side slapping and the other defending. That is just a gross simplification.

I have shown examples where war can be used as self-defense. But it may have another use. Namely, keeping the human population in check. For every species, there is a population limit. In biology this is known as the carrying capacity and is symbolized by the letter "k." The current population is roughly 6.5 billion! What would it be without wars? It is possible that we would've reached the carrying capacity, and at that point mass deaths would've occurred. These totals would've been higher than the amount seen in war. Theoretically, most of the population is wiped out.

So wars are good for both population control and self-defense. Having both of these uses, they can definitely been seen as good for more than absolutely nothing.

To Darth_Grievous_42: I too thought this was a good debate. You presented some excellent arguments that kept me on my toes. And to satisfy your curiosity, my picture is the cover of the Pink Floyd album Meddle.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
for a lot of history, war has equated to liberation which to me is the greatest thing of all: LIBERTY.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
His argument was if you were the Confederates, what's the point of fighting the war? You know you're going to lose. So the war itself isn't good for anything since the results could have been gotten by a southern concession. Same for World War II.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
Did war not end slavery? Nazism? Fascism?
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
It's a shame neither of you are game theorists. Then you'd both understand circumstances where wars are actually not only useful but also inevitable.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
You know, when ever war is brought up in my head I think, in the 80s we actually had a bomb to kill the "Commis" called the peace-keeper.....lol
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
Sorry to disappoint you Logical Master, but I don't think I'll be able to respond in kind. There is very little chance that another set of lyrics could properly align with those of War and refute the points at that. Even if such a song did exist, it would take too long to search for it.

I'm going to have to work on the points individually. I hope you don't hold it against me if I cannot come back with lyrics to make my point.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Ha! I hope your opponent responds in a similar manner. :D
Posted by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
I find it ammusing how you hate war then use the star wars symbols of war and evil in your name and picture.
Posted by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
I find it ammusing how you hate war then use the star wars symbols of war and evil in your name and picture.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Off_the_Wall.Paul 5 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con voted 4 more points for themselves than pro
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 7 years ago
GaryBacon
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 8 years ago
PreacherFred
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chaucer 8 years ago
Chaucer
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by FalseReality 8 years ago
FalseReality
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Darth_Grievous_42GaryBaconTied
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:30