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

world peace is a myth

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: 10/21/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,070 times Debate No: 18917
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I believe that world peace is a myth and is impossible people have wished of this for years but were never successful their has always been a fight somewhere some how on this planet and it will never stop and it will probably get worse. I am here to state that world peace will never be accomplished by man kind. I wish of a good debate to my opponent.


From what american5 has posted so far, I will draw conclusions on what exactly the resolution should be.


Peace – absents of war
War – Organized (more or less) military doings
Impossible – undoable, not possible
People/Man – humans, the sub-species of Homo sapiens, collective people of the Earth
World Peace – Peace throughout the world, everyone in a state of peace


What is World Peace and Why is it Not?

From my point of view, world peace is very plausible. If world peace where limited to defined as; "globally without war", then that has happened many a times throughout the history of the world and humanity. Some may believe that the very human nature that allowed us to be dominate, will be are ultimate downfall, because the human nature is innately competitive, and logical conclusion will inevitably lead to violence [1]. Because we, as human, chose to continue to have the role of superiority and dominance over the Earth, we have divided ourselves onto sides of rational thought.

Why We Have Not Achieved World Peace:

Why has government been so popularly instituted? The fundamental propose of government is to provide peace and prosperity the people it serves, contrary to what most believe; this very mind set a danger to our existence. Ideas such as a capitalist approach to world peace [2] are what will continue to prevent it. After the end of WII, a war of ideology often referred to as the Cold War, almost lead to the destruction of counties who opposed each other's attempt to maintain and create peace; their government philosophies [3].

Fault of Government:

Government has provided no good since the begging; world leaders claim to guarantee rights and return freedoms, but, as evident throughout history, government has only taken rights. In prehistoric China, man was free from oppression and taxation. When the people of China united to control the dangerous floods of the Yellow River, without much realization, an empire began to form [4]. Within less than five generations, new social structure was part of everyday life. In Rome, as well as other empires throughout the world, once a peaceful agricultural state, now persecuted those who opposed and did not conform because of religious beliefs, where persecuted, on both small and large scale [5].
Possible Solution:

Words such as global and entirety are absolutes, thus it implied in the vary meaning of world peace, that it is all, or none, there is no middle ground. Peace through the acceptance of one ideology would mean the world must conform to; for example, either complete communism, or complete socialism, there is no in between. This will never work because for the beginning the system was broken. In conclusion, I purpose the only way to achieve world peace would be through absolutism, which would not be true peace or freedom, or default law of ungoverned man.

[1] World Peace (wiki):
[2] Capitalist World Peace:
[3] Cold War:
[4] China Unification:
[5] Persecution:
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this argument and wish a good debate.

My first point is then their is no where in history where people have not been fighting each other it is simple human nature to kill each other we are corrupt and power hungry one of the problems you point out is that fault of government without government wars would be worse and more frequent because everyone would be fighting everyone for few resources sure we still fight with government but that just proves my point government or not their will be competitions for resources and that will lead to war.



"… [there] is nowhere in history where people have not been fighting each other…"

There are many times in the past that there have been periods of peace (no war(s)) between people. Cavemen and early man had little time for war, hence it was absent from their lifestyle [1]. Even in the upper Paleolithic era, war was very uncommon [2]. Not until the shift from hunting and gathering, to developed societies did war become eminent [3]. Because of specialization of labor, the emergence of wealth and new classes, war became possible [4].

"…it is simple human nature to kill each other…" and "… [Humans] are corrupt and power hungry…"

Shang Yang, a Chinese philosopher, was the founder of the idea of Legalism. Legalism teaches that humans are natural evil and selfish, but with strict discipline and punishment, they can change [5]. Humans are natural emotional beings [6]. By nature, we experience anger, sadness, love, affection, and many other emptions. Because emotions are natural things that everyone experiences, they do not determine who we are. On the contrary, how we react or respond to certain emotions determines who we are, otherwise known as character. Some react to angry in different ways than others, thus they have a different personality, and therefore, because not everyone has the same reactions, it is not ingrained as a human instinct. By nature, humans are not corrupt, power hungry, or evil.

"…without government, wars would be [even] worse and more frequent because everyone would be fighting everyone for few resources…"

Without government, large scale war would be impossible. Money to fund the war, such as the wars going on in the Middle East, are all funded by the government, who provides for the needs of the military. "The United States spends about $550 billion annually to fund its military forces" [7]. Without a source of income, or supplies, warfare would not be possible, thus government controls ability to make a cease war.

