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

WWI was atrocious!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/27/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 51037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance only.

To define 'atrocious' as used in this context, I am stating that the First World War was stupid, the trench warfare of it was dumb and it was an almost pointless war. The idea of 'I'll run at your guys and get mowed down and you'll do the same' was really stupid.


we needed the war. And most men did not get mowed down. trench warfare was the best kind of warfare (if their is one). That minimized deaths and we one. We needed that war because british freedom was being threaten
Debate Round No. 1


To start off I will say that FIRST ROUND WAS ACCEPTANