The Instigator
drmigit2
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

World War Three is impossible to stop.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,000 times Debate No: 17156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

drmigit2

Pro

The basis upon this is human nature, World War One started mostly because we as humans love war. War is what advances human society and a globalized world is bound to enter war. Nobody can stop it, and it does not matter if it takes ten years or ten thousand years, it will happen.
Thaddeus

Con

Hi Dr Midget (2? - What happened to the first Dr Midget? I do hope he is alright)

I will be negating the resolution that World War Three is impossible to stop. I actually agree with you that a third world war is probable, but not that it is inevitable. If I can give any possible scenarios in which World War Three can not occur, I will have negated the resolution.
First I shall define a world war;

World war - a war in which the major nations of earth are involved

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

As we have already had two World Wars (I really liked the special effects in the sequel, but I thought the plot wasn't as good. They decided to make the bad guy full on evil, which made the characterisation feel far more 2D. The Series has already jumped the shark in my opinion)our next one would be the third world war.

Response
1. Humans love war.
Some do, some don't. Though I recognise it as being partly factual, it is still an assertion without warrent.
2. War is what advances human society and a globalized world is bound to enter war.
The premise that "war is what advances human society" is false and unsupported, and the conclusion is a non-sequiter. Just because something might have desirable outcomes does not mean it is certain it will occur.

Arguments
I shall be giving three scenarios in which world war three cannot occur, each negating the resolution.

1. The year is 2051. People are running through the streets in horror. A distant cackle can be heard.
Dr Thaddeus River (phd in Evil) surveyed the dead bodies in the shattered streets with glee in his heart. They had thought him mad, and on balance they were probably right, but he had shown them. Oh yes, he had. They'd said that he would never be able to create an army of mutant giant kittens which were intent on hunting down and destroying humanity...
But they were wrong (in case the rest of the story hadn't made that obvious)

(Or a test tube which contains a deadly virus could be dropped or a meteorite hits the earth. The point is, no people, no war)

2. Everyone in every country becomes sensible simultaneously and nations are dissolved. If there are no nations, there can be no world war. Or Ron Paul could go geriatric guerilla on them and destroy all the states. At once. With Chuck Norris.
(States could also be dissolved over a long period of enlightenment. No nations. No world war)

3. Aliens intervene. They lock us all up for our own good (so they say, anyway - how come our own good always involves sticking stuff up our butt?). If we are locked up we are incapable of waging a world war on each other.

4. We are lazy chaps, and we don't get round to it. We keep procrastinating and we miss the deadline. No world war for us.

Ta-ta for now, and remember;

To protect the world from devastation.
To unite all peoples within our nation.
To denounce the evils of truth & love.
To extend our reach to the stars above.
Thaddeus River
Team awesome, blast off at the speed of light.
Surrender now, or prepare to fight.
Debate Round No. 1
drmigit2

Pro

Thank you for accepting, Ill get right on to my argument then.

C1: People love war

Don't pretend like I am lying, half the reason the first World War happened was because Europe was itching for a good war. People were cheering in the streets as the soldiers left for war. It was a spectacle for them all. We make video games of it, write novels on it, watch movies about it, it is driven in our very culture. War is something that humans are driven to, violence is natures tie breaker, it is what drives natural selection and is the reason we are who we are today. People rise up in arms about it, but the same people usually go home and watch Saving Private Ryan or play Call of Duty. You might not like the cold facts about it, but without war, society would never be as good as it is today.

C2: War advances society.

Lets look back at our World War 1 example, as the World War raged, people had to fill jobs, and advance weaponry, as weaponry advanced we ended up with radar, and the radio, and airplanes. War forces innovation upon people as it is usually advance or die. It is nature putting a glock to your head and screaming at you to come up with the latest and greatest gun or get shot in the head. The Cold war was the golden age of humanity, without it we might still be trying to figure out how to get to the moon and bring someone back home in one piece.

World War 3 will happen, and it wont come with a ghasp, it will come with a cheer and an applause.
Thaddeus

Con

Hello Dr Midget two.
I shall be brief as it appears to have ignored my argument. I have shown a few scenarios in which world war three is possible to stop, thus negating the resolution. They were unnadressed.

C1: People love war
C2: War advances society.

These are some lovely bits of rhetoric which shows that another world war is likely (it may not be, but I don't feel it necessary to argue that), however it does not do anything to show that world war 3 is impossible to prevent.
Yes, this was a bloody lazy round, but if my opponent isn't even going to read what I wrote, then, as there is no council to write a sternly worded letter about this sort of behaviour, I feel I atleast ought to put the minimal effort in required.
Debate Round No. 2
drmigit2

Pro

I never ignored your debate, your second part was just so silly I did not feel like addressing it, I proved why the first part of your argument was invalid via examples in the previous World Wars and the Cold War. However, to satisfy you, I will debunk your arguments. For the first one, I would love an example of a currently existing virus that exists and could plausibly kill everything, because by your logic, we would have to release it, but even if that happened, the world would go under quarantine and it would never kill all of humanity. As for the second one, nations all dissolving at once is again something idiotic to even consider, the world is far too chaotic (look at the middle east for an example), and people are far too nationalistic or patriotic to ever give up their nation. Aliens locking us up is entirely implausible, and can hardly be used as we don't even know if there are aliens that could realistically reach us before the sun blows up. The last one is also moronic and I am slightly annoyed you would even try to argue that.

