The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

is war ever justified

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 75405
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




war is a way to make a protest of some kind. it may not be the most effective way of getting your word across but it is a way.


My opponent is the instigator, so he or she has the burden of proof.
I only need to refute my opponent's arguments in order to win the round.

My opponent says, "war is a way to make a protest of some kind." However, the definition of war provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations."
Under this definition, we will exclude examples like the Cold Wars.
Also, the definition of "justify" is "to provide or be a good reason for (something)."

Even if we were to use my opponent's definition of "war" as just "a way to make a protest of some kind," my opponent still admits that "it may not be the most effective way." There is NO reason to protest in a way that results in violence and death when other, more effective, alternatives exist.

For these reasons, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1


no one will just declare war for the fun of it. war has a reason to it.


Reminder to audience/judges:
This debate should be judged by how well the debaters argued their positions, not by the judges opinions on the topic. Therefore, please only consider the arguments present in the rounds.
Also, my opponent still has the burden of proof, which my opponent failed to fulfill.

Here is my opponent's argument:
"no one will just declare war for the fun of it. war has a reason to it."

I will address each sentence separately:
1. War isn't declared just "for the fun of it." I agree with that statement. However, that does not mean war is justified. In this debate, I'm not trying to show that wars have no reason; I'm arguing that the reasons for war do not justify the millions of deaths that it causes.
2. My opponent argues that "war has a reason to it." However, just because war has a reason does not mean that the reason is a good reason that justifies the casualties that war causes. Furthermore, my opponent failed to actually state what these reasons are. This is an unwarranted assumption logical fallacy; although wars do have reasons, my opponent must state what those reasons are or have some other justification for that claim in order for it to be considered for this debate.

For these reasons, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by samantha12373 1 year ago
War is never justified for the main reason that people die during wars for example 36 million people died in WW1 . So war will never be justified unless they can find a way where people dont die during wars
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con at least made some arguments about BOP and why justification =/= a "reason," whereas Pro simply asserted his view, which, actually, didn't even substantiate the resolution at hand.