The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GDNE
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

a noticeable limitation on the use of weapons in war, and its just a thought

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 1 vote the winner is...
GDNE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 65881
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

when alone in a law less land, i can be outnumbererd, so for me to invent a gun and pick it up means everyone becomes less safe and i become more safe, where as if everyone has guns and i have my gun, i can be outnumbered

so for the evolving human to get anywhere unless killing humans is usefull, limiting the use of weapons to for eksample, words, the only casualties would be bad ideas, ignorance, where as the outcome of a war is we are progressing our intelligence rather then killing human beings, ourselves, by not limiting the use of weapons

basically I guess for this to work we would have to dispose of all military forces in the world, and everyone would have to agree, that when things get messy between countries we debate and the winner gets the freakin country or something, do your homework bitch =)

so I guess this is about if its possible, It would be cool if war is debates or something and the winner just get the other country or something
GDNE

Con

First off, I would like to state that I agree that it would be "cool" for the whole world to just become all peaceful stop killing people and have debates instead of war. I am not happy about the amount of people that have died in wars, and I don't enjoy death. I just think that stopping wars is a nearly impossible task that would have cons as well as pros.

"basically I guess for this to work we would have to dispose of all military forces in the world"

I would like to say that if all military forces were to be shut down, all people in the armed forces would just lose their jobs. In America alone, that's over 2.7 million more jobless fellows. We already have around 9 million, and adding more wouldn't be good at all. Also, even if we could get EVERY single country to dispose of their military, there could still be terrorist groups like ISIS or AQ who could build, steal, or find some weapons and put everyone else in more danger than before.

"everyone would have to agree, that when things get messy between countries we debate and the winner gets the freakin country or something, do your homework bitch =)"

I'm sorry to say this, but this is probably the worst statement ever said on this site. Debates are cool, but war is effective. If one country is for gay marriage, and the other isn't, they will debate about it. Let's say it's Obama vs. Putin. Let's also say that Obama has better arguments and more convincing statements. In some peoples opinions, Vladimir Putin would still be the winner because they are also against homosexual marriage. It would be extremely difficult to find a fair way to determine a winner, and even if they could do that, Vladimir couldn't be forced to change his mind or any laws. Also, Obama probably wouldn't want to take and rule Russia! Why would the winner of a debate about homosexuality want a whole country? I don't know the reason you needed to use profanity for. It could be to seem older than you really are or something, but just please don't randomly call people b*tches.

"so for the evolving human to get anywhere unless killing humans is usefull, limiting the use of weapons to for eksample, words, the only casualties would be bad ideas, ignorance, where as the outcome of a war is we are progressing our intelligence rather then killing human beings, ourselves, by not limiting the use of weapons"

I think you mean exchange weapons for words, right? Anyways, you said that the only casualties would be bad ideas and ignorance. However, this is not the case, for there are many possibilities as to what could happen. I'm going to use the Obama-Putin thing again. Obama takes over the whole country of Russia. That's a pretty awful thing to do--throwing Putin away and putting all of Russia's problems on Obama. Also, many people may non-peacefully protest and murder Obama-accepters. Russia would be in anarchy, and all of the other countries would blame America. Obama would have to primarily focus on Russia because of all of the stuff happening, and treat America with little care. The country would fall apart without a leader.
Two countries could be completely destroyed by one debate about homosexuality. That would not be good.

http://www.cbpp.org...
http://www.deptofnumbers.com...
http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

marrige is fantasy

you argue a lot of other subjects that are irrelevant, jobs lol, who the f cares
GDNE

Con

All of my arguments stand. In America, 2.7 million work in the military forces. 9 million people already have no jobs. We would be going from a 4.8% unemployment rate to around 7.7% if we got rid of the army. My arguments are relevant.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

so your justification for the continuation of murder of human beings in war, is that people will lose jobs if we close down the military forces around the globe, and because these jobs exist killing human beings by keeping these jobs going is relevant
GDNE

Con

That one one of my smaller arguments, yes. However, if you take the time to read all of my first argument, there are more things that I mention that are very substantial and reasonable like terrorist groups and how they become more powerful as everybody else's military weakens.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

terrorist=fear

and the war on fear is infinite
GDNE

Con

"Terrorist=fear. The war on fear is endless."

What? You have to elaborate when you make a claim such as terrorist=fear. Otherwise, it makes no sense. If we have no weapons, and terrorists do, then we are put in a state of danger. You literally did a paragraph on that kind of stuff. "when alone in a law less land, i can be outnumbererd, so for me to invent a gun and pick it up means everyone becomes less safe and i become more safe, where as if everyone has guns and i have my gun, i can be outnumbered" You said if one person has a gun it means everybody else is less safe, and you are more safe. It's the same thing if only one group of people have weapons and everybody else doesn't.

PLEASE READ MY WHOLE ARGUMENT AND THEN JUDGE ALL OF MY STATEMENTS. I would appreciate it if you were to first, read my whole argument; second, process it; and third, write a full response that includes all aspects of what I said. All of my arguments STAND.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

my idea is to good, if you had a good idea it would be simple

you are inventing a story and telling to yourself you need a gun, deliver that book back
GDNE

Con

"my idea is good, if you had a good idea it would be simple"

That statement is opinionated. My opinion is that your idea of debating to win a country is horrible and would never work. Good ideas as big as this would have to be at least somewhat complicated.

"A: you are inventing a story and B: telling to yourself you need a gun, C: deliver that book back"

a) If two countries were to debate about something small, and one country wins and takes over the other, there is a very good possibility that my story, or something similar to my story could take place.

b) I'm not telling myself that I need a gun, but I am saying that my country is safer with a military.

c) What book?

I'm not going to go far into the fact that this whole system is built purely on trust because Pro hasn't successfully countered any my arguments, but I will say this: there is a huge possibility that any country could have a successful plan to take over the world by having a secret military. That could mean someone as evil as Hitler could take over the world with ease. That wouldn't be good.

Thanks for this quick debate, Pro. It was nice.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
in the subject
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
sry lost interest
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
vi_spexGDNETied
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: No comment.