The Instigator
Cmckee
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Will there be a third world war

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 2 votes the winner is...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 45889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Cmckee

Pro

In this opening statement I would like to define some key terms of this debate so as to avoid any confusion.

World war- a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world.

I'm waiting. Good luck
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

I accept this debate. When asking you to vote I would like you to remember that Cmckee has the burden of proof, he has to prove there will be a third world war. I m looking forward to a nice, clean debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Cmckee

Pro

For my first argument I would like to draw attention to the events currently unfolding in the Middle East particularly Syria. With Putin's connections to the Assad regime and his mebership on the Un security council he can effectively veto any attempt by the Un to impose military action. However many countries do not need the approval of the UN.
It has just recently been noted that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons to subdue the rebel forces. Due to the Geneva protocol the use of chemical weapons is strictly prohibited. The protocol then goes on to state that any country using chemical or biological weapons will be viewed as an "outlaw state". This is the law being used by Obama to go after Assad.
So how does this relate to the possibility of WWIII? Well if the US vote to take military action against Syria then Putin's Russia say that they will support the Assad regime. This would inevitably lead to warfare between Russia and the US. Many countries with treaties to either country would be obligated to help "defend the liberty"of their allies. This would effectively cause the Third World War.

By the way proof is all around,you just have to open your eyes. However,I will refrain from mentioning the illuminati agenda that requires war in this debate as I feel it would not be taken kindly by voters.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

Both of our previous world wars did not start by a civil war in another country that is unheard of. See for example World War 1; although its backgrounds are extremely complicated, we see two main causes of it. 1) the rivalry between Germany and Great Britain, and an almost arms race, and two is the defense of an ally after an assassination. However, World Wars do not start by a civil war; in the case of WWI, an assassination flared it. In the case of WWII, aggression flared it.

There have been no examples in history that world wars start because of civil wars.

“if the US vote to take military action against Syria then Putin's Russia say that they will support the Assad regime.” Nonetheless, the probability of the United States intervening is almost unthought-of, as the US of A are already overwhelmed by huge problems of their own. Also, the Syrian Problem is not much of an international problem and none US related.

“This would inevitably lead to warfare between Russia and the US.” This will not happen because the US of A will not intervene.

“Many countries with treaties to either country would be obligated to help "defend the liberty"of their allies. This would effectively cause the Third World War.” Again the US of A is not intervening.

“By the way proof is all around,you just have to open your eyes.” This is not proof. You have shown no evidence to believe you, just faulty reasons why it may happen.

So as you see, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Because of that vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2
Cmckee

Pro

Cmckee forfeited this round.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Con

Pro did not fulfil her burden of proof, she also forfieted, silence is acceptance. Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
No I don't, I just have to cast doubt that it won't happen. I as Con don't have to prove anything.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I don't agree with him having a full burden of proof. You have to prove it won't happen.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I don't agree with him having a full burden of proof. You have to prove it won't happen.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
In the case of your definiton, many world wars will happen.
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 2 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
Yes, of course there will be another world war. This is because until the world is over, and Redemption Day comes, everyone will be fighting. There will forever be people fighting one another. This is because everyone has the part of their brain which tells them what is right and what is wrong. This is because people have morals and ideas. Therefor, everyone will constantly be fighting others' morals and ideas.
That is how it works peepers.
Posted by Theguywhoknowsnothing 2 years ago
Theguywhoknowsnothing
Tell me when you think WW3 will happen, and I will see if I agree or not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
CmckeeSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct for forfeit of round. Argument for being complete instead of circumstantial reliable source because claim of no US. intervention is faulty.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 2 years ago
justin.graves
CmckeeSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Here we go: Conduct to Con because pro forfeited. Spelling and grammar goes to Con for exemplary use of period and quotation marks combinations. Arguments to Con because of Pro's lack of physical evidence or even real rational contentions. He could have won this so easily. I a-l-m-o-s-t called it a tie because Con referred to Syria as an unknown country. Sources are tied because neither side used them.