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

World Peace is achieveable

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 77426
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Challenged accepted. My position is that world peace cannot be achieved. And to make it more clear. We will find a clear definition of peace. According to "The Free Dictionary", peace is defined as "The absence of war or other hostilities".

Why world peace is not achievable:

1. Several attempts have already been made to keep world peace and have failed. One example is the League of Nations (LN). The LN, founded in 1920, was an organization that was created to keep peace around the world. However, the LN inevitably failed to prevent Hitler from gaining power in Germany and then World War 2 happened.

2. There are many disputes and issues in the world that must be solved and the UN can only focus on one or maybe two at a time. Each member of the UN may have issues of its own to solve. While the UN has settled a few disputes, other ignored or partially ignored disputes becomes worse. Like the UN, the LN also can only focus on one or two disputes at a time. And like the UN members, LN members also experience internal problems. When LN ignores or partially ignores disputes, that's when problems really rise. The LN promised to help China against Japan but inevitably failed because most nations with strong armies are experiencing a great depression. In other words, there are always power-hungry people in the world that takes initiative against the world when the slightest opportunity presents.

3. Today, most nations have been trying to avoid war and solve disputes diplomatically. But solving most disputes is easier said than done. Just about every independent nation has its own views on current disputes today. To reinforce the point of most disputes being easier said than done, we will take the Korean dispute today. Both the North and South Korea wants to unite Korea under their own government. Because of that, tensions grew so steep that its debatable whether the Korean War is still going on (both sides didn't sign a peace treaty but rather an armistice). And today, the UN is still trying to solve a dispute that starting 50 years ago.

Using the judgement that its extremely hard to solve disputes diplomatically and there are still many unsolved disputes, I conclude that eventually, one dispute will boil to the point a war occurs and world peace would be disturbed, just as what historically happened with the LN.


When I was in grammar school learning about World War II, I remember thinking how grateful I was that society had finally matured to the point in the intervening years that war no longer ever broke out. Today I can hardly remember what bizarre thought process led me to conclude that people had actually become less barbaric with time. I do remember I also believed racial prejudice had died out decades ago and that the pronouncement of guilt or innocence by our justice system reflected actual guilt or innocence.

But I've forgiven my earlier self this embarrassing naivete because I think his conclusions weren't based entirely on ignorance as much as on a hope for how things could be. And though for many years I scoffed at the notion, I have to confess now that I've become convinced world peace is indeed possible. In order to understand if it's truly possible, we need to go through some information.


Countries don't go to war. The leaders of countries go to war. They marshal their reasons, stir up the public, dehumanize the enemy (as I wrote about in an earlier post, The True Cause Of Cruelty (link is external)), and send out their forces. The number of people actually responsible for the decision to go to war can usually fit comfortably inside a single large-sized room.

Leaders, of course, only occasionally represent the best of what humanity has to offer so they usually exhibit the same failings and weaknesses as the rest of us. They get angry when they shouldn't, let their egos motivate them more than they should, and are entirely too concerned with doing what's popular rather than what's right. They suffer from the same three poisons as the populations they lead: greed, anger, and stupidity.

The true cause of war lies in the unchecked rampaging of these three poisons through the hearts of individual people. Though the situations confronting world leaders that lead them to decide to wage war often seem complex, the only way in which they're different from conflict that erupts between two people standing in a room is that they occur on a larger scale. But if in civilized societies we expect people to work out their differences amicably (whether themselves or with the help of the courts), why don't those same expectations apply to differences between civilized countries?


In a world in which tyrannies continue to exist, war may in fact sometimes be justified. In the same way it's necessary to fight to defend oneself when attacked, so too it's sometimes necessary to go to war to put down injustice, or even the possibility of injustice when its likelihood is great enough. Rarely, however, is this given as a primary reason. Even democracies seem to be roused to war only by self-interest.

