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

Do wars help secure the average person, mind and body both?

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: 6/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,098 times Debate No: 57070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




When people feel like they need to begin a war, what are their motives? There could be many reasons why, but some examples could be:
< New land to own
< Merely conquering
< Wanted resources found in the territory they want
< To get rid of a certain race, religion, or belief
< To save their country from any threats they fear
< They hate the opponent
< Etc.
So, yes, there are more reasons, reasonable or not, for which a country or government would actually want to start a war. But how does this effect the colonists? How about even the people inside the army. Almost always, a person will be involved in a war because
a) They are forced in a war
b) They want to serve their country willingly
c) They feel the war needs a new perspective
We can assume that they are usually picked in the category b), because many people believe their country is theirs, it belongs to them. What makes a country? A good government? Much money? Good land? A smart army? Yes, yes, yes, and yes . . . but that is what makes a country into a good country. What makes the country itself? The people in it. A country is defended by the people who own it, the country in itself. Why would they take part in something they don't think is worth it? No one uses their life on something they think will fail. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to feel a safe environment. Would you, or anyone you know, fight to keep a torture device running if you knew that tomorrow it would torture you? Is there any chance of you risking your life, so that your jail cell guard would keep his eyes on you? a person needs to not only feel, but know that the country they are serving and protecting will fight to give them the best they could get. Do wars create that sense of strength and protection? I know one thing wars do. wars give your country extra money. Extra money for the country means more war supplies. with more war supplies, the colonists feel safer, they can now know that their country is better than the opponent. what happens then? They work harder to keep this thing going! What better determination than to know you will live longer, because your country is trying? So here is the question that sets the debate off . . .
"Do wars help secure our average person?"


War does not secure anything other than death and destruction. Your points are intriguing but you are missing the core concepts behind why wars start and the human psychology that drives war. Governments and leadership initiate wars to amass power. This trickles down to the masses in the form of mind manipulation which usually targets young men who are brave and ego driven but have no real understanding of the true brutality of war. Thus, they are eager and excited to serve their countries but once in the war realize the brutality they are stuck in. Hitler was a prime example of someone who used his leadership to inspire people to join the war. He was so adept at manipulating that many Germans engaged in warlike behaviour that went against who they actually were. Hitler also used fear to force these Germans to fight. So in essence no true choice was made by the individual as they would have been jailed or killed if they didn't fight.

The public are pawns of this manipulation and it depends on the country of origin to decipher how bad the manipulation is. Most wars are unjust but some are necessary to prevent larger escalations. Humans are war like creatures so to some degree it does secure the body and mind theory you propose as it appeals to the raw human psychology within us. The reality of war changes that way of thinking for the survivors of war and the ones who don't survive are statistics and irrelevant. The war machine keeps turning but the wheel of these turns is geared by fear, power hunger, and control. These are not true methods to achieve spiritual solidity of the body and mind. This will need to be evolved out of our system otherwise our destruction is imminent.

Countries are how people identify themselves and become prideful. This pride is usually based on comparing themselves to other countries. The ones with less have a higher rate of warlike behaviour. The removal of countries will be one of the best achievements humans can make as we will become more global in our thinking rather than nationalistic. Nationalistic thinking drives warlike behaviour. Once we identify ourselves as earthlings then we can solve many of the global crises. In the current format we exploit the weak nations and try to profit from there pain. This warlike behaviour is causing rebellion and terrorism as the weak are rising against this feeling of exploitation. Globalism by the removal of nation states would create more cohesiveness. This cohesiveness will lead to a true strengthening of the body, mind and spirit. War is the illusion that one is administered by the powerful. This power is an illusion in itself as it will lead to everyone's destruction. Global cooperation, kindness and unity will achieve a healthy body, spirit, and mind for all. Peace.
Debate Round No. 1


I think you do have a good point in your last topic. I am ignoring the fact that I am a con and you are the pro, yet you act like a con. Why don't we just discuss this instead of making it an actual "you are wrong I think I'm right" topic.

When you fight a war you creat a symbol, a monument. China has the "Great Wall of China", America has the "Statue of Liberty", Russia has a few, including the "Cathedral of St. Sophia", and the "Kremlin". All of those serve different purposes as far as what they represent. They represent honor, independence, strength and power, and more. But there is something they all do for their country. They all stand as a representation. Now that they have something to prove, something that other nations either:
A) want
B) want to destroy
The enemies now have a reason to fight for their destruction. Now they mean something. Now people notice their country. "Feared yet wanted by all". That's what every country wants, isn't it? For people to realize there is a reason to notice them.

With a monument we now own the land, we aren't just on it. Is fighting not terrible enough that is deserves punishment? Do we reward those who decide to waste lives, throw away money, and risk everything just to destroy someone else? Yes we do. But why do we pretend it is a good thing? It' she cause we want it for ourselves also, and to get it, we have to give it to others. So fighting can be good in some ways, but bad in many other ways.

I am trying to get a perspective of both sides as you can see, but I assure you I am against random war.

