Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

War - Should be mandated?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:03:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Spontaneous war might in fact generate technological advancement.

But mandated war might in fact have the opposite effect.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:19:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
War does not clean the gene pool... but there is some logic to the idea. It depends how it is structured.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:28:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Making war an annual or bi-annual function, you might run into problems with volunteers.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:30:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol this is a good debate topic, though I think your case would be near impossible to uphold.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 2:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 2:28:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Making war an annual or bi-annual function, you might run into problems with volunteers.

Yes, but what will it do to wars in general?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:08:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 2:48:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/8/2011 2:28:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Making war an annual or bi-annual function, you might run into problems with volunteers.

Yes, but what will it do to wars in general?

Controlled killing of citizens by their own governments would probably dwarf the mass starvations of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:44:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue." ~ Sun Tzu

"In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." ~ Sun Tzu
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:44:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue." ~ Sun Tzu

"In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." ~ Sun Tzu

Yes, but I was not talking about continuous warfare. Just a war every year or so, with fixed periods.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How would the wars go? Random fights between nations? Because Nuclear Warheads screw that over. Are there prizes? Countries will use nuclear warheads over land, or masses of money.

Or just "coliseum" fights? How would you get volunteers? Would you force some people? Will they be trained? Publicised?

What about people against it? How will they be treated? What if the majority, or a large minority, is against it?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mandated continuous wars? That's absurd. Nukes will destroy everything and innocent people shot up. Why is that good again?

Now Coliseum fights between nations, that might be cool, at least innocents are left alone and bombs aren't exploding.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 4:07:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How would the wars go? Random fights between nations? Because Nuclear Warheads screw that over. Are there prizes? Countries will use nuclear warheads over land, or masses of money.

Or just "coliseum" fights? How would you get volunteers? Would you force some people? Will they be trained? Publicised?

What about people against it? How will they be treated? What if the majority, or a large minority, is against it?

Well, we can make up all kinds of rules for a "mandated" war, can't we?

Let's see.

No nuclear weapons. They are no fun and take the "point" out of having a war.

Nations get to choose which other nation they'll go to war with. It's upto the generals, media, politicians to whip up war frenzy by dehumanizing the other nation.

The "soldiers" will be the highest paid people in the whole country, as they need to be the absolute best physically, mentally, all kinds of adjective-ally. That puts paid to recruiting problems. Also, there are only a fixed number of positions available.

Wars will be conducted in "designated" areas, thus rendering home field advantage to nations.

A resource poor nation does not need to win the war outright, inflicting heavy damage on a resource rich nation will enable it to gain brownie points, which can be traded for technology, resources or whatever they need.

The whole outlook of a nation's people will be to enable its soldiers to win the war, which will translate to their nation making progress. Thus, everybody will be engaged in advancing their knowledge so that they can beat the other country.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:33:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

When exactly has there been peace in the world? I think that such a mandate is superfluous. If you are speaking of the US in particular, we're pretty much doing stuff all the time that might not be called "war", but a rose by another name.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 4:33:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

When exactly has there been peace in the world? I think that such a mandate is superfluous. If you are speaking of the US in particular, we're pretty much doing stuff all the time that might not be called "war", but a rose by another name.

When was a war last fought IN the US?

Also, I was talking about making wars mandatory throughout the world. Every country should have a war every year for a fixed amount of time. Maybe every 2 or 3 years, we can decide the interval.

Having Rules of War, as we currently have, just proves that the whole world thinks that wars are legitimate. So, why not make them legal and necessary?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:55:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 4:42:09 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/8/2011 4:33:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

When exactly has there been peace in the world? I think that such a mandate is superfluous. If you are speaking of the US in particular, we're pretty much doing stuff all the time that might not be called "war", but a rose by another name.

When was a war last fought IN the US?

Are you crazy? That's not our style. Someone might get hurt here.

Also, I was talking about making wars mandatory throughout the world. Every country should have a war every year for a fixed amount of time. Maybe every 2 or 3 years, we can decide the interval.

"Every country"? - Your reasons for war would certainly not apply for every country.

Having Rules of War, as we currently have, just proves that the whole world thinks that wars are legitimate. So, why not make them legal and necessary?
Would you contend that they are not legitimate? They already are legal and necessary.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 5:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:53:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:44:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue." ~ Sun Tzu

"In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." ~ Sun Tzu

Yes, but I was not talking about continuous warfare. Just a war every year or so, with fixed periods.

