The Instigator
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
jevan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

World Peace ever eternally possible?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,277 times Debate No: 1355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

cody30228

Con

I strongly believe world peace is never possible
Before I start
***Religion will play no part in here. So no one can say God says there will never be peace or vice versa

So here are my reasons why world peace is never possible

1. Needs
Everyone has needs. If a country needs land, food, money, oil, energy, it will wage war. Either it fights or dies. So all needs must be addressed. We will eventually need more food, so war will always be inevitable

2. Disagreement
Simply put, not everyone will agree on something. Most people can not simply agree to disagree when it comes to taxes, food distribution, autonomy, etc. Thus every disagreement leaves room for violence

3. Beliefs
An individual or race might have a belief that war is good. Robert E. Lee said, "It is a good thing that war is so terrible because otherwise we would grow too fond of it." We see violence may spawn for the belief that it is acceptable.

4. Leadership
For peace to be kept, a leader must be in place. This can be a government or one man/woman. The problem with leadership is, a leader would be corrupt. Here is why
- A good leader would not want indefinite power (George Washington)
- A bad leader would want indefinite power
A leader that is not indefinite causes power struggles and violence, and a chance for a corrupt leader at the end

These are just some arguments to begin with.

Good luck anyone
jevan

Pro

To start off, this whole debate is based on the assumption of whether or not we can reach world peace.

I'll start off by truly defining world peace.

World peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations. It is the professed ambition of many past and present world leaders.

World peace is the utopian ideal of planetary non-violence by which nations cooperate, either voluntarily or by a system of governance that prevents warfare.

Some see a trend in national politics whereby city-states and nation-states have unified, and suggest that the international arena will follow suit. Many countries such as China, Italy, the United States, Germany have unified into single nation-states, with others like the European Union and African Union following suit, suggesting that further globalization will bring about a similarly unified world order.

Many interpretations of the concept are not like this, however. To some, world peace may simply mean the resolution of political conflicts through nonviolent means.

1. Needs. You make the assumption that every nation shall wage war if in need of certain things as you stated "land, food, money, oil, energy".
In time we could create a universal sharing of land, food, money, oil, energy.
We could start one huge global currency. Also by having everyone develop their own energy and share it with other nations.

2. Disagreement. Once again you assume that when there is violence. In time we can settle disagreements, by resolving in non-violent ways. People always disagree of course, but it can be resolved.

3.Beliefs. Many people have different beliefs, and we should respect that. We can allow everyone to practice their own beliefs freely. But if violence occurs, it can be resolved.

4.Leadership. To reach world peace, we would have a global democracy. People would elect their leaders. The point is we can reach world peace. If a bad leader comes along and destroys it. We still had it, and we can strive for it once more.

Once again this all based on assumption. I truly shoud win this debate because of the assumption based round. I clearly stated how it can happen. I dont know when it can happen, but it still can.

I have proven that world peace is eternally possible.

Thank You.

(sources:Generation Y Continues by Remy Benoit)
Debate Round No. 1
cody30228

Con

To continue
1. I accept your definition of world peace
2. world peace eternally does not mean a bad leader can come along and change it and than fixes occur.

so we are trying to prove if a state of world peace is possible, a state that will not be disrupted

1. Needs
You state that war will not always be the outcome and countries can share
Yes war will not always be the outcome. The other outcome is death. And since humans haven't advanced with the mindset to die, they will wage war.
Sharing is caring it can be fun! um...no. Why won't countries ever share? Because everyone is greedy
Look to John Rawls so called just society in his "Theory of Justice" He says everyone but be greedy. So if everyone is greedy, no one will share. Furthermore, who dictates who shares what? This is where leadership comes in and will be addressed below. Basically, needs will not be addressed for the same reason the USSR fell and communism will never work.

2. Disagreement
You claim we can solve these with non-violent ways. This is where we get into hard power versus soft power. Hard power is what we would loosely call violence and soft power would be peace talks. North Korea, not to long ago, wanted nuclear power. The UN said no. The UN used many different types of soft-power to try and convince North Korea otherwise. This failed. Soft power does not always work Thus violence comes in to solve disputes.

3. Beliefs
You state everyone can practice their beliefs and we can accept that. You ignored my point that some beliefs may condone violence and try to spread it. Jihad is a holy war acceptable to some of the Muslim faith. You didn't address this point correctly.

4. Leadership
You said two things
- Democracy
- Bad leaders can be fixed

Addressing the last one, a fixing of bad leaders does not prove world peace is eternally possible. If a time period exists where bad leaders come along and cause violence every 50 years for a millennial, would that be considered eternal peace? No. So you do not win because of that

To the first one of democracy. Sir Winston Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government". Democracy is simply a series of compromises and unhappiness. The minority will always be ignored in a democracy. Look to Nazi Germany. Hitler was democratically elected, and we know what he did. Furthermore, it has been said that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy. This is true. The minority would be unhappy. They might be oppressed. And then comes the violent revolution. Why? Because the minority is the one without their needs met.

Reasons why I win so far
1. I prove that needs will never be met
2. I prove that violence is the only way to solve disagreements
3. You ignored and I proved that some beliefs spread violence
4. I proved good leadership is not possible
5. You did not prove world peace was eternally possible
jevan

Pro

Ok you state you win because you prove so many odd things.
You dont prove anything the point is we can't truly know if we can achieve eternal world peace.

Just because you used some quotes from people doesnt proove eternal world peace is impossible.

Truly no one can win this debate. The resolution is ambigous.

I still feel i should win because truly would rather think something would happen in the future than not.
Debate Round No. 2
cody30228

Con

Yes if only we could say we win because we look to the future. This is not the case

This debate was a philosophy debate really. The attempt to prove if peace was pragmatically possible. I proved why it was not. Plain and simple.
I proved why needs would never be met
I proved why disagreements would never be solved without war
I proved why belief systems will cause violence
I proved why leadership would cause violence.

this is why you said you win
"still feel i should win because truly would rather think something would happen in the future than not."
Let's see
Resolved, pigs will fly
CON: IMPOSSIBLE
PRO: i think something in the future can happen so i proved pigs will fly

I am sorry, you did not prove anything close to eternal world peace.
jevan

Pro

I still feel eternal world peace is possible.

I somewhat concede but really still the this debate it a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
If there was only one person left on earth as someone stated, than it would still behow you interpreted "peace". Is anger a form of violence?
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
I think we should just nuke the heck out of everyone :)

"Death solves all problems; no man, no problem."
--Josef Stalin--
Posted by mdb2290 9 years ago
mdb2290
If there were one person left on the Earth, yes, it would be possible.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
the closest answer to world peace is isolation. Think of it this way. The Spanish and Naive Americans didn't fight until they met.
Posted by Spencerific 9 years ago
Spencerific
Unfortunately, it's only possible in star trek. =[
Posted by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
Peace cannot exist with humans as well as on earth. It is impossible since humans are imperfect.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
World peace can not co-exist with the life of Humans.
Posted by mdb2290 9 years ago
mdb2290
World democracy does not equate to peace. Peace is a total absence of violence...which is...impossible, as sad as it my seem.lol. This sux.lol.
Posted by jevan 9 years ago
jevan
i think is eventually possible.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 9 years ago
Sherlock_HolmesXXI
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Mr.ROdr1duez 9 years ago
Mr.ROdr1duez
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Duron 9 years ago
Duron
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Spencerific 9 years ago
Spencerific
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
cody30228jevanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30