Fair enough. But when any leader chooses war, he or she should do so with a heavy heart. As the original Buddha, Shakyamuni, once said when asked if killing was ever to be permitted: "It is enough to kill the will to kill." In other words, we should strive to kill the the idea that killing others should be anything other than the very last action we ever permit ourselves to take. Shakyamuni was a realist. He knew the world would always be filled with people bent on committing evil, people whose ideas about how to live involved oppressing and killing others, and though he felt compassion even for them would speak loudly and passionately about the necessity of standing against them in concrete, practical ways.


To achieve world peace"to create a world in which war ceases to break out"seems impossible because of the sheer number of people who haven't yet mastered themselves, who haven't tamed their ambition to raise themselves up at the expense of others, and who haven't learned to start from today onward, letting past wrongs committed by both sides remain in the past. In short, it seems an impossible dream because we're in desperately short supply of human beings who are experts at living.

An expert at living isn't a person who never experiences greed, anger, or stupidity but rather one who remains in firm control of those negative parts (which can never be entirely eliminated), who's able to surmount his or her darkest negativity, and displays a peerless ability to resolve conflict peacefully. What generates this expert ability to resolve conflict? Wisdom and joy. Wise people are happy people, and happy people are wise. If enough people in the world's population became happy and wise, violence would be used far less often to solve conflict. If this pool of experts at living became large enough, we'd start seeing some of our leaders being picked from among them. And if enough leaders were experts at living, war, too, would be used far less often to solve conflict and further the interests of nations.

So, yes, it is possible. But we need brave people to do it. Without that, nothing will happen. And we do have brave people out there.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro pointed that people have become less barbaric with time. This is true, however it doesn't mean that there will never be a person that would act barbarically again. Also, pro said "racial prejudice had died out decades ago", but that's not true. Even in America, there is still racial prejudice and even today there are still hate groups in America. An example of an American hate group today would be the Ku Klux Klan, but they are not the only hate group in America today. Other hate groups include Neo-Nazi groups, and Neo-confederate groups.

Pro asked "If in civilized societies, we expect people to work out their differences amicably, why don't those same expectations apply to differences between civilized countries?" A single person can be controlled by the government. However, the government cannot be controlled unless a more powerful nation makes them do what they what. But then how does one control that government? A group of leaders can decide to work together to bring down that powerful nation but each of these would become powerful and would want to take advantage of other nations.

Leaders are expected to make decisions on behalf their own people. Although they can control some things that their people do, leaders can't control other things. For example from my link below, Americans have only 5% of the world's population yet they consume 24% of the world's energy. This does not make other nations happy, in fact it could make a nation hate them.

Pro mentioned about tyrannies. There is no proof that tyrannies will never exist again. Tyrants, like regular criminals try to hurt the rest of society for their own good. And so therefore, for tyranny to not exist again, there would have to be zero crime rate. Pro also mentioned that "the world would always be filled with people bent on committing evil". However, there is no way of knowing if someone is evil until they actually do it. Most people have reasons for committing evil and would do anything to justify that evil. However, society doesn't care about justification and as long as something is evil and they can control that, they can prevent that evil from doing more harm. But the key word is CONTROL. If they fail to control that evil. That evil can become monstrous like how LN failed to prevent Germany from becoming extremely powerful.

Also society can try to make some people wise, but as I mentioned before society cannot focus on everyone at once. There are 7 billion people in this world. Society would have a hard time making 7 billion people wise due to 7 billion being a extremely huge number.


Great argument, honestly. You put a good point saying that it'd be hard getting 7 billion people to become sane. But, with the right men/women working for it, you can.

I talked about war in my last debate, and I will put some war points in here once again.

Unesco"s preamble starts with the words: Since war begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of mean that the defenses of peace must be constructed. This would mean that we should develop a kind of educational program that would make it possible for a new generation to wage peace among themselves instead of war. Although this is theoretically sound, in practice we need to do a lot of groundwork if we were to visualize a 21st century for our children and grandchildren which is characterized by peace.

To this end we need to find out, in the first place, what has caused so many wars over the centuries up to the present time. Among several possible reasons we find the following:

1. Politics: The formation of various political parties led to a number of wars unnecessarily because each of such parties tried to impose its political philosophy over the rest of the population.

2. Religion: In spite of the fat that religion in itself is a very peaceful institution, yet various religions found it appropriate to wage wars against their neighbor in the name of God.