"… [Humans] will be [competing] for resources, [which] will lead to war."

Humans did not begin to participate in warfare until the development of society. The agricultural transition enabled population growth, which limited the amount of resources per person. In nomadic times, clans roamed freely, and there was no completion with other groups for resources, thus, no practical need for war.

How to Establish World Peace

As stated in the opening round, world peace can be established one of two ways. The unification of the world under one jurisdiction would enable a superior government to bring a halt to all conflict between warring groups of people. This idea has been expressed widely throughout pop culture. In the Star Wars Saga, by George Lucas, a democracy was formed, and it destroyed all ability to make war; there was peace throughout the galaxy for over a thousand years.
I will elaborate on this point and the second way to come about world peace in the following rounds.

[1] Caveman:
[2] Paleolithic Era:
[3] Society:
[4] War:
[5] Legalism:
[6] Human Emotion:
[7] Military Funding:
Debate Round No. 2


First I would like to say that not all political leaders have taken away freedoms remember George Washington he fought to get freedoms for the American people he did not take them away.

Second you argue that it is just a madder of mindset when really its instinct humans are born killing machines we have been killing things since we were created one of our greatest inventions fire is a tool of death we always have and always will war.



"…not all political leaders have taken away freedoms. George Washington fought to get freedoms for the American people; he did not take them away."

Unknowingly, by breaking away from England and creating a new country, freedoms became more restricted. Intestinally or not, the declaration of Independence and Constitution limited rights of women and African Americans (and slaves) [1, 2, 3]. Only males had the ability to enjoy all the rights created for the newly created country. Did slaves have rights? They did not, they were considered to be property, therefore had no rights [3]. Because not everyone had rights (or equal rights), freedoms were limited. After successfully breaking away from Brittan (after both wars), all Americans still did not have complete freedom.

Government itself limits freedom, just because one has "basic" freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion that does not mean I "legally" can do anything, therefore I have limited freedoms [1]. If I were to break a law and end up in jail, all my rights would be taken away, therefore prisoners have limited rights as well.

"… Humans are born killing machines, we have been killing things since we were created one of our greatest inventions, fire, a tool of death, we always have and always will war."

The initial purpose of stone tools [4], the bow and arrow [5], and fire [6], were not intended to be used for war. Stone tools were used because the made Neolithic life [17] easier, the bow and arrow, along with other hunting tools, were used for just that, to make hunting easier and more successful, and fire provided heat and light, not death.
As said earlier, how on acts on emotion is not human nature, but personal character. If a nomadic tribe were to attack a tribe who had fire, it would not be out of human nature, but out of jealousy. The creation and use of these tools and technologies were one of the leading causes for war, and the end of a peaceful (yet barbaric) time period.
Life would now be competition between the "has" and "has not's", mentioned in the book Gun, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond, a researcher trying to find the source of human inequality [7]. This is evident in Mongol raids in China [8], Germanic tribes raiding the west (Viking raids) [9], and the crusades [10].

Today, citizens of the world are one of two major categories being; first-world [11] or third-world [12]. Most first-world countries are relatively equal, having taken care of all the basic human needs, such as sufficient water sources, food, and shelter. Third-world counties struggle getting on or more of these basic needs. Conflict between third-world and first-world that result in violence and war are categorized as war of worlds (third and first). Similarly to this, there are smaller scale wars that happen within an individual country. When clear lines are drawn between groups of people who have what they need, and those who do not, there is a break in the population, and social classes are developed. When the group of people who can provide choice to be ignorant of those who cannot, and do nothing to help, conflicts often occur. Examples of this would be; internal conflict in latter Western Rome [13], Late Han China (Yellow turban revolt) [14], and the French Revolution [15]. If France, the higher class had everything they could need (easy life), while the lower class often had to deal with hunger and starvation. The result of no action being taken lead to revolt and attack of the higher class, by the lower class.

"Modern War" [16] is a combination between self-defense (of a country), ideology, and economics. Obviously, when one country wages war on the other, the defendant will to everything to prevent destructions. Ideology addresses many things, but the underling ideas are similar to war between classes and how government choice to handle wealth and freedoms. Wars started because of economics is most closely related to early fights between tribes, someone has something (or more of something) than the other, and jealousy leads to a violent course of actions (war).
The underlining cause of war is because of inequality, which modernizations and advancement in technology, dating back to the inventions of fire and agriculture.

