The Instigator
Camaroni1000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dryykon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Will world peace ever exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/26/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 72398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

Camaroni1000

Con

I will express my opinion on how i believe world peace will never truly exist, and explain why.
Dryykon

Pro

I accept. I will argue that world peace will exist.

World
: the earth and all the people and things on it
: a part of the world and the people and things that exist there
: human society

Peace
: a state in which there is no war or fighting

: an agreement to end a war
: a period of time when there is no war or fighting


Debate Round No. 1
Camaroni1000

Con

Depends on your definition of fighting. Fighting can be arguments. Arguments are started from different points of views. Different points show that not everyone thinks the same. For everyone to have the same point of view would mean everyone thinks the same and there is no freedom, diversity or different ideas.
Dryykon

Pro

My burden is to prove that world peace will occur. Peace, as above, can be defined in three definitions. When these conditions are applied to the world (also defined above), world peace will occur.

The physical Earth will come to an end at some point. When it does, there will be no humans. Because there will be no humans, it will be impossible for them to fight. In the absence of fighting, there is peace. At that point, there will be peace.

At that time, the three conditions of peace will be met:
  • Definition 1) A state in which there is no war or fighting
  • Fulfilled 1) War/fighting is impossible, there cannot be a state of war or fighting
  • Def 2) An agreement to end a war
  • Ful 2) War is impossible, it cannot be ended because it has not begun
  • Def 3) A period of time where there is no war or fighting
  • Ful 3) War/fighting is impossible, there will not be a period of time where there is war or fighting

Now, for world peace to occur, there must be a world. The world is made of matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed; there will always be a world.

However, there are two ways humans can survive the end of their habitat being the earth: Physical salvation or Metaphysical salvation.

Physical salvation is eventually impossible: the universe is expanding, eventually it will be impossible for humans to reach new star systems or galaxies for safety. Eventually the worlds they are on will be destroyed. Eventually they will be unable to reach safe havens as they will be too far away; an infinite distance. All humans will die and the conditions of peace will be met.

Metaphysical salvation requires a supernatural being to intervene and save humankind. However, no supernatural being can be proved. Non-transcendental evidence can never prove a transcendental being.

Therefore, there will be world peace as the world will always exist, and humans will eventually all die.

World peace will occur by default.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 2
Camaroni1000

Con

Humans won't give up that easily, and will always keep trying to find ways to survive. Let's say if humans did die will their be world peace? Are humans the only thing fighting on this plant. Animals all fight for survival and some like humans will fight each other. And even if all life is wiped from Earth their is still natural violence that occurs. Chaos still occurs with or without life (look at volcanoes). For people to have world peace they must set aside their emotions that make them human and all agree on one thing.
Dryykon

Pro

"Let's say if humans did die will their be world peace? Are humans the only thing fighting on this plant. Animals all fight for survival and some like humans will fight each other."

I mentioned humans because we'd be the most likely ones to escape any initial disaster or impending destruction from the sun. Sure, we'd carry puppies into orbit and all that, but as I mentioned previously, if something is living and can die, it will.

"And even if all life is wiped from Earth their is still natural violence that occurs. Chaos still occurs with or without life (look at volcanoes). For people to have world peace they must set aside their emotions that make them human and all agree on one thing."

Natural disasters are natural. They are not "fighting;" they simply occur. If something is expected to happen by natural causes, like hurting yourself when you stub your toe, that can't be considered fighting; that is considered physics.

Side note: setting aside emotion would cause humans to become robotic and lose individuality. Even with conflict, I'd rather be an individual than a mental image of everyone else.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Camaroni1000 2 years ago
Camaroni1000
I send the same thanks to you! Nice arguments and to be honest I didn't realize it was the last round either.
Posted by Dryykon 2 years ago
Dryykon
I didn't realize it was the last round!

I'd like to offer my thanks to my opponent here, and apologize for not noticing and put my thanks in the third round.
Posted by Camaroni1000 2 years ago
Camaroni1000
Seeing as i forgot to mention something in my debate about humans relocating. You're right that humans can't travel an infinite distance (which is just a theory at the moment) but it is possible after a period time to look back at the path you took and see if you missed something.
Posted by Dryykon 2 years ago
Dryykon
And yeah, I use this name for other sites and gaming and it's rare for someone to get it right. Kind of a curse.
Posted by Dryykon 2 years ago
Dryykon
No problem. I'm writing a horribly boring paper right now, and Spotify can only entertain me until I finalize my playlist xD

I could reply again... but I think (for sake of the debate) it's best to keep quiet.

But for the definitions: the physical place is "earth" but it could also be where "people are" and "human society is." I think its safe to say that we are talking about the location of peace, not a seperate entity.

Peace.
Peace where? Peace on Earth.
World Peace.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Also my apologies for spelling your username wrongly twice (*@Dryykon)
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
@Drykkon:

Thank you for responding! That makes sense, but given the rate of scientific advancement, how can you conclusively say that humans will not have the means to travel to more habitable planets? Bear in mind that this occurrence is very far off, and that infinity is a relative term. What seems "infinite" now may not seem so astronomical (no pun intended :P) as our scientific capabilities improve.

I think I was unclear about the second part, sorry about that. In your first argument, each of the definitions you have used for "world" has either the words "people" or "human society" in it. In your second argument, you say that the extinction of humankind will bring about world peace. What I was unclear about it how, if humans cease to exist, will there still be a "world", based on the definitions you put forth in Round 1.

:)
Posted by Dryykon 2 years ago
Dryykon
@republicofdhar

Everything comes to an end, whether by the sun exploding or monster asteroid or else, the world will eventually become inhabitable for humans.

Humans won't be able to relocate because the universe will eventually expand to "infinite" distances between habitable locations. It is impossible to travel an infinite distance.

My first argument used the cliche "the end of the world" in an attempt to quickly build understanding. I did not mean "the world will cease to exist." I meant "the world will come to an end for humans." I did not express that clearly, but it is, after all, my first debate. I believe the syntax is still acceptable, though understanding is not.

Either way, I believe the second part clarifies what I intended.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
To Drykkon: Wait, but why will the physical Earth come to an end at some point? And why will humans not be able to relocate to a different planet / star / habitat?

Also, your definition of "world" in your first and second arguments are different. Based on your opening argument, a world must have people in it. Absence of people implies absence of world. So all you have is peace, not world peace.

I hope I'm not interfering with the debate by posting this here, I haven't been on this site for a very long time. :S
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
my eyes dont reach that far
No votes have been placed for this debate.