3. Communism: This type of ideology visualized people living together as members of the same family where everything is shared with each other. In practice, communism has deprived people of their basic human rights.

5. Capitalism: This system advocates the never-ending building of a capital in a way that people never feel satisfied because they always yearn for more and more. This often leads to greed which tends to disregard other"s people need.

6. Exploitation: One of the evils of colonialism has been the exploitation of people"s resources. This element nowadays is still among us under various guises. It explains why it is said that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

7. Power-Abuse: The concept of power is frequently rendered as an opportunity to provide excellent services to people everywhere. However, when power is abused, people are forced to rebel and a war generally takes place.

8. Jealousy: When people see other in a more privileged position, instead of thanking God for being so kind to them, they get annoyed instead and in a number of instances figure out a way to destroy people"s goods.

9. Ethnicity: People tend to make such a big dean to one"s ethnic background that they find themselves often divided and all of a sudden involved unnecessarily in tribal conflicts. This type of conflict is also known as racism.

10. Organized Crime: Many refer to this type of crime simply by the word "mafia." Here people are blackmailed and threatened so as to comply to anything the mafia gang proposes. As a result, conflicts are bound to follow.

In addition to the above source, there are many numerous others which instigate tension among human beings to the point of war. Of course, agencies such as the weapons industrial complex, will not hesitate to take the advantage of every situation conceivable to provide weapons of destruction to everyone who is willing to pay the right price. In fact, this agency has become one of the most lucrative business in the world.

It is highly appropriate here to bring into mind the words of retired commanders of the United States military at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, DC. They stressed that the weapons industrial complex, headed by the United States, is not interested in the security of the nation but merely in making profit. This will enable us to understand why such industry sells continuously its destructive product to all the nations of the world, friends, and foes alike. In fact, the weapons industrial complex has become the number one enemy of our entire earthly society. In fact, world peace will be guaranteed as place in history during the 21st century and beyond if we were to find a way to put this wicked industry out of business.

World peace in the 21st century is feasible and attainable. However, we have to work at it by taking several steps simultaneously, the sooner the better. Needless to say, everyone must try to make contribution to this end. As we have already seen, the weapons industrial complex has become our greatest enemy to world peace. It needs to be thoroughly dismantled and put totally out of business, even it were to take us longer than expected.

Collapse of the Weapon Industry

In spite of the fact that the weapons industrial complex has become a gigantic corporation which controls practically the government of every nation, including the United States, we could always find a way to bring it to a state of total collapse, no matter how long it will take. Here are some steps which may start taking to put the weapons industrial complex out of business. We could ban open carry weapons.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro mentioned that some kind of educational program would make it possible for a new generation to wage peace among themselves instead of war. It is theoretically sound, however not only does it require a lot of groundwork, it is also very costly, especially when one tries to do that for 7 billion people. One nation may not agree to this kind of program simply because they can't afford the cost. Unlike the US, most people in other nations have to pay to go to school, even public school. There is no guarantee that everyone can afford the costs of an educational program like this. There are more crimes and riots in poorer countries because these countries can't afford to educate their population.

What about free education? US can afford to provide free education because they don't actually invest much on K-12 education. When it comes to education in grades K-12, out of 21 industrialized countries, US is ranked 19th in math, 16th in science, and last in advanced physics which is really bad compared to other industrialized countries. So what about the colleges? US college hold 8 out of 10 top schools in the world, the other 2 being in the UK. What's the cost of getting into these colleges? $50,000 as tuition fee, not including costs for housing. Making matters worse, they charge lots of money for you to live on campus. So in the end, you are paying at least $100,000 at year to go to these schools. Why are these schools so expensive? The US invests at least $1 trillion on colleges but not primary schools. In other words, for anyone to receive a good education on waging peace instead of war, one would have to invest thousands on the person. So the costs of doing that to 7 billion people would be more than the GDP of all countries combined.

