The Instigator
def
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Wars are necessary to end conflicts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 31,089 times Debate No: 35674
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

def

Con

Wars are not a good way to end conflicts between countries
- it is not correct to wage wars in order to resolve conflicts
- Wars should be banned and peaceful ways should be adapted to resolve conflicts
- Wars hinder the progress and prosperity of a nation
- Lead to heavy loss of lives of common man as well as resources
- Wars disturb the economical development of a nation as well
- No war is fought to bring peace or change in the society
- Few drastic after-effects of wars: still born children, lack of hygienic food and water, pollution, etc.
- Unethical environment due to illegal ways adopted by people to procure weapons, arms, etc.
Rayze

Pro

Allow me to play devil's advocate
Wars are a "good" way to end conflicts between countries
- it is not correct to wage wars in order to resolve conflicts
Post War time periods establish a balance of power creating peace through necessity.
- Wars should be banned and peaceful ways should be adapted to resolve conflicts
Tried it in the 1920's, but it didn't work.
- Wars hinder the progress and prosperity of a nation
World War II catalyst of missiles, jets, medical innovations as a result of human
experimentation.
- Lead to heavy loss of lives of common man as well as resources
War Profiteering created jobs in the war industry and conquered territory provided new sources for resources.
- Wars disturb the economical development of a nation as well
Wars forces economic growth through a nation's conquests.
- No war is fought to bring peace or change in the society
For the most part Wars are the aftermath of revolutions and rebellions. The mother of all nations is war.
- Few drastic after-effects of wars: still born children, lack of hygienic food and water, pollution, etc.
Clarify please
- Unethical environment due to illegal ways adopted by people to procure weapons, arms, etc.
Ethics is a subjective term callously rejected by the maelstrom that is war.
Debate Round No. 1
def

Con

No offense, but all those who voted for 'yes' are probably Americans. Wars are unnecessary, we don't need them. Peace and goodwill for others is what we need, not violence. Wars have only brought misery everywhere. Don't we see hundreds dying in some Arab countries these days? It is just insane for people to think that wars are NECESSARY.

Killing someone out of nationalism isn't okay The only country that can disrupt our freedom is our own. I am disgusted by the pro-war arguments on here. "War is about fighting against each other for peace, land, friendship etc." It's obvious that fighting for peace is a contradiction, fighting for land is selfish and never necessary, and a person can make friends without putting their lives at stake. "War unites people." Unity, or alliances is one of the main reasons for both World Wars. Unity is when we work together, not battle each other. Ever since the invention of photography, we've been telling ourselves that we need to stop this; that if we agree not to kill each other, we could solve our problems more rationally. Why isn't it okay for one person to punch another in the face for being wrong, but it is okay for a government to commit mass murder?
Rayze

Pro



We tried to abolish war 85 years ago with the Kellog-Briand Pact (http://history.state.gov...), but humanity's more base instincts took over in the 1930s.... The fascists rose to power in the 1930s and the world chose appeasement. (http://www.history.co.uk...). Of course end result is World War II, and the Cold War tensions post World War II. The attempt to abolish war is nothing but a futile attempt.

So What is war good for?
So if War is good for absolutely nothing, then what makes it necessary to end conflicts?
War is the arbiter of superiority, imbued with the seven excesses of Humanity. It decides the hierarchy of nations, the superpowers, rising powers, falling powers. The actions of the victorious nations are proof that might is right. The mass production of new innovations and creation of peace through fear of mutual destruction. The sheer irony of war is that fear of war and M.A.D. can end reduce a conflict to saber rattling and verbal sparring.

So my dear opponent can you still bark that war is unnecessary when human kind failed to abolish it once?
Debate Round No. 2
def

Con

Humans are rational Humans are rational enough to not go to war. Problems and disagreements can be resolved through political debate and discussion, rather than guns and bombs. Of course wars exist, but war is not a natural state of affairs, and with increased global communication and discussion it is becoming less of a reality.
No, there is excuse for it. There is no need for war, the only excuses for it are hatred and greed and these are not acceptable.
Sure it is appropriate to fight for you or your countries freedom, to defend another from injustice and death - but if the first party did not go out of their way to attack a culture, hurt a person or group of people, or commit injustices, then nobody would need to fight to defend themselves or another.
Rayze

Pro

Thank you for the moralistic fallacies in your response. Mind you humans are not as rational as you believe as certain men like Hitler, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Nero, Pol Pot, and others all ruled entire nations/empires, but were irrational men.

While hate and greed are only partial factors for going to war, the other factors are necessity, pride, freedom, etc.

Necessity would be linked with pride and greed since a nation would not want to sell its independence for resources.

Also the previous contention that the fear of war keeps peace has yet to be refuted so it still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
def

Con

Humans are rational enough to not go to war. Problems and disagreements can be resolved through political debate and discussion, rather than guns and bombs. Of course wars exist, but war is not a natural state of affairs, and with increased global communication and discussion it is becoming less of a reality.

No, there is excuse for it. There is no need for war, the only excuses for it are hatred and greed and these are not acceptable.
Sure it is appropriate to fight for you or your countries freedom, to defend another from injustice and death - but if the first party did not go out of their way to attack a culture, hurt a person or group of people, or commit injustices, then nobody would need to fight to defend themselves or another.

No, because war is not evil. Like all things, war is morally neutral. Morality does not actually exist in the first place. What is 'good' is what is simply what is preferred by the party calling something 'good'. War is definitely necessary to achieve certain results - that much is undeniable fact.

NO!! War is definitely NOT a necessary evil. Sure at times when you absolutely need to defend yourself then there are certain actions to be taken but only if you chose to do them and they are only evil if you do them with a cold heart. I totally support defending one's self but I do not justify killing anyone to be right.
Rayze

Pro

You still have yet to refute the primary contention that the fear of war keeps peace. Also you are resorting to moralistic fallacies to support the resolution that wars are unnecessary to end conflicts.

Moralistic fallacy-

A formal fallacy of assuming that what is desirable is found or inherent in nature. It presumes that what ought to be—something deemed preferable—corresponds with what is or what naturally occurs. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring.

Example

Warfare is destructive and tragic, and so it is not of human nature.
(http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)

Thus contentions still stand.

Debate Round No. 4
def

Con

def forfeited this round.
Rayze

Pro

Since Con Forfeited, All contentions still stand.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by futureisnow 3 years ago
futureisnow
War is a result of conflict and different beliefs.
If north Korea is attacking your country to take over and try to make slaves of your nation, will you not fight back? You tell them to resolve in a peaceful way and offer them what they want, money food, and supplies, and they use it to build stronger army and eventually attack you anyway. Weather you want peace or not other will come at you with fire. You can do what Ghandi did, peaceful protest or die without fighting. Either way, you will die, and i would fight.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
defRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro due to Con's forfeit, but arguments are to Con. Pro used more sources. And no, wars do not end conflicts, since conflicts are like small wars, only they're just fights. Wars are like big fights. So, how can fights stop fights?