So a new Feudal Era?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:03:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

Scarcity. Our resources have been badly mauled and abused by two World Wars and the Cold War; adding mandatory perennial wars (that will undoubtedly become highly competitive resource draining events) can only hurt the world economy.

Second problem: No-one has the ability to mandate such a series of wars; and if anyone tried, they would likely be ganged up on by all the civilized nations of the world. One short war is better than hundreds of short wars.

Third problem: Wars tend to be very unpopular in democratic countries; the series of unfortunate events America has been churning out are driven by a small and interested minority who do not volunteer for duty. *cough*oilcompanies*cough*

Fourth problem: Your premise "the greatest human advancements have been because of war" is flawed, at best. If by "greatest human advancements" you mean atomic bombs and better sword designs, then yes; but the greatest human advances (language, specialized tools, fire, music, art, architecture, literature, etc.) have arguably been made in times of peace.

Debate topic: "War should be mandatory"

I'll take con.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:23:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I completely agree with the OP. In the second half of Book Two in Plato's Republic, he shows that, despite what the rugged individualist majority of this website believe, our daily choices of gluttony necessitate expansion and conflict because there aren't unlimited resources for everyone (they would have you believe that you are essentially creating the resources yourself and thus it's simply a matter of us working harder). We must go to war to secure the resources necessary to live lives of luxury. It therefore makes no sense to sip on your spiced latte while driving your luxury cruiser and talk about how war is evil. Soldiers don't go to war - you are going to war with every sip of hazelnut caramel macchiato.
Rob
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:34:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:23:33 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I completely agree with the OP. In the second half of Book Two in Plato's Republic, he shows that, despite what the rugged individualist majority of this website believe, our daily choices of gluttony necessitate expansion and conflict because there aren't unlimited resources for everyone (they would have you believe that you are essentially creating the resources yourself and thus it's simply a matter of us working harder). We must go to war to secure the resources necessary to live lives of luxury. It therefore makes no sense to sip on your spiced latte while driving your luxury cruiser and talk about how war is evil. Soldiers don't go to war - you are going to war with every sip of hazelnut caramel macchiato.

I prefer to encourage my country to employ exquisitely skilled diplomats, who swindle less privileged countries out of the resources needed to maintain my life of luxury.

War is such a messy business; bribery and corruption work much better.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:41:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm more for a World Wide Death League Fighting Championship type deal.

I mean, really, no rules. Even allow eye gouging and crotch punches. And this isn't for knockouts either, this is to the death!

Maybe have a large environment, with enough objects scattered around to be used.

I think it would make for good television.

Problem is, world governments are not usually so sporting about such things. I don't think deciding politics over something like this would be plausible.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 11:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:41:52 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm more for a World Wide Death League Fighting Championship type deal.

I mean, really, no rules. Even allow eye gouging and crotch punches. And this isn't for knockouts either, this is to the death!

Maybe have a large environment, with enough objects scattered around to be used.

I think it would make for good television.

Problem is, world governments are not usually so sporting about such things. I don't think deciding politics over something like this would be plausible.

This did happen occasionally in Scotland, in the bad old days. Apparently there is an island called the North Inch of Fourth where two groups of clans held a battle to settle their differences. Each side chose thirty men, dropped them off on the island, and stood off to watch. 59 men died. A good time was had by all.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:19:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:34:03 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/8/2011 11:23:33 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I completely agree with the OP. In the second half of Book Two in Plato's Republic, he shows that, despite what the rugged individualist majority of this website believe, our daily choices of gluttony necessitate expansion and conflict because there aren't unlimited resources for everyone (they would have you believe that you are essentially creating the resources yourself and thus it's simply a matter of us working harder). We must go to war to secure the resources necessary to live lives of luxury. It therefore makes no sense to sip on your spiced latte while driving your luxury cruiser and talk about how war is evil. Soldiers don't go to war - you are going to war with every sip of hazelnut caramel macchiato.

I prefer to encourage my country to employ exquisitely skilled diplomats, who swindle less privileged countries out of the resources needed to maintain my life of luxury.

War is such a messy business; bribery and corruption work much better.

Your idea is unfortunately unlikely to work (would your diplomats be able to, for example, convince Islam to stop bothering Israel? Of course not). Also, you are asserting an extremely unethical position.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:20:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:41:52 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm more for a World Wide Death League Fighting Championship type deal.

I mean, really, no rules. Even allow eye gouging and crotch punches. And this isn't for knockouts either, this is to the death!

