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

World War 3 won't happen for at least the next 20 years.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,050 times Debate No: 83391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance.

"World War 3"- Large scale, total war fought by all the major world powers.

The world has become an increasingly safer place since WW2. Wars between major world powers have been in the decline, as has global war-related deaths. No country wants to go to war with another country anymore.


I accept. Arguments will go in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

World War 3 won't happen for at least the next two decades. In the modern era, all the major world powers are reluctant to go to war at all, let alone with another major power. Nuclear weapons amplify this reluctance as no power wants to risk a nuclear exchange. We can explore the previous world wars before we venture into the modern era.

The incident that lit the fuse for WW1 is universally considered the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. This lead to numerous declarations of war until all major world powers were involved. Although the assassination set it off, WW1 was the result of decades of heavy tension between the European states. Imperialism, nationalism, and militarism all were major contributing factors to the confrontation. This built up for decades before hostilities commenced.

World War 2 was a direct result of WW1. The Germans were forced to accept responsibility for a war that they didn't initiate. This lead to resentment by the Germans towards the victors. A man with a mission and an ability to influence the masses took control of the country, broke the Treaty of Versailles conditions, and began invading neighboring countries. This lead to the commencement of WW2.

In the modern era, all those factors are now irrelevant. The majority of countries are extremely reluctant to go to war as there is simply no benefit. The world is now connected. With a globalized economy, most leaders see absolutely no advantage to going to war. All land has been claimed and is sovereign, religion rarely influences political decisions, and communism is no longer a major threat to the West.

The world's reluctance to go to war with one another is made evident by the complete lack of wars between major world powers. Prior to WW2, you'd see the major European and Asian powers consistently in a state of armed conflict. Now, the continent of Europe is united. Although we have seen minor skirmishes between states, every incident has been a limited war. Total war is never even considered an option.

The reluctance has been made evident in various international issues in the past few decades. The Cold War is the epitome of the reluctance to enter armed conflict. Two extremely powerful countries with a ridiculous amount of tension managed to avoid total war for 46 years. Now that global military strength favors the West, it's unlikely that the East would risk a war. Even during the Cold War, the Soviets were extremely cautious to prevent an initiation of hostilities with the Americans. Why would Russia, a country that isn't the United States equal anymore, risk a war with the most powerful countries on Earth?
There is absolutely no kind of geographic, political, strategic, or economic advantage in engaging in a massive war.
For world peace, you should vote Pro.


I thank my opponent for his arguments


1. I only have one argument which is that about Isis

Isis is being crazy, make a terror in Paris. They are making bad things around the wars, bombs and more. This will probably make wars, because the other countries need to pay back. Isis might cause a new war of World War 3 until 2036.

Sorry for such a bad argument. I will try harder next round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent failed to provide any kind of evidence or site any reliable source that supports the idea that World War 3 could happen in the next twenty years.

However, my opponent did bring up ISIS. ISIS has actually done the exact opposite of what my opponent suggests. The Daesh (ISIS) has actually united the world, as countries that are generally hostile to the US are actively engaged in defeating the Daesh right beside the West. Iran, Hezbollah, and even America's sworn enemy Al-Qaeda has declared war on ISIS. Russia and the US are coordinating air strikes together. The Chinese also consider the Daesh to be enemies as they executed a Chinese national. For the first time in history, the entire world is united in their hatred of a single group.

ISIS also doesn't have the military capabilities to initiate World War 3. They aren't a country, nor a major world power. They are a non-state terrorist organization that has the entire world ready to annihilate them. They've united the international community, the exact opposite of what my opponent is trying to debate.


fire_wings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sdio 1 year ago
A ton of countries suffer way more terrorist attacks than we do. I don't see them up in arms ready to attack another country that had nothing to do with it.
Posted by Sdio 1 year ago
What does that have to do with a major war involving all the world powers? Unless China or Russia are the ones blatantly attacking us, it has nothing to do with it. The US and the USSR had conflicting ideology. The US and Russia still have conflicting foreign policy, but we aren't fighting proxy wars over it nor are we on the verge of nuclear war. People rioting over terrorist attacks committed by non-state actors won't cause WW3 and unless you have a rational explanation as to how that might commence armed conflict between the US and Russia/China, you shouldn't mention it.
Posted by finamorebarbara 1 year ago
Great debate, but i just wanted to add one thing.. It doesn't matter that the world is coming "together" to defeat ISIS. Look at WWII, most of the world got together to defeat the NAZI party and its influence and when that was over with they turned against each other which ended up leading to the cold war. So i do think WWIII could happen, maybe in less than 20 years. Yes, everyone has nuclear weapons and people think twice about it before creating any major conflict with another nation BUT how long can people take before they start rioting against their own government because they are not doing anything about terrorist attacks within our land? An example, for a few years now the US has been suffering terrorists attacks in our own homeland, Boston bombing, and most recent San Bernadino. The American citizens want answers and revenge and yet we have yet to do anything about it because we are being too careful. Just a thought....
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Yes/no globallization will lead to civil wars on a global scale.
No votes have been placed for this debate.