Let's talk about habit. Good habits are hard to gain and bad habits are easy to gain, and therefore, it is much easier to gain a habit of saying "ITS WAR!" than solving a dispute diplomatically. Another thing about habits is that its easy to lose a good habit but not easy to lose a bad habit. Therefore, for someone to not have a bad habit is almost impossible. And therefore, someone who reacts violently to situations will often stay that way, especially if that person is surrounded by other people who react violently.

Society nowadays allows anyone to be nominated leader of a country. Even if they don't know how to do anything. In the US, you can be as dumb as you want, as long as your promise looks appealing, you could be president. However, a leader who doesn't know how to handle disputes will often try to enforce their ideas by war. To get rid of these bad leaders, we would actually need an intelligence test for leaders but in civilized society, that is considered discrimination. So leaders have advisers to help them govern their nation. But when leaders are arrogant or advisers are also ignorant, such as if an ignorant leader appoints his friends who may also be ignorant as his advisers, world peace might be crippled. So to guarantee world peace, 7 billion people would have to be educated

Pro mentioned how the weapons industrial complex is not interested in the security of the nation but merely in making profits. This is true, however this kind of exploitation can also be applied for many other companies. This is often why many companies today have horrible costumer service. Like other companies, it is not easy to out the weapons industrial complex out of business. And therefore, the solution would not be to try to put the weapons industrial complex out of business.

Banning open carry weapons does not address the military and therefore may not prevent a war nor would it put the weapons industrial complex out of business. If the weapons industrial complex can't make money out of the US people, they can make money simply by selling weapons to the US government and other countries. Also, the weapons industrial complex is not the greatest enemy to world peace. That greatest enemy is actually a human mind because only a human mind would think about misusing the weapons.


Con pointed out that banning open carry weapons wouldn't solve wars or conclude them. That is true, however, it would close most of the controversy of school/church/public shootings. It wouldn't stop them, but it'd keep a lot of people from having that idea.

Con also pointed out while bringing about a school that could teach others to solve disputes without weapons or violence is a sound idea, not only would it cost a lot of money, it'd cause a lot of problems.

Anyways, if we are taught in school that violence is never the answer, why is our government always going out and starting wars as if it were no big deals? I mean some people would obviously realise that that is pretty pathetic.

Before World Peace, World Prosperity, World Harmony, Health, Happiness, etc. & all that other good stuff can be achieved, we will see it first modeled in miniature.

That is, in certain areas, people of like-minded mentality will start flocking or congregating towards it.
Before the proverbial World Peace, we may first have it in certain areas ~ perhaps first in small islands, villages or towns, or larger cities or countries. An example might be when a small country models this, and larger countries eventually follow suit.

It may happen spontaneously, or organizationally, or both.
What this does, is to give us a taste, or a contextual field of comparison to experience it in miniature, and this can help us decide what we may prefer to experience as a larger collective.

I"ve not heard of such a place or places yet, but maybe you have? I do believe there are individuals who do this within their own lives. This seems more so now, than at any other time in earth"s history/herstory.

Now, if the world truly desired World Peace at this time, we"d put way more education, effort, energy, research & resources toward creating that. So, on some unconscious, or maybe even conscious level, we simply are not ready or willing for it, and couldn"t even handle it if it did suddenly happen. Let me give you an example:

Years back, I heard a public radio program where nice, middle-class couples would take in foster kids, to give them the loving homes they always wanted. Yet what happened, was that the kids would eventually do things like start fires & create havoc.

I was personally astounded at this! I thought that kids from a chaotic, dysfunctional environment would love to be in a more financially & emotionally prosperous, peaceful and loving environment.

Yet, what the program reported was that the kids where so used to the negative drama in their lives, that to be moved out of it was kind of a shock, and so they re-created this chaos because that"s what they were used to. They just weren"t ready or acclimated enough for such a huge change.

I think this can apply to World Peace too. If we had World Peace tomorrow, we might think it to be absolutely grand; however, we"d be so unfamiliar with it, that we"d go back to creating negative drama again, simply since that"s what we"re used to.

Another example:

Often (not always) people who are too quickly put in certain situations, even desirable ones, are simply not prepared for them. " People who gain fame, wealth, or both, too fast, can have great difficulty adjusting to the suddenness of it all. People often fair better when it"s more gradual over time.
What do you think?