Maybe have a large environment, with enough objects scattered around to be used.

I think it would make for good television.

Problem is, world governments are not usually so sporting about such things. I don't think deciding politics over something like this would be plausible.

If people want to engage in gladiation without the incentive for money forcing them into the decision, I don't see any problem with it.
Rob
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:27:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 9:19:03 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/8/2011 11:34:03 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/8/2011 11:23:33 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I completely agree with the OP. In the second half of Book Two in Plato's Republic, he shows that, despite what the rugged individualist majority of this website believe, our daily choices of gluttony necessitate expansion and conflict because there aren't unlimited resources for everyone (they would have you believe that you are essentially creating the resources yourself and thus it's simply a matter of us working harder). We must go to war to secure the resources necessary to live lives of luxury. It therefore makes no sense to sip on your spiced latte while driving your luxury cruiser and talk about how war is evil. Soldiers don't go to war - you are going to war with every sip of hazelnut caramel macchiato.

I prefer to encourage my country to employ exquisitely skilled diplomats, who swindle less privileged countries out of the resources needed to maintain my life of luxury.

War is such a messy business; bribery and corruption work much better.

Your idea is unfortunately unlikely to work (would your diplomats be able to, for example, convince Islam to stop bothering Israel? Of course not). Also, you are asserting an extremely unethical position.

(since the obvious irony was lost on you...)

Our diplomats (and their associates) sell high-tech weaponry to Israel to help them defend themselves, while maintaining working relationships with many of the Islamic countries. Or, at least, they DID until a certain administration which didn't believe in subtlety came into power...

And I don't believe your position is morally admirable, either. Going to war for resources? Whatever happened to trade and the free market?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:40:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:03:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

Scarcity. Our resources have been badly mauled and abused by two World Wars and the Cold War; adding mandatory perennial wars (that will undoubtedly become highly competitive resource draining events) can only hurt the world economy.

Second problem: No-one has the ability to mandate such a series of wars; and if anyone tried, they would likely be ganged up on by all the civilized nations of the world. One short war is better than hundreds of short wars.

Third problem: Wars tend to be very unpopular in democratic countries; the series of unfortunate events America has been churning out are driven by a small and interested minority who do not volunteer for duty. *cough*oilcompanies*cough*

Fourth problem: Your premise "the greatest human advancements have been because of war" is flawed, at best. If by "greatest human advancements" you mean atomic bombs and better sword designs, then yes; but the greatest human advances (language, specialized tools, fire, music, art, architecture, literature, etc.) have arguably been made in times of peace.

Debate topic: "War should be mandatory"

I'll take con.

I'm tempted to take the debate. But this is such a good topic (even if I say so myself) that I'm willing to wait and see if someone more proficient than me is willing to take this up. If no one comes forward, I'll be willing to take you on.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 2:17:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 9:46:27 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Has anyone read The Hunger Games? We should do that, but with gingers.

rofl.

Anyway, I think a new forum topic should come up specifically referring to "Coliseum". I might make two:

a) Should we have one?
b) (because a will obviously be yes) How will it be run?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 4:41:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 11:03:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/8/2011 10:59:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
Continuing from the Rules of War thread, I had the general feeling that humans somehow like wars and they can never be stopped.

So, I have hit upon another idea.

Why not make wars mandatory?

The greatest human advancements have been because of war. Technology gained impetus because of war. War prevents excesses, and humans live frugal, thrifty lives and approve of personal sacrifice to help the war effort. Apparently, war also cleans the gene pool.

So, what's wrong with this idea?

Scarcity. Our resources have been badly mauled and abused by two World Wars and the Cold War; adding mandatory perennial wars (that will undoubtedly become highly competitive resource draining events) can only hurt the world economy.

Second problem: No-one has the ability to mandate such a series of wars; and if anyone tried, they would likely be ganged up on by all the civilized nations of the world. One short war is better than hundreds of short wars.

Third problem: Wars tend to be very unpopular in democratic countries; the series of unfortunate events America has been churning out are driven by a small and interested minority who do not volunteer for duty. *cough*oilcompanies*cough*

Fourth problem: Your premise "the greatest human advancements have been because of war" is flawed, at best. If by "greatest human advancements" you mean atomic bombs and better sword designs, then yes; but the greatest human advances (language, specialized tools, fire, music, art, architecture, literature, etc.) have arguably been made in times of peace.

Debate topic: "War should be mandatory"

I'll take con.

Are you still up for this? I'll start the debate then.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.