is world peace possible
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1 is accepting
I look forward to a good debate. I'd like Con to clarify if he has the Burden of Proof, or if it is shared.
So yeah world peace is impossible.
That first sentence is incredibly difficult to follow but I will try anyway.
"Right now korea and Japan is in a cold war because Japan thinks an Korean island is theirs also north korea and south korea are getting ready for war."
I will break down this quote one part at a time. "Right now korea and Japan..."
Con claims that they are having tensions right now. Just because something is happening right now, that does not mean things will not get better.
"north korea and south korea are getting ready for war." I'd like some sources for this please. In fact I would like sources for the claim about the aforementioned Korean/Japanese cold war.
Even if the claims were true, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
"There was a missle shot at an airplane."
This was due to a mistake. The russians thought that they had shot down a Ukrainian cargo plane.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)
There is more or less a war going on there, but by no means does that entail we will never see world peace.
There has not been an all-out war between world powers since the end of WWII, around 70 years ago. The United States hasn't declared war since WWII ended, and if there were a war, the USA would find a way into it. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
NATO was invented to stop the spread of communism in Europe. Now, there's no more communism for NATO to fight. (http://www.history.com...). This alone should be evidence that the world is becoming more peaceful. Even though there is tension between Russia and Europe, it's not going to result in war. It is just a dick measuring contest. Neither side can back down without looking weak, so they'll both pretend that they need to take down the other.
There has always been conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East is currently going through their version of the European Medieval times. In 500 years or so, the Muslim countries will probably be good friends. Europe has done that, and the Middle East will too.
I believe that the best course of action to create world peace is to limit the population and use more accessible energy sources. If we didn't have to fight over water/oil, and could rely on having enough water and using the sun, resource wars will never happen. If we can curb the population, resource wars would be even LESS common.
In conclusion, every claim that Con made was based on contemporary problems. Just because one problem exists now, does not mean it will exist in 200,000 years.
By the way, the claim that "World peace is impossible" is ridiculous. If I can prove that there is even one situation where this would be false, I win the debate.
So here I go: If every life form on earth were vaporized instantly, there would be peace. No wars, no fighting, no jealousy, no yearning. Just peace.
Also eveytime a war stops it seems like after a while anothsr war will start agian also each week serval crimes will happen also in schools bullies will hit other people and voilience always happens
How exactly does this disprove my claim that if everyone were vaporized we'd have peace?
"Also eveytime a war stops it seems like after a while anothsr war will start again"
I like to think that the world is moving away from this. Weapons are getting too efficient at killing. Eventually everyone will be held in check by the mutual possibility of death. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was a big theme of the Cold War. Direct fighting never broke out between USSR and USA because of the high possibility of destruction. USSR and USA had thousands of nuclear bombs. In other words, "whoever shoots first dies second." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org...).
"Each week several crimes will happen also in schools bullies will hit other people and voilience always happens."
Again, just ignoring my point about the vaporization of all living things. In fact, Con never even claimed which world he was referring to.
There isn't much fighting on Mars. Just a couple of our robots taking soil samples and getting pictures of rocks.(http://en.wikipedia.org...). I'd say Mars has achieved word peace. Same with Venus. Any life on Venus died a long time ago. The atmosphere cannot sustain life anymore. (http://www.sophisticatededge.com...).
Anyways with all these evnts happening it seems so slim that we will ever manage world peace
Humans have gone from war being honorable to war being despicable. People don't want to go to war anymore. There has not been a large scale war since the founding of the UN. Yes there is a lot of bad stuff going on right now, but that doesn't mean it will never stop. Peace starts with the people. If nobody wants to fight, the government cannot force them.
"With all these evnts happening it seems so slim that we will ever manage world peace."
What I take from this is that Con has conceded that I am correct. The phrase "seems so slim" means that there is a chance of it happening. A small chance, but a chance. The debate is not about whether or not world peace will happen, but if it is possible. Even if something has a 1/100,000,000,000,000 chance it is still a possibility. Therefore Con has conceded that I am right and has lost the debate.
flamingbutter05 forfeited this round.
SocialistAtheistNutjob forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 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: Con's argument were non-existent. Pro managed to show sources and disprove all of Con's claims. After doing so, Con sort of gave up and started giving short answers, useless arguments.
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.