In order to achieve world peace, all that would have to be done would be to allow everyone to become equal. Communism attempted this, but greed of administers and corrupt leaders lead to the failure of the system. Before the idea of wealth (Paleolithic/lower Neolithic time period [17, 18]), man was equal. By the world being in a state of equality, there was an absents of war, thus creating world peace. To bring the world back to a global peace, equality of every human being would have to be restored.


[1] Constiutional Rights:
[2]Women's Rights:
[3]Slavery in America:
[4]Stone Tools:
[5]Bow and Arrow:
[7]Gun, Germs, Steel:
[8]Mongol Raid:
[13]Fall of Rome:
[14]Yellow Turban Rebellion:
[15]French Revolution:
[16]Modern War:
Debate Round No. 3


Women and African American rights were already restricted we actually gave them more rights by allowing them to fight in the war and the slaves that fought were freed plus complete freedom can't exist in a civilized society but we do have many freedoms.

The bow and arrow please I beg you explain to me how the bow and arrow was not a original tool for killing maybe not man but it quickly became popular for that job and with fire later civilizations would lite the arrows ablaze before firing thousands of them killing people

As for your next point you helped prove mine not only is their never enough to go around but their will always be greedy
people trying to get all of it as always.



"…we actually gave them more rights… slaves that fought were freed…complete freedom can't exist in a civilized society but we do have many freedoms…"

This point has become slightly irrelevant to proving/disproving world peace is possible, but I will say this: Separate but equal is not equal and restriction of freedom will always end violently unless something is changed.

"The bow and arrow; please I beg you, explain to me how the bow and arrow was not an original tool for killing…"
The original purpose of the bow and arrow was not to kill man, but to make hunting easier. Technology can be used for both good and bad, some people used to kill man, but they killed man out of self-defense, not a random act of violence.

"…not only is there never enough to go around, but there will always be greedy people…"

One cannot be greedy if one never had any. Do you ever see poorer people being greedy, or is it always the ones who have the power to enable greed to control them? If everyone where equal, there would be neither greed nor jealousy, inequality is a major cause of greed.

How to Achieve World Peace:

By Force:

World peace can be created by a state of absolutism and forcefully maintained (synthetic world peace). If the world were to come under a single state everyone would have the same rights. By making man uniform, everyone would be the same and have no sense of greed, given they all had the same. The only problem with this is the enforcer would always be above the enforced, therefore making it unequal, unless the enforcer were able to give up power, and become uniform with the rest, thus making man equal.

Natural World Peace:

Residence from the material world will bring upon world peace. As seen in the time of early man, the lack of possessions enable would peace to be possible, peace naturally, everyone was equal, and no one had more than the other. By breaking up all existing powers, man would be on his own and would have no outside influence.


World peace would happen (technically) if there were no humans or only one human, because it would be impossible to have conflict between one or more if there is one or less (just put this in for sake of semantics, I don't truly believe in it).
Debate Round No. 4


american5 forfeited this round.


American5 has made not further arguments, so I will us this last round for conclusion

World peace was the "default", and we destroyed its existence. World Peace can be restored if certain course of action is taken, as described in previous rounds. I have made my argument, and I have come to the conclusion that; world peace is not a "myth", and is possible and achievable, through man's own actions, and without the help of an outside force.

I would like to thank American5 for opening this topic to debate and giving good arguments, and for allowing me to take part in it. This has been a learning experience for me and I am now aware of opinions opposite of my own which I have taken into consideration.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dinokiller 4 years ago
On 2012, the world peace will be secured, im mostly sure.
Posted by IndiJone 5 years ago
Should I post my main argument first, or wait until latter rounds?
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Are you sure Roy? There are different ways to measure it, but just pulling out a random century, how many wars went on in 15th century. Compared to the number of wars in the 20th century. Or perhaps a better measure would be what percent of the population died as a result of wars in each century.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
All of the measurable trends are contrary to the resolution. There is substantially less war and violence than at any time in the past. However, prejudice in favor of the resolution is so great, opposing it is pointless.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
I had a similar thought, but along the lines of complete extinction. No humans = no wars. And if we're the cause of our extinction, then we will have brought about world peace.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
Someone accept and argue that if all but one person were killed, conflict would be thuh s impossible i.e. world peace.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
. .

You dropped those.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the last round.