The Instigator
Pretty.Odd
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MasterDbater18xray
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Would Killing 70,000 People (Civilians) Justify Ending A War?

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: 2/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 69973
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Pretty.Odd

Pro

As tragic as it is, I am for this argument. War is a terrible thing, and very sad, too. However, war isn't won by sentiment. It's won by soldiers. So many people die in wars, civilians and soldiers alike, that disposing of 70,000 would save much more lives than the ones lost. I know that's not for certain, but taking risks is something that happens a lot in war, from the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan. Too many times we have underestimated the enemy and sent in men and women, many with families and lovers back home, into the trenches to die. Although we can't prevent another war, at least we end this one. Who knows how many fathers and sons we will save. How many civilians whose deaths we will stay a little longer. And although we may lose a lot of people, I can tell you right now that we are saving many people. Flowers can grow from rubble. Grass can grow from blood. Let's leave the battlefield empty and go for it.
MasterDbater18xray

Con

No, this would not condone the slaughter of 70,000 innocent civilians. Even if it ended a war and saved more lives than it ended this is wrong. If you were the one to have to look into the eyes of every innocent before you shot them point blank would you still do this? The rules here in America are innocent until proven guilty, why should that rule be thrown out of the window just to make things easier on ourselves. If it applies here for us, it should be applied by us anywhere we go. Even if its not in any certain jurisdiction of the United States.
Debate Round No. 1
Pretty.Odd

Pro

You make a good point, MasterDbater18xray, however, here in America, although our rules may be innocent until proven guilty, us Americans play dirty as well. Our government in millions in debt and its not shrinking anytime soon. We kill people over crimes that, in a sense, are not as big as some problems in other countries. Civilians are in inevitable casualty of war, truth be told, and I would hate to be the one pulling the trigger, having to see whatever emotions lay in their eyes. A question unto you, however. Would you want to be the one responsible for letting a war rage on, having to watch nations explode with bombs and knowing that you could have stopped it? Do you want to se the sadness in the soldier's eyes as the number of troops becomes so low that they have to start tearing sons away from mothers, fathers from children? It wouldn't be a good feeling as you pull a trigger or push a button, and there will always be people that hate you for what you have done, but I think that is a feeling I could live with if I had to. It may not be the absolute most justified thing in the world, but people have done dirtier just because they didn't like the color of someone's skin, or how they lived their life.
MasterDbater18xray

Con

Yes people have done nastier things based off of skin color and other problems that could have been ignored but that is irrelevant to the topic. And our nation may be billions in debt but that also has no play into the mass genocide of civilians just to end a war. Tearing mothers from sons may be a hard thing to do, but it is the most honorable thing you could do in that situation. Killing civies is not honorable at, killing them to end a war just to save soldiers is cowardice. Those soldiers stand a chance against what they're facing they signed up to face death, but those civilians aren't trained and they stand no chance. If your children (hypothetically speaking as I don't know wether or not you have any) were in the city you were about to bomb and you know it would stop the war and save more lives than it kills would you still press the button?
Debate Round No. 2
Pretty.Odd

Pro

There are too many "what ifs" in this argument. If you save more lives than you kill, I say yes. Although killing civilians is a very low thing to do, I am not saying that I would kill them just to save soldiers, but to save millions of other civilians as well. I agree to your point that they signed up to sacrifice themselves (if need be) for their country, but if they die that is still a tragedy to their families. I am not saying that what this situation demands is honorable, but it is the right thing to do. It isn't the bravest thing to do, but it is justified. If I knew that I would be killing more than I could save, I wouldn't do it. However, because of that small ray of hope, that silver lining that we would indeed be saving more lives than we purge, I say go for it. I can live with whatever titles people throw at me. Back to my point, however, I feel like calling this cowardice is a little extreme. Cowardice is sending soldiers to fight your fights for you while you sit back and watch. Our society calls this war. I know that it was a little irrelevant, but I had to say it. I don't think i'd be able to live with myself if I knew I bombed my hypothetical children (I don't have any), but could you live with yourself if your children (hypothetically) were one of the many casualties of war?
MasterDbater18xray

Con

Casualties of war happen all the time, if my hypothetical child was one of them and i could stopped it by murdering an untold amount of other peoples children...No i wouldnt do it, because i wouldnt be that selfish. I also dont ever intend to sit back and watch people die for me, i am going to be an army ranger and i would rather you choose to send me in and i die than we kill thousands of innocent civilians. Killing the innocent is never justified either. Would you murder somebody off of the basis that it MIGHT save some lives with little to no evidence that it actually would? And yes there are a lot of what ifs in this debate but its not easy to stick with the facts in a hypothetical debate is it?
Debate Round No. 3
Pretty.Odd

Pro

Think about this: Is saving one person dear to you worth more than saving thousands of strangers? No. Lives are important things, and i'd rather save a thousand rather than just one. Joining the army is a very brave thing to do, and I admire your sacrifice. I'm going to be an author. Although the odds are risky as far as whether I would save more lives than I would take, it is a choice I would take. I just hope that the odds are in my favor. And some of those casualties of war? Civilians. How many innocent lives were taken in WWII? In Pearl Harbor? Thousands, millions in fact. Killing innocents is never ok, but is war ok? Is anything about war ok? No, absolutely not. Although there is a lot of "bad" in my decision, there is more "bad" in war in general. There is a fine light between "justified" and "the right thing to do". Although what I think is right walks on the boarder, it is right. I am not killing those thousands just to save the soldiers, but to save their families, other families. Their future children and their children. If one family is wiped out by a rouge grenade or killed by insurgents, who will carry on their line? I know many families will be killed by my actions, but how many more will be saved? I am not a gambler but I am putting my money on the side that I know is right. The little evidence that proves that I may save more than I kill is enough for me. But think about it. How much evidence is there that one side will win a battle? How much evidence is in war? Not a whole ton, is there now? This is not cowardice, this is not selfishness. This is a choice I know if it were to ever happen in real life would benefit humanity.

(P.S. I know this is my last post on this debate, so I just want to say thanks to MasterDbater18xray for a stupendous debate. And you're right, MasterDbater, its hard to stick to the facts in a hypothetical argument. Thanks to all that commented (and debated)! Sorry if I sounded like a dictator, murderer, or just insane! Thanks again! :))
MasterDbater18xray

Con

MasterDbater18xray forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MasterDbater18xray 2 years ago
MasterDbater18xray
i ran out of data and couldnt respond to the final round. I am sorry.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Its a very odd number choice, but I agree @RavenDebater. You talking friendly or enemy civilians. If, say, we could Star-Trek style kill off 70k of our population and the "war on terror" was done, would we take it. Or, say, if we bomb the hell out of enemy countries knowing that once we kill 70k civilians they will give up.
Posted by RavenDebater 2 years ago
RavenDebater
220,000 civilian casualty ended the war with Japan. Was that justified for the greater good of the nation? This debate hinges on whether or not it is friendly or enemy civilians.
Posted by Kvasir 2 years ago
Kvasir
The way this resolution is formulated, it seems that that the act of killing (for some reason excactly) 70 000 people is required to justify ending a war. I'm sure that the resolution was supposed to be "Would killing 70,000 people (civilians) be justified if it ended a war?". If this is what you meant then please inform.
No votes have been placed for this debate.