The Instigator
USA1031
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

World Peace is Possible

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 3 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,094 times Debate No: 22069
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

USA1031

Con

That World Peace is not possible.
DakotaKrafick

Pro

I accept and, as Pro, will be arguing that "world peace is possible".

Definitions

Since my opponent neglected to define anything I will be defining "world peace" as "radioactive pizza divided by three" and "possible" as "impossible". Just kidding–who the hell would do something like that? (I'm looking at YOU, imabench!)

These are the actual definitions...

World peace: a state of human affairs where no people or groups of people fight each other.
Possible: able to exist in reality.

My opponent's burden of proof

Don't misunderstand the resolution. I'm not arguing that world peace is "probable" or even "plausible". I'm arguing that world peace is "possible". Con will have to prove that world peace is impossible, as in that it cannot possibly exist. For that to be the case, world peace would have to violate a physical or logical law.

Good luck, Con. I think you'll need it.
Debate Round No. 1
USA1031

Con

This is going to be fun.

When You think of world peace, you think of sunshine, flowers, and people getting along. That doesn't happen.

After World War Two the UN was established and the world thought there world be no more wars. And along came The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Six Day War, Operation Desert Storm, and Operation Jawbreaker. Just to name a few. Fighting over things is just human nature. Hell, its just the nature of all life out there.

Wherever you are there will be one bad apple who wants to pretty much do bad things. Such as Hiter, Stalin, Tojo, Ho Chii Minh, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong II.

You can't prevent them from being born, raised, and turned into bad guys. You kill them when they ARE bad guys
DakotaKrafick

Pro

What my opponent has done is argue that world peace is very unlikely, but not impossible.

A world where humans do not fight each other does not contradict any physical or logical laws, and if it does, Con has failed to point out which one(s).

The most relevant statement from my opponent is this: "You can't prevent [people] from being born, raised, and turned into bad guys."

I disagree. While it would be a highly unlikely occurrence, it is conceivably possible for all females to cease becoming pregnant; not for them to suddenly all become infertile, or even for them all to stop having sex, but for the sperms to never again reach the eggs in the uterus (either through highly effective contraceptive or sheer good luck). It is also conceivably possible for all humans born henceforth to be of a pacifist nature, unwilling to do harm to one another.

Again, this is very unlikely, but not impossible. It isn't logically self-contradictory (like a circular square) or physically nonviable (like something moving slower than zero mph).

Imagine this: someone buys a megamillion lotto ticket every week for a hundred consecutive weeks, and every week he wins the jackpot (every number matches perfectly). Granted this is a very unlikely occurrence, and he would probably be suspected of cheating, but it can't be denied that it is possible (even without cheating), however small the odds.
Debate Round No. 2
USA1031

Con

We are not talking about statistics here, we are talking about human nature. Every minute somebody gets murdered, raped, or assaulted by some moron out there. There is also something else that causes violence. Ego.

e�go   /ˈigoʊ, ˈɛgoʊ/ Show Spelled
noun, plural e�gos.
1.
the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

It is human nature to want more. To want glory, power, and material items. Some people will kill for those three things. Hitler wanted power, he killed 10 million. Lee Harvey Oswald wanted glory, he shot JFK. And thousands wanted material items, so they stole it.

There are also some people out there who are just messed up in the head. Like Richard Trenton Chase (http://listverse.com... (Number 2)
DakotaKrafick

Pro

You have made a very convincing case for why world peace is extremely unlikely, but have barely even touched your true burden of proof: to prove that it is impossible.

You say ego drives some people to want things and commit evil acts to obtain them. I agree, ego can do this. But as you've said, "some people will kill for [glory, power, and material items]" not all people. Ego can cause someone to commit evil, but it does not necessarily and essentially have to do this in every person.

With only one round left, you must prove that world peace somehow violates a physical or logical law, and would therefore be impossible to exist in reality.
Debate Round No. 3
USA1031

Con

Ok. Peace on Earth would mean that no living thing on earth would harm another living thing. So when two alligators want the same bird do you think they will write up a contract and distribute it evenly? No, they are going to fight over it.

Over the last two rounds I explained how world peace IS impossible. There will always be that bad apple that screws us all over. There will always be that one person that is just evil. World peace impossible. Case closed
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Let's take this step by step, shall we?

"Peace on Earth would mean that no living thing on earth would harm another living thing."

Not according to the definition I provided in round one. You missed your chance to define it as such.

"So when two alligators want the same bird do you think they will write up a contract and distribute it evenly? No, they are going to fight over it."

They probably would fight over it, of course. But it isn't physically or logically impossible for them to find a peaceful solution.

"Over the last two rounds I explained how world peace IS impossible."

No, you've been explaining how world peace is improbable.

"There will always be that bad apple that screws us all over. There will always be that one person that is just evil."

Why? Why is it physically or logically necessary for the world to contain at least one evil person at all times? You've never divulged this information to us.

VOTE FOR PEACE









Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I like how ConservativePolitico votes based on who had the better arguments, me or him, not me or Con. lol
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I like not having to type essays as responses for once... I'm sure the audience will appreciate a quick read too lol
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I am now infamous on DDO >:D
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"THIS ISNT A DEBATE!! This is winfarming..."

Winfarming, you say? Who would be so cruel as to do such a thing?
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Not really. World peace is possible. Kill every living creature on the planet. Pretty peaceful after that. I dare say it's possible.
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
To what extent? Everyone being a pacifist in day to day life? (small scale)
Or countries abstaining from war, cooperating, and using better solutions? (large scale)
Ironically, large scale would be more feasible. You can get mad enough to punch someone, but you wouldn't go as far to as to kill them. World Peace Activism would have to be really big and influential, offering other solutions. But first we need to stop terrorism. As a blind estimate, this could happen in 100 years. But you can't control people in day to day life on the small scale no matter what laws you set up. Violence is human nature.
Posted by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
THIS ISNT A DEBATE!! This is winfarming...
Posted by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
LOL u serious?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
USA1031DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Human nature would make world peace impossible. Con is right in saying there is no way to eradicate this fully from the human conscience so therefore peace is impossible.
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
USA1031DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to prove that world peace is IMPOSSIBLE.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
USA1031DakotaKrafickTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues that world peace is improbable, but never proves it is impossible.