I brought psychological reasons as to why the world may be compelled to go to war and you have yet to put up any defense against it. In fact you even ignored me debunking the first part of your whole argument. I will go in to even more detail on that however, just for the fun of it.

World War 2: Digital electronics were heavily invested in because of the war, we also got RADAR from it, which is now used to keep people from accidentally killing each other with planes. We also learned to synthesize rubber and now can have it anywhere we need it. There are many more examples, but I feel I can leave you with those for World War 2.

The Cold War: nuclear studies eventually lead to the ability to make a rocket, leading to the space race with the USSR. You may say what you will about the HUMMER, but we got it because of the Cold War. Plastic was also invented for military purposes during the Cold War.

With the world so entangled within itself, a World War is very easy to start, and could easily start via a North Korean invasion in to South Korea. This could happen in many other ways, but this seems to be the most likely way for it to happen in the near future.
Thaddeus

Con

Hi Dr Midget.
I think it might useful to remind everyone of the resolution (yes, I am fully aware that you could just scroll to the top of the page and read the big text in bold, but I'm such a wonderful person I'm telling you here[BTW its my birthday in a few weeks]); World war three is impossible to stop.
Therefore if I can give one *possible* scenario in which WWIII cannot occur then I shall have negated the resolution. Note the use of possible, not plausible.

Let us look at your attacks of my scenarios. I would remind Dr Midget that the scenarios used were types with specific examples to illustrate (ie 1 is the elimination of all people via disaster)

1. Pro claims that I have to be able to name such a virus which kills everyone. This is an argument from ignorance. You are implying that because we don't know of such a virus (it could exist and the illuminati could just be hiding it) it can't exist. I am claiming that it could hypothetically exist in the future. That is, we create it and it prevents WWIII by killing everyone. Pro also ignores the genetically engineered kittens and meteorite destroying the world examples.

2. Pro is very mean here. He calls my ideas idiotic. You may have noted that I did not post this response very quickly. This is because I have been crying all by myself because of his hurtful comments. I would post a video of me singing "memories" but there are miners on this site (people who mine ore don't like the fact that I have such a good range). Regardless and regardingly, calling the idea idiotic is not an argument so let us press on, like the way a fat man on an aeroplanes buttock presses against and invades nearby seats as his smelly flaps of flesh engage in territorial warfare. His arguments that it is unlikely now are accurate, but that does not mean it is impossible, and does not mean that it could be possible in the future. He has not shown that the dissolution of nations is impossible. Therefore resolution negated. I miss Steve.

3. "rugged manly sex appeal"
Oops I copy pasted the wrong thing.
"Aliens locking us up is entirely implausible"
Pro pretty much concedes that is possible, by saying that it is implausible. I would also infom Pro that the aliens are here, and they are impersonating politicians and famous comedians. Resolution negated. Oh yeeeeeeeah!

4. Calling something moronic just hurts my feelings. No argument against was presented. I'm feeling too lazy to reinforce the point so I guess the point is reinforced?

"I brought psychological reasons as to why the world may be compelled to go to war and you have yet to put up any defense against it. In fact you even ignored me debunking the first part of your whole argument. I will go in to even more detail on that however, just for the fun of it."

I ignored it, because I concede that a third world war, at some point, is probable (though for different reasons than you, I actually think your arguments are fairly bad). Unfortunately no debunking has taken place at any point by you in this debate. This saddens me greatly. Actually it doesn't because it means I will win. Yay. This is my winning face. =|. I'm so happy.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I don't understand how "Humans love war" is such a great argument...I mean, as a voter, that would seem pretty hard to believe, especially with the lack of evidence or sources cited to prove that generalization.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Baggins how to you feel Thaddeus did not follow the intent?
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Baggins, that rfd better be good. I honestly believe that there is no contest in terms of who won. (I even tried to make my rounds entertaining so the victory didn't seem cheap!)
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
The resolution was 'World War Three is impossible to stop". Con was technically correct in his analysis that if he can present a single scenario where WW3 would not take place, he will win the debate - irrespective of implausibility of the scenario.

Armed with this analysis, Con - the expert DDO lawyer, proceeded to present the most outrageous scenarios he could think of - and claimed a technical victory. He did not even engage the Pro, on the topic of debate - which was actually quite simple.

2:1 to Con on basis of arguments (technical)
1 point to Pro for his effort, and for hanging around, trying to get debate back on track.
1 against Con, for destroying the intent of the debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the idiot
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Stop it qopel.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate says it all. Comedy mreally means he should get 100, but oh well.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct is a textbook example of how not to respond to an argument....Pro made assertions (general, such as that of human nature), but failed to even prove both his authority to make such assertions and sources to prove it. Spelling and grammar was even, though Con did use one source, and had arguments that Pro merely ignored, reiterating examples of how 'humans love war'. Note to Pro: a liking doesn't equate to an essential facet of nature.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a source [granted it was just a dictionary], and Pro failed to respond to all arguments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, You can't just ignore an argument and hope everyone else does.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: 3:2 to Pro. Analysis in comments.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
drmigit2ThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro set himself a really tough resolution and Con adequately refuted it with valid and entertaining examples.