Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

anime taught me something

cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:06:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

just another different view debates are just opinions not enforced facts
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:17:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:06:43 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

just another different view debates are just opinions not enforced facts

Except for a few things:
a) in order to win a debate, you need to use facts and evidence to convince others.
b) J.Kenyon clearly won this debate by a landslide. While it is possible that winning a debate =/= truth, it sure doesn't harm the case.
c) You have presented no evidence or facts for the claim that peace cannot achieved through force, only through understanding. Instead you've said you learned it through anime, which has practically zero-fact information, just stories and emotional appeals. And guess what, stories do not represent how the real-world works. And now you're asking a question, based on a false premise that you just assume that we'd accept as true because it was taught to you through anime. That's completely inane.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:17:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:06:43 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

just another different view debates are just opinions not enforced facts

Except for a few things:
a) in order to win a debate, you need to use facts and evidence to convince others.
b) J.Kenyon clearly won this debate by a landslide. While it is possible that winning a debate =/= truth, it sure doesn't harm the case.
c) You have presented no evidence or facts for the claim that peace cannot achieved through force, only through understanding. Instead you've said you learned it through anime, which has practically zero-fact information, just stories and emotional appeals. And guess what, stories do not represent how the real-world works. And now you're asking a question, based on a false premise that you just assume that we'd accept as true because it was taught to you through anime. That's completely inane.

and you sir have jumped to the biggest conclusion ever. i understand that you probably won't accept no matter what i tell you so it would be meaningless to argue.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:24:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:19:23 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:17:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:06:43 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

just another different view debates are just opinions not enforced facts

Except for a few things:
a) in order to win a debate, you need to use facts and evidence to convince others.
b) J.Kenyon clearly won this debate by a landslide. While it is possible that winning a debate =/= truth, it sure doesn't harm the case.
c) You have presented no evidence or facts for the claim that peace cannot achieved through force, only through understanding. Instead you've said you learned it through anime, which has practically zero-fact information, just stories and emotional appeals. And guess what, stories do not represent how the real-world works. And now you're asking a question, based on a false premise that you just assume that we'd accept as true because it was taught to you through anime. That's completely inane.

and you sir have jumped to the biggest conclusion ever. i understand that you probably won't accept no matter what i tell you so it would be meaningless to argue.

Please, tell me what my "biggest jump to the conclusion" was?

But, aw, you no longer want to play anymore? But we were just having fun.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:25:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:24:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:19:23 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:17:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:06:43 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

just another different view debates are just opinions not enforced facts

Except for a few things:
a) in order to win a debate, you need to use facts and evidence to convince others.
b) J.Kenyon clearly won this debate by a landslide. While it is possible that winning a debate =/= truth, it sure doesn't harm the case.
c) You have presented no evidence or facts for the claim that peace cannot achieved through force, only through understanding. Instead you've said you learned it through anime, which has practically zero-fact information, just stories and emotional appeals. And guess what, stories do not represent how the real-world works. And now you're asking a question, based on a false premise that you just assume that we'd accept as true because it was taught to you through anime. That's completely inane.

and you sir have jumped to the biggest conclusion ever. i understand that you probably won't accept no matter what i tell you so it would be meaningless to argue.

Please, tell me what my "biggest jump to the conclusion" was?

But, aw, you no longer want to play anymore? But we were just having fun.

you assume that i would assume that you would believe the statement. you are so horribly wrong
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

1. "Peace cannot be kept by force" does not mean that it can't begin with it.
2. How is this quote at odds with the concept of "peace through strength"? If we have a strong military, and you'd be a fool to mess with us, there is no force involved, and there is an understanding that if you let us be, you'll be left alone. (obviously, this ends if we bother them...)
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:25:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

you assume that i would assume that you would believe the statement. you are so horribly wrong

Your words:

"Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace""

You give us an inquiry, that is based on the premise that your initial premise is correct. You also just assert that this is "very true", and do not pose that as the discussion topic of the OP. So, yes, your OP clearly show that your audience would believe this statement to be true.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:26:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

1. "Peace cannot be kept by force" does not mean that it can't begin with it.
2. How is this quote at odds with the concept of "peace through strength"? If we have a strong military, and you'd be a fool to mess with us, there is no force involved, and there is an understanding that if you let us be, you'll be left alone. (obviously, this ends if we bother them...)