This is something I think about. I think about it also in relation to people like many of us, advancing on the spiritual path, who feel our evolution, as a world, is just too slow.
I get that " I feel it too! The antidote, is to have compassion & love on our unhealed parts or those aspects that are not fully healed.

That does not mean that we can"t be the influencers, instigators, leaders, movers & role models to move this forward. We can, and this can bring it in more smoothly.

How many people feel deep inner peace? Or, how many even feel inner peace as a majority of their experience? If we don"t have our own individual inner peace, how can we expect the rest of the world to?
Many people think there is a point of critical mass, when a certain amount of individuals have inner peace, and it then will spread more quickly, both globally & collectively

An example of quick, but also gradual movement, is how smart phones spread worldwide. The first iPhones came out June 29, 2007. That"s only 6 years ago! People adapted quickly, at least those who could afford them. Even many homeless people now have cell phones
I think that as more of us work & play to have inner peace & harmony, and emotional & financial prosperity, this will attract more of that to us. This will also influence others to find out how we achieved it, and are able to sustain it.
Is this a viable way to look at World Peace? Will we ever achieve it? Do we need to? Is it inevitable, given our evolution? What do you think?

Most people would come up with a "YOU'RE AN IDIOT!" But I think not. I feel both sides can prove good points.
Debate Round No. 3


Banning open carry weapons would make it harder for access to weapons without being in the military, but it doesn't mean that public shootings will not take place. It is questionable to say "it'd keep a lot of people from having that idea" because those who already have the idea will actually try to steal weapons from the weapons industrial complex or even some weapons manufacturing companies illegally giving out weapons. As mentioned in round 3, the weapons industrial complex can make money out of the military if not the civilians, therefore a nation can still raise their military funds in order to cause war.

We are taught in school that violence is never the answer, but yet there is such thing as a bully. Schools try to discipline everyone at once but this is almost impossible and schools, especially large ones may not be capable of disciplining everyone at once. However, if they focus on 1 to 2 at a time. the rest might become undisciplined.

Pro pointed out that if World Peace happened tomorrow, we would not be used to it at all. We'd be so unfamiliar with it, that we'd go back to creating negative drama again, simply since that's what we're used to. This would imply that for World Peace to truly happen, everyone must be on the same path toward World Peace. Unfortunately, society just can't focus on everyone at once.

Noting this sheer amount of time it takes to make make everyone believe in World Peace would increase as the population increases. This would cause even greater problems, especially when we get around year 2050, the projected year that the human population would reach 9 billion.

As mentioned before, there's still a ton of hate groups in the world. Since they're surrounded by people who also believe in hate. The thought of peace would have a hard time coming to them. We can influence someone to become a good person, so why can't we influence them to become bad?

"When a certain amount of individuals have inner peace, and it then will spread more quickly, both globally + collectively." This can also apply for certain amount of individuals who believe in hate. If some great incident doesn't happen, then hate groups, like peace-keeper groups, will spread.

The iPhone is also a slow evolution, just evolution outside of the name "iPhone". The iPhone evolved just like a human did, the earliest form of a phone is not called an "iPhone" while the ancestral form of humans are called "Primates", not "Humans".

And since hate groups can spread just like peace-keepers can, it would be hard to rid of hate groups.


Paradoxxal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago

No "rebellion," just individual understanding and education of life"s Unalienable Rights. When the masses of a civil society comes to understand "The Science of Rights," the wealth of this knowledge will eventually find its way to the ruling-class; hence, problem solve with the age old struggles of Liberty and tyranny.
Posted by Paradoxxal 2 years ago
@Mike Well, if a rebellion were to work hard enough, boom it could work.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
"World Peace is achievable" when the masses come to understand "The Science of Rights." A subject the tyrannical masterminds throughout the world would not want you to understand.
Posted by Sharku 2 years ago
How long is this timeline for world peace? Eventually the human race will go extinct. We're still a very young species on the Earth's timeline.
Posted by TyroneShelton 2 years ago
Does peace after everyone dies in a nuclear war count?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF