The Instigator
07kingow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
toamatt26
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

World war 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
toamatt26
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 42085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

07kingow

Pro

I feel the 2 world wars effectively cleansed the world, it created great opportunities and great advancements for man in a very short space of time, our ambitions have heightened greatly in the past two centuries and they all been fuelled by war and change - not religion and peace. War is a process in our lives like death and life it is a necessary it makes us value what is good and what is not. It effectively brings out the best in all of us and can force us to become the best of what we can be, how can we understand what peace is and what it is worth without war? How can we have the light without the dark? I think the benefits of war outweigh the cons and the level of naive fools in government are increasing - would a 3rd world war be a bad thing? What do you think? I have experienced the horrors of war first hand and what it does to families but it also creates a love stronger than anything i have ever known, fighting for something you love changes you for the better.
toamatt26

Con

I accept, and vote that World War 3 would NOT be a good thing
Debate Round No. 1
07kingow

Pro

07kingow forfeited this round.
toamatt26

Con

"I feel the 2 world wars effectively cleansed the world"

For one thing, this is an opinion. "The World War 1 also known as the Great War started in 1914 and ended in 1918. According to some sources, it is estimated that 37 million people were killed during the war including military and civilians." [1] "It is estimated that about 55 million people died in the European theater during World War II. Globally a total of over 60 million people died in WWII and of those 60 million, more were civilian than soldiers." [2] According to both quotes, about 97 million people died during World Wars I and II. Most of them were civilians, and how would another world war effectively clean the world of innocent people? If Pro fully believes that ending innocent people's lives would effectively clean the world, then we have bigger problems.

"they all been fuelled by war and change - not religion and peace"

My opponent believes that the best way to advance is by war, so by this I am inferring that my opponent believes war is better than piece. Advance, by definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the act of moving forward [3]. By moving forward, humanity has created associations such as the United Nations, created just to prevent future wars. By starting a war, my opponent believes we will be advancing, though provides no evidence to support this claim, and Pro believes that war is better than peace.

"War is a process in our lives like death and life it is a necessary it makes us value what is good and what is not."

Other than being a run-on sentence, and not making any sense, this statement is false. My opponent does not state any supporting claims and by "[making] us value what is good and what is not" is the exact statement that can be used against him. People would value life over war, and therefore would see that life is good and war is bad.

"It effectively brings out the best in all of us and can force us to become the best of what we can be"

Other than ending the lives of "the best ... of us" this could be true. Still, no evidence.

"how can we understand what peace is and what it is worth without war? "

Do you value peace or war? By starting a war and ending millions of lives would in fact show us what peace is, but after two world wars is it enough? According to my opponent's logic, every couple of years there should be a world war to reinforce people what peace stands for.

"I think the benefits of war outweigh the cons and the level of naive fools in government are increasing"

Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent. If you truly believe that war is better than peace, then do you truly believe that instead of just a world war 3, we would have a WW IV, V, VI, VII, VIII ..... Other than that my Pro didn't state who the "naive fools" are.

"fighting for something you love changes you for the better."

Sure, well if you don't die in the process your statement might be true.

"07kingow forfeited this round."

Unfortunately, as I am truly sorry for, I could not in fact negate this statement as i did for nearly every other one.

I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.ask.com...
[2] http://answers.yahoo.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
07kingow

Pro

07kingow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 07kingow 3 years ago
07kingow
Yeah I just find it annoying when you get pacifists and that saying violence solves nothing and war is good for nothing - I mean I study politics in uni and you would be surprised at the number of intelligent people who say cut defence budgets, there is no one left to fight whats the point? How naive can people be, it drives me nuts they were saying that at the beginning of the last century, look how that turned out...
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
There's really no right or wrong answer to this. War has just as many pros/cons as peace does. Extremely interesting topic for debate and I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Interesting debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
07kingowtoamatt26Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
debatinghoe123
07kingowtoamatt26Tied
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: Pro made good points in round one, but Con took the lead in round 2 and kept it while Pro forfeited. In round one Pro has many grammatical errors and spelling errors. He did not site any sources either.