Yes it could be started but in the end its really just fear tactics and not True peace and harmony. in the end people will rise up no matter what the size of an army
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.
My work here is, finally, done.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:35:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:31:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:25:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

you assume that i would assume that you would believe the statement. you are so horribly wrong

Your words:

"Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace""

You give us an inquiry, that is based on the premise that your initial premise is correct. You also just assert that this is "very true", and do not pose that as the discussion topic of the OP. So, yes, your OP clearly show that your audience would believe this statement to be true.

but thats not what i believe. i said that its very very true. that was my OPINION. And i cleary put that i understand you will probably not accept it no matter what i say.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:33:17 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:26:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

1. "Peace cannot be kept by force" does not mean that it can't begin with it.
2. How is this quote at odds with the concept of "peace through strength"? If we have a strong military, and you'd be a fool to mess with us, there is no force involved, and there is an understanding that if you let us be, you'll be left alone. (obviously, this ends if we bother them...)

Yes it could be started but in the end its really just fear tactics and not True peace and harmony. in the end people will rise up no matter what the size of an army

I think you are confusing fear tactics with understanding strength.

If the nation of Khaos_Mage is outgunned by Cyberland, but Cyberland does not interfere with my nation, why would my citizens want to rise up against Cyberland? Cyberland lives in peace, because they know we won't mess with them, and since they leave us be, there is no reason to do so.

Now, if Cyberland was using its strength to bully my nation (through trade or tariffs or the like), that is another story, isn't it?
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:43:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:42:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:33:17 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:26:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

1. "Peace cannot be kept by force" does not mean that it can't begin with it.
2. How is this quote at odds with the concept of "peace through strength"? If we have a strong military, and you'd be a fool to mess with us, there is no force involved, and there is an understanding that if you let us be, you'll be left alone. (obviously, this ends if we bother them...)

Yes it could be started but in the end its really just fear tactics and not True peace and harmony. in the end people will rise up no matter what the size of an army

I think you are confusing fear tactics with understanding strength.

If the nation of Khaos_Mage is outgunned by Cyberland, but Cyberland does not interfere with my nation, why would my citizens want to rise up against Cyberland? Cyberland lives in peace, because they know we won't mess with them, and since they leave us be, there is no reason to do so.

Now, if Cyberland was using its strength to bully my nation (through trade or tariffs or the like), that is another story, isn't it?

ohhhhh thats what you were meaning then yeah i guess that would work
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:46:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:43:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

And, the response is more force, which begs more force, and ultimately there is no peace, is there? So, what is wrong with the quote?

An example of peace through force would be a force cease-fire, or two warring factions (civil war) finally being over. Now, if someone bring force back into the picture...
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:47:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:35:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:31:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:25:47 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:

you assume that i would assume that you would believe the statement. you are so horribly wrong

Your words:

"Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace""

You give us an inquiry, that is based on the premise that your initial premise is correct. You also just assert that this is "very true", and do not pose that as the discussion topic of the OP. So, yes, your OP clearly show that your audience would believe this statement to be true.

but thats not what i believe. i said that its very very true. that was my OPINION. And i cleary put that i understand you will probably not accept it no matter what i say.

Truth =/= opinion. An opinion is "saying that you thought a movie is good", since it has subjective value. Reality and claims about reality that have predictive power is not opinion-based though. When you're stating that peace cannot be sustained through force, but understanding, you're making a real-world prediction here on what policy implication would maximize peace, that can be measured and verified.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:51:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:46:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:43:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

And, the response is more force, which begs more force, and ultimately there is no peace, is there? So, what is wrong with the quote?

This is an example of force, through the threat of force, even though there's no killing or harm actually done.

An example of peace through force would be a force cease-fire, or two warring factions (civil war) finally being over. Now, if someone bring force back into the picture...

It is also sustained through threat of force, which is the same as real force, as my example demonstrates.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 4:58:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:51:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:46:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:43:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

And, the response is more force, which begs more force, and ultimately there is no peace, is there? So, what is wrong with the quote?

This is an example of force, through the threat of force, even though there's no killing or harm actually done.


An example of peace through force would be a force cease-fire, or two warring factions (civil war) finally being over. Now, if someone bring force back into the picture...

It is also sustained through threat of force, which is the same as real force, as my example demonstrates.

So, the threat of force as a consequence equals force?
So, by the United States having a strong military, and assuming we weren't using it, we are coercing others into peace?
With that line of reasoning, what doesn't constitute force? Why is a threat of retaliation considered force? (I understand this isn't what we are doing, but if it were, and the military was used ONLY to retaliate and nothing more, AND we left other countries alone (so we weren't using our strength to affect others directly))

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

This is not what I am suggesting.
What I say is not force is my saying I have a gun and will kill you dead if you try to tell me what to do. There is no force unless I am forced to retaliate. My gun ought to keep a mugger at bay (prevents force) and I don't use my force proactively.
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:10:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:58:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:51:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:46:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:43:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:34:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

How is this topic relevant to the quote in question?
Pacifism is the non-instigation, or responding with, violence (i.e. force).
The quote does not suggest that force cannot bring temporary peace, but that it cannot sustain it.