Every time you try to think of how a general's mind works (for those who do it) you can't imagine being so blind. Who would do that just to break down the Great Wall of China? Not me . . . But wait yes you would. Who can resist finishing off their opponent once they have them in their grasp. Why let the tiger go when you have a rope around his jaw? Anyone who feels confident to have war will go after it. So why start war at all?

You said that pride usually comes from countries comparing themselves to other countries. Why compare? That nation has a wall and you have a statue . . . Great! Now forget about destroying their wall just so you will stand out from the others. What if you do stand out from the other nations on earth? Then you are in the spotlight and what do you do then? You can't turn back now, everyone is against you. Standing out isn't always the best thing. If you are hungry for death, war, and rage between to nations, who says your enemies won't be either? Like you said, HGFLYER, it is like the wheels of gears. When you start turning, you keep going fast and faster. When you get too tired to keep up with the wheel, everyone else is still turning it, so you just get dragged along. It' say bumpy ride, too. Why go through all the trouble, if it is not what you want to commit to the whole time. What if it is what you are ready to keep at for the rest of your life. Hitler seems to be a very widely-used example, but I will use him again. When he decided to kill a whole race, he obviously knew it would take more than his lifetime, so he made it count. My did he make it count, indeed. We still know him right? Everyone who is past 4th grade knows who Hitler was. Why do we know who he was? Because he made a gigantic mark, and stuck with it until his death! That is why countries fight for their cause! They see something valuable, like the Kremlin statue, and use it as their basis.
"Oh, Russia? That's where the famous statues used to be. They sure did pursue in the ___ war. Now look at them, most famous country and government on earth."

That is what everyone who governs a nation wants. To be recognized. Does war really create that? Is it exactly what you need to make yourself known, by slaughtering millions? Hitler did it, but is Germany still the dreaded nation it was 3 years after he died?


You are a little bit all over the place in your last passage but I have no problem just chatting with you and not having a formal debate. Think of it in terms of control. War stems from a desire to have more control which is one of the most prominent mind concepts in the world. The funny thing is that their really is no control. Control is an illusion and yet people and nations are constantly trying to prove that they can control. Some will have large periods of time where they are mighty and maintain large amounts of Global or regional control but history has shown that it is not infinite. Think of the Roman Empire, the former Soviet Union, British empire, Japan, Germany and one day the United States. Even America understands this concept and tries to achieve peace with the rest of the world but countries like China are entering there control phases and have no interest in giving that up now, especially cause it has just begun for them. Control and a desire for more (greed) are human conditions that create war. The victories lead to monuments as you mentioned but even the monuments are illusions as they are a form of mind manipulation for the commoners who live in those countries. It would be smarter to create monuments more in line with losses or tragedies as they can be referenced to never make the same war like mistakes. Again America is understanding of this concept but the rest of the world is mostly still aggressive and controlling.

Back to the concept of Control which drives warlike behaviour....To maintain control one needs to make constant decisions that allow for domination. It is not possible to calculate all the variables, especially during war and thus control becomes impossible. Striving for less control actually brings more peace and power to ones life. The reason is the closest representation of control comes at the individualistic level. I can control how I feel, think, act etc but it is very challenging to control others. Think of this in terms of countries vying for control. How can a country attempt to control another when there are so many different variables and options that remove the control. Look at Iraq as an example. America left Iraq in what they thought was a controlled situation that would lead to a shining democracy. It even looked like that was the case upon there departure a few years ago but today's reality is much different. The control we thought we created was never really in place and was a total illusion. The many variables within Iraq both religious, historical, cultural, regional, and more created a situation where control was never possible for the long term. I'm not suggesting isolationism as the answer but I am suggesting less attempts to try to control as it is not possible. Smart, selective decisions are more powerful than large, sweeping, illusionary attempts to establish control. A smarter approach is selective assassination of evil, grassroots programs promoting freedom and democracy, and selective missions of special forces teams. At the end of the day even those decisions are attempts at control and usually do not solve the core problems.

My friend - follow the guideline of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.....This approach is needed globally but unfortunately we are not there yet and won't be in our lives. You can harness your individualism by understanding that a simple life is your greatest method of control. It will allow you to have ownership of your feelings, not let others influence how you feel and to establish boundaries. You can pursue your dreams, help others and influence the world but if you start reaching for power, money, decadence you are no longer living the simple life you are trying to control life. This control is in a vein attempt to have more....You will have the most if you strive for simple ideals that are Godly. Love - real connection - charity and respect are simple concepts that will fill you with more than any riches can. Understanding that power and control are games of opposites is a challenging concept but read up on it and you will see that control is the greatest illusion and one that history has tried to teach us over and over again. Human nature pushes people for control and human nature pushes us to our imminent destruction. Peace my friend!
Debate Round No. 2


witheringtrees forfeited this round.


By forfeiting a round I'm assuming boredom has set in or the chronic has worn off and you have become uninterested. Either way forfeiting definitely doesn't secure the mind and body. It actually weakens the spirit by giving up!
Debate Round No. 3


witheringtrees forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.