is war the solution to all the problems
Debate Rounds (3)
and lead to loss of economy of both the country
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.
1) the development of the japan as a developed country after world war 2
http://en.wikipedia.org... - 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.
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 (http://history.state.gov......), but humanity's more base instincts took over in the 1930s.... The fascists rose to power in the 1930s and the world chose appeasement. (http://www.history.co.uk......). 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: http://188.8.131.52/debates/Wars-are-necessary-to-end-conflicts/1/
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 1 year 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: Plagiarism/concession
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.