The Instigator
PlagueDoctor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedWhiteBlueBlooded
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

World peace is bad

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 80596
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

PlagueDoctor

Pro

(Joke debate, if you haven't figured it out already.)

In this argument, I will argue for my position that world peace is, indeed, a bad concept.

Round 1-Acceptance

Round 2,3,4-Arguments

Round 5-Rebuttals, no new arguments.

Good luck! :)
RedWhiteBlueBlooded

Con

I accept this debate.

World peace is NOT a bad concept
Debate Round No. 1
PlagueDoctor

Pro

World peace is bad because it would make the world overpopulated. Without war and destruction, the Earth's population will rise-according to the UN, the population will hit 9.6 billion people by 2050! That's just short of the estimate that researchers give for the amount of humans that the Earth can support. Furthermore, even if there was world peace, there is no guarantee that it would last-in all of recorded history, there has been only 268 years-or 8 percent of world history of peace. While I do not condone war, violence, or genocide, I feel that war is a necessary evil in order to combat population growth.

So, let's imagine for a second that the world suddenly became peaceful and all the territorial disputes that African and Asian countries face were magically removed. What would happen then? Drugs and street violence still run rampant across the world, and the world would hardly be peaceful. The definition of world peace is "an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and people". It would take many, many years to truly achieve world peace by removing all crime and violence from not just the United States-but from the world. Not only is world peace detrimental to the world's population, but it actually can't be achieved until decades of effort among law enforcement had come to pass-assuming, of course, that another war hadn't started already.
RedWhiteBlueBlooded

Con

World peace is not bad because then there would be no more war or killing
Debate Round No. 2
PlagueDoctor

Pro

"World peace is not bad because then there would be no more war or killing"

For how long? World peace is fundamentally bad because it fails to inhibit population growth. Not only that, but it is a concept that is either unachievable or extremely difficult to reach, due to the fact that not only nations need to cooperate, but the people within them need to peacefully coexist-and judging by the state of the world, that seems unlikely. Not only is it a bad concept because it fails to limit population growth, but think of all the billions of dollars poured into military funding across the world's nations. World peace would suddenly remove those billions from military spending. Millions would lose their jobs in the military.
RedWhiteBlueBlooded

Con

RedWhiteBlueBlooded forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PlagueDoctor

Pro

PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
RedWhiteBlueBlooded

Con

RedWhiteBlueBlooded forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
PlagueDoctor

Pro

PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
RedWhiteBlueBlooded

Con

RedWhiteBlueBlooded forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
World peace IS bad. Violence is a necessity to maintain a healthy society.
Posted by BiGPaPpa 1 year ago
BiGPaPpa
this world is jank my moommy left never came back so end to the world
No votes have been placed for this debate.