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

We need war to achieve peace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 46222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is acceptance.


War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


"Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war) - Vegetius

Anybody would agree that most civilians desire to live in their countries in peace and would loathe the idea of having their lives put at risk or the idea of taking away the lives of others. However, a quick look into history and we realize the propensity of humanity to engage in warfare. Even today: Syria. Libya. Egypt. Yemen. Bahrain. Tunisia. Turkey and the list goes on.

This raises the question: Who are these peace-hating individuals at the root of violent conflict? Dictators, fanatics and corrupt politicians. When it comes to people with such a mentality, people who are often psychopaths, people who'd do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda, there is no way to create peace without the use of violence. When a person like Hitler attacks a nation, the only option they have is to fight back, to engage in warfare. Yes, surrendering is an option but surrendering to an autocrat does not create peace - it creates Desolation.

But what about mediation you ask? Nope, that only works in utopia. The world is a mean and violent place. Nonviolence is useless when it comes to oppressors. What is one to do? Go on a hunger strike? Starving one'self would make such people happy if anything... One is simply making their jobs easier. Hitler would've loved it if the Jews decided to oppose his terrible regime with a hunger strike.

Let's go back to the example of the Arab Spring. Nonviolent protests never worked in lobbying the late Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi out of office. They literally had to go there and pull him out. Gaddafi, a tyrannical dictator whose administration violated the human rights of Libyan citizens, had to be shot in the head to end the Libyan civil war.

As a note to my opponent, I don't believe in having to show a source to everything I say in my argument. My arguments are based on thorough research but I would willingly accept a correction to any factual details mention


I'd like to first set up my argument before rebutting my opponent's in a very concise round. I do not see war as a necessary precursor to peace as it does not seem logical. This is not for reasons that include sentimentality or soft-heartedness, it just doesn't appear as though it makes sense.

Pondering the Past's Pattern

As my opponent has done, I will present what we know of History before deducing the truth from it. Peace has been achieved several times.

All over the cosmos, there is peace. There are vacuums in which there is no conflict. Before humankind, there was peace. During humankind, there were instances of peace in various locations.

There also happens to be war. Where can you find war? Wherever it's started. Start a war and there's war.

Conflicts Crucial Components for Commencement

What does war need to start? Well, as my opponent stated, it requires, by definition, organization. It requires "states or non-state actors." Without these components, war cannot exist.

There was a time in which these did not exist at all. Therefore, it must have been peaceful. As these did not exist to start a war, peace must have reigned without an annoying war to get in the way. Peace was achieved, not by war, but by truism of having less rules. As my opponent utilized a quote, it is only appropriate for me to use my own.

"[Chaos] always defeats order, because it is better organized." -Terry Pratchett.

War takes premeditation. Peace is natural. War is organized. Peace simply exists from superior statistical permutations. Peace does not logically need war.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent hasn't presented any real arguments denouncing the need for warfare to achieve peace.

"All over the cosmos, there is peace. There are vacuums in which there is no conflict"

You don't say! That is a (excuse my teminology) cheap and abstract argument. And it's not even peace, it's Emptiness. When humans debate about war and peace, it's obvious we shouldn't be concerned with their presence in empty space, but their significance to us.

"Peace was achieved, not by war, but by truism of having less rules."

What does that even mean? My oponent calls the statement a 'truism' but it's very far from being one. Less rules, if anything, would cause war as people are likely to attack and take advantage of others if there are no rules to persecute them for doing so.

"[Chaos] always defeats order, because it is better organized." -Terry Pratchett.

I didn't know who Pratchett was and a quick search revealed that he's an author of fantasy novels, especially comical works. The quote given above is obviously a paradox but assuming it is true, I could with equal ground argue that peace is not any less 'organized' than war. A quick look into a battleground and you'll find a mess of debris, blood and dead bodies - in that sense warfare is not an 'organized' state. On the other hand peace is associated with harmony, serenity, tranquility - no chaos here.

As my oponent did not refute any of my arguments presented in the previous round, and has not provided any valid arguments as of yet, there is no need for me to provide any new arguments in this round.


As my opponent failed to rebut my argument with any arguments, rather than rebutting the initial round, I will be rebutting my opponent's argumentless rebuttal.

Dismissive Demeanor Discouraged

"You don't say...significance to us."

My opponent, here, completely throws away my argument under the condition that this isn't what Pro was wanting to debate about. I did not deviate from the conditions in any way. My opponent says it's "obvious" that I did, though I really don't see how. The conditions were not set up in the first round, so one must look at the title for any.

"We need war to achieve peace."

This is a syllogism that puts forth the idea that if there is peace, war was present prior to make it possible. That is the argument. That's what was agreed on by both parties, Pro by creating the argument, me by accepting. It is entirely unfair to change any definitions or the argument itself once the debate's already started. For instance...

"warfare is not an 'organized' state."

There are disorganized aspects of war, but it takes organization to execute it to begin with. This was agreed upon by both parties. Showing examples of portions of war not being organized does not make war itself, altogether, disorganized as it is, by definition, commenced in an organized manner.

"peace is associated with harmony, serenity, tranquility"

Here, my opponent argues that because the connotation of peace is attractive, appealing, and serene, it can't be disorganized, without even attempting to make a rebuttal to my proof that it is, in fact, objectively and denotatively, disorganized.

Back to the initial quote,

"And it's not even peace, it's Emptiness."

So, Emptiness is war? If Emptiness not being peace does not necessitate it to be war, war and peace are not opposites. Therefore, they are not exclusive and can be simultaneous, meaning war is not necessary for peace. Otherwise, my opponent states that Emptiness is an organized conflict from states or non-state actors. Peace exists by default.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
They were caused by peace. Those conflicts only came to be from peace itself. Please stop focusing on the physics part. You're exaggerating how much of my argument that was.
Posted by hb20007 3 years ago
I agree with Shah500. Arguments derived from physics and cosmology are too subjective. How can one define peace in terms of physics or cosmology? If you want to talk about vacuum, i can talk about the process of annihilation, where particle and antiparticle collide and 'annihilate' each other. That's "war" in nature right there. Nature is full of such conflicting opposites.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
Yes, "war can be a way to achieve peace."

"A." Singular of many. Furthermore, I didn't just bring in logic in terms of physics and chemistry and cosmology, I brought in logic in terms of just logic, Aristotlean, Newtonian, and Avicennan. Ideals being made more clear to everyone does not make them more logical.
Posted by Shah500 3 years ago
In my sense, he made more clear sense about his ideals. The con brings about logic in terms of physics, chemistry, and cosmology. If, what he is saying about nature and peace, is true, then why are the ants fighting among each other? Does he not know from discovery channel, and many other famous sources that ant colonies fight against other ant colonies? They basically take over that other colony? So nature has its own way of making war? Animals, "beings of nature", "us", are already in war? So war can be a way to achieve peace, for we have something that animals sometimes fail to see, to make peace with war. So we need it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.