The Instigator
sovietsalesman39
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Ardenwa
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Was World War One a pointless war?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
sovietsalesman39
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,505 times Debate No: 32523
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

sovietsalesman39

Pro

First round is acceptance. i believe this was a pointless war.
Ardenwa

Con

I accept that World War I existed, yet I fundamentally disagree that it was pointless.
Debate Round No. 1
sovietsalesman39

Pro

Many people consider the First World War to have been the most pointless and devastating war ever fought by any country in history. Although political tensions between the Russian, French and British Empires and the Empires of Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire had made this war inevitable, it did not succeed in providing any empires with any long term gains. In fact the only results of the Great War were the development of the tank, the fighter aircraft and political instability.
The only reason these main powers joined in were because of pacts. The two main powers most people think about when it comes to World War 1, is The United Kingdom, and Germany. Both of these empires suffered horrendously, and they did not even start the war. The soldiers fighting the war questioned why they were there and what exactly were they fighting and dying for.
Ardenwa

Con

WWI was important for a number of reasons:
  1. An end of classicism.
  2. Technological advancements.
  3. A fundamental shift in the way global politics work.

1. The end of classicism:

Traditionally, wars were fought by the lower classes and then upper classes were put in safer officer positions. This happened in WWI; however, prior to WWI, officer positions were at the back of the battle. The trenches of WWI meant that the preppy boys of the upper crust were in the mud with everyone else. Moreover, on the home front, we see the disintegration of manors and estates. ( watch Downton Abbey -great example).
2. You have already shown the technological advancements, here they are en masse: Tanks, flamethrowers, poison gas, tracer bullets, interrupter gear for aeroplanes, air traffic control, depth charges, hydrophones, aircraft carriers, drones, sanitary wipes, and portable x-rays.
3. You said that it was caused by an array of treaties. This is true. WWI showed how detrimental those pacts really were.
Debate Round No. 2
sovietsalesman39

Pro

Are these technological advancements really worth the millions of deaths that were a result of the war? This is a morral debate as well a political one. Most of these technologies lead to more efficient ways to exterminate our fellow man. For example, if chemical weapons were not tested and proved effective then perhaps the gassing of millions of Jews and political opponents would have been lessened or maybe not of happened. If WW1 never had happened, then there would not be as horrible economic depression in Europe, and maybe a revenge seeking Adolf Hitler would never had attempted revolution. Although revolution was necessary in Germany, it may not have been at the head of Adolf. But of course this is all in theory. Most of the technologies developed were not practical for civilian use, such as the technologies developed in the second world war were, radar, computers, jeeps, plastics, and of course powdered lemonade.
Ardenwa

Con

I have shown that we get both technological, social, and political advances because of the war. Chemical weapons increased our understanding of chemistry. There were many versions of poison gases before we found the best one, and each of those attempts increased our knowledge of chemistry. Moreover, I listed several non-military benefits. WWI influenced WWII; however,even if WWI had not happened when it did, it would have happened eventually. It would have still left a significant economic burden on Europe, and the Jews would have been blamed because it has always been fashionable to blame the Jews. Hydrophones, air traffic control, aircraft carriers, drones, sanitary wipes, and portable x-rays all have practical uses. WWI cannot be considered pointless because it directly influences world politics today. From a moral perspective, people die in war. That is a facet of war. I have shown a host of benefits that their deaths have created for the living.
Debate Round No. 3
sovietsalesman39

Pro

The attempts made my chemical research had little effect on chemistry today. This research simply told us which chemical killed people in the worst way. We had already known that certain chemicals could kill us. If you wish to prove your point please tell me how this advanced our understanding of peacetime chemistry. The Nazi party would not have been found in Germany if they had not entered the war. WWI would not have eventually happened, and Jews would not be blamed and executed. All of the technologies you listed would be necessary in the future, and would be developed, just not under warlike circumstances.
Here are all my resources
http://www.greatwar.co.uk...
Stone, Norman. World War One. New York: Basic, 2009. Print.
Ardenwa

Con

Benzyl chloride was a chemical used in WWI and is now used to make plastics, flavorings, and perfumes.
The use of mustard gas in war, accidentally showed scientists that it can be used to treat cancer similar to how chemotherapy does so. There are many examples of how chemistry was changed due to war.
You say that these advances would have happened eventually, but imagine the world we would live in without these advances. If the invention of these technologies did not happen at the time they did, then they would happen later or not happen at all. It is not beneficial to society to take the risk that these technologies could not exist. My opponent drops my social benefits to the war, and drops my political benefits to the war. Moreover, he has failed to combat my technology point. For all of these reasons, please vote in my favor.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 4 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
This debate requires a Burden of proof to be judged.
Posted by sovietsalesman39 4 years ago
sovietsalesman39
i mean pointless for the primary nations involved on european soil.
Posted by pyrokaroba 4 years ago
pyrokaroba
first off WWI wasn't pointless, the reason why we got involved is becaus egermany sunk the lusaitania, an amercan cruise liner.
Posted by sovietsalesman39 4 years ago
sovietsalesman39
Pointless- the amount of casualties compared to the overall reason for war. For example, the American Revolution was a worthy cause for the 8,000 deaths. So it is NOT a pointless war.
Posted by Militant_Pacifist 4 years ago
Militant_Pacifist
Can you provide a deffinition?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by enclave101 4 years ago
enclave101
sovietsalesman39ArdenwaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more convincing arguments than con. And pro actually gave a link where he got his info unlike con.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
sovietsalesman39ArdenwaTied
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: Resolution was poorly worded. All Con had to do was state 'The purpose of WWI was the same as any other: power, money, etc" and the topic would have been negated. On the other hand, Pro doesn't really address Con's arguments and just counters that millions of deaths cannot be weighed equally. This is completely convincing; the loss of basically an entire generation was tragic. However, Pro doesn't justify or support the resolution when he says that, although he wins the morality debate. At the end, there were indeed positive outcomes of the war.