a noticeable limitation on the use of weapons in war, and its just a thought
Debate Rounds (5)
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
"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.
you argue a lot of other subjects that are irrelevant, jobs lol, who the f cares
and the war on fear is infinite
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.
you are inventing a story and telling to yourself you need a gun, deliver that book back
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: No comment.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.