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

is war the solution to all the problems

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: 2/16/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,374 times Debate No: 70141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




according to me war is not a solution to a problem as it lead to the loss of many people
and lead to loss of economy of both the country


I accept.

Resolved: Is war the solution to all the problems?

Under this resolution, PRO will affirm this statement, arguing that war is the solution to all society's problems, whereas CON will negate.

But PRO states in his first round that war is *not* a solution because it leads to a loss of lives and economic prospects--but he needs to b affirming the resolution, not negating it. You can consider PRO's remarks as a concession--arguments which directly support my case.

For that reason, I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1


i agree with the con but thats the fact i was telling the fact with which everyone satisfies and now i going to tell which everyone do not get -
1) the development of the japan as a developed country after world war 2 - proves my statement


"i agree with the con but thats the fact i was telling the fact with which everyone satisfies and now i going to tell which everyone do not get."

This statement is not written in coherent English. I haven't the slightest idea of what he's saying because he isn't writting cohesively or intelligibly. After he says, "I agree with the con," even though he is listed at PRO, that is truly all our judges need to see--you can vote CON from there.

He goes on to provide an example of the development of Japan after WWII and claims this proves his statement. Which statement? In Round 1, he said war doesn't solve anything--which proves the point that I'm supposed to be defending. If he wants to pivot and address the affirmative position, he not only needs to make an argument in favor of the resolution, but he also needs to explain how an example he provides proves his point. Simply providing a link does not do that, because neither I nor our judges are required, nor should we be expected, to pour through his link for the arguments he intended to make.

Overall, you're voting CON, because PRO has already conceded this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


here are the points which con is asking for -

Post War time periods establish a balance of power creating peace through necessity.

Tried to bring peace and prosperity in the 1920's, but it didn't work.

Wars forces economic growth through a nation's conquests .

For the most part Wars are the aftermath of revolutions and rebellions. The mother of all nations is war.

We tried to abolish war 85 years ago with the Kellog-Briand Pact (, but humanity's more base instincts took over in the 1930s.... The fascists rose to power in the 1930s and the world chose appeasement. ( Of course end result is World War II, and the Cold War tensions post World War II. The attempt to abolish war is nothing but a futile attempt.

War is the arbiter of superiority, imbued with the seven excesses of Humanity. It decides the hierarchy of nations, the superpowers, rising powers, falling powers. The actions of the victorious nations are proof that might is right. The mass production of new innovations and creation of peace through fear of mutual destruction. The sheer irony of war is that fear of war and M.A.D. can end reduce a conflict to saber rattling and verbal sparring.

So my dear opponent can you still bark that war is unnecessary when human kind failed to abolish it once?


So PRO decides to present arguments in the last round--knowing that I can rebut him but cannot issue new arguments--even after he practically conceded the debate in the earlier rounds. Obviously I'm going to rebut his points and, because he has the burden of proof as the affirmation, you vote negative by default.

First and foremost, PRO plagiarized the entirety of what he has laid out here today from this debate:

Everything he said was copy and pasted from R1 and R2 from that debate's PRO--even the last last line, which addresses the necessity of war, which is not our resolution but this past resolution in the link above. This is a blatant rules breach.

So, there are four reasons you're voting CON:

1. PRO conceded in Round 1.
2. He only began his arguments in Round 3.
3. He did not carry his burden of proof.
4. He plagiarized.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 1 year ago
So brave of you to take this position in this particular debate Con.
Posted by kkurke 1 year ago
In order for us to have a better society we should not have wars but how else are we going to resolve stuff. Its not like were just gonna flip a coin, the countries fight for important things its not like were just fighting over who gets the remote.
Posted by nihal 1 year ago
accept the challenge
Posted by RavenDebater 1 year ago
Violence can only solve what violence has created
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism/concession