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

And, the response is more force, which begs more force, and ultimately there is no peace, is there? So, what is wrong with the quote?

This is an example of force, through the threat of force, even though there's no killing or harm actually done.


An example of peace through force would be a force cease-fire, or two warring factions (civil war) finally being over. Now, if someone bring force back into the picture...

It is also sustained through threat of force, which is the same as real force, as my example demonstrates.

So, the threat of force as a consequence equals force?
So, by the United States having a strong military, and assuming we weren't using it, we are coercing others into peace?
With that line of reasoning, what doesn't constitute force? Why is a threat of retaliation considered force? (I understand this isn't what we are doing, but if it were, and the military was used ONLY to retaliate and nothing more, AND we left other countries alone (so we weren't using our strength to affect others directly))

And the threat of force doesn't constitute real force to you? If someone said to you that If you do not as I say, I will kill you and everyone you care about, that it is not force, that you are not being forced to do something?

This is not what I am suggesting.
What I say is not force is my saying I have a gun and will kill you dead if you try to tell me what to do. There is no force unless I am forced to retaliate. My gun ought to keep a mugger at bay (prevents force) and I don't use my force proactively.

The government/state itself is maintained through force, and not just self-defense force. It uses force in order to obtain your resources (money) through taxation. If you refuse to pay your taxes, then you will be arrested. This is the way the system works.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2013 5:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But yes, I did conflate the idea of self-defense from aggression as a form of force. Self-defense is still a form of force, even if it isn't a form of aggression.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 3:17:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 4:03:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because it isn't true at all. Debate.org taught me that.

http://www.debate.org...

LOL. dat response.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 9:33:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

Because its more manly.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:35:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/12/2013 2:55:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
a lot of people think its crazy for cartoons to teach you something but at the end of a movie i just watched this appeared on the screen.

Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding.

this is very very true.

So why, i must ask, do we have to go in with military force to create "peace"

I think this is a fairly solid question, actually.

First, I'd like to indicate that I agree that peace cannot be kept by force, and can only be achieved through understanding. Peace is a delicate state of being that must be maintained every moment through collective agreement. This agreement requires universal understanding, not only of one another, but also of the nature and necessity of peace.

Creating peace does not require any sort of force. It can include force, and it is possible through force, but force isn't required. Maintaining peace cannot be through force, though. The use of force isn't peaceful. Therefore, where there is force, there isn't peace.

Granted, when one puts this in perspective, it becomes almost too obvious to serve as a syllogism, tantamount to indicating that silence cannot be kept through yelling. However, the truest statements are the simplest. Indeed, people often attempt to maintain quiet through yelling. Some people might rationalize it by positing similar arguments found in this thread, i.e. if one tries to get people to be quiet by whispering or speaking at a normal level, then those yelling likely wouldn't even hear.

However, it remains true that if a group of people were to understand the reasons behind remaining quiet beforehand and agree to maintain quiet, then it wouldn't make sense to shout all the time to maintain this quiet.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 10:43:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To reply to the question presented by the OP, the answer is that one isn't entering a situation with military force to maintain peace, per se. It is to increase power and influence.

Historically, invasions and skirmishes were often the result of smaller territories attempting to gain political or resource leverage. Just as often, they were the result of personal grudges between leaders to contrasting political perspectives resulting in ideological clashes between cultures. The belief that continues until today is that the solution is to unite such peoples under one despot or government, mitigating these issues entirely and thus, creating "peace." This is likely more to what the anime was referring, given this is a pervading theme throughout eastern history. Western history isn't quite the same -- it may have been like this at the time of the Roman and Greek empires, but since then, westerners have fought among themselves with no real resolution, remaining a series of small, hardly cooperative provinces (save for the United States, which came in with a plan, and through that initial understanding, maintained peace with the exception of the Civil War, which resulted from a cessation of that understanding and corresponding agreement).
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2013 11:14:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As for that debate, it was won through the conflation of self defense and creating/maintaining peace. That isn't quite the same thing.

One of the major points raised in the debate is a woman who would need to defense herself against a rapist. Well, the realities of rape are so sordid and terrible, that carrying around a mace can is going to do little to allay most situations. Rapists will do anything, from drug someone, inebriate them, beat them with a weapon, threaten them with a gun, and even blackmail them in order to violate their victims. They are most often someone that the victim knows personally, rendering them especially unequipped to protect themselves, even if they are adroit at self defense.

The point is that the initial understanding necessary to maintain peace does not take into account human evils. In fact, peace isn't possible due to human evils. Peace is not a natural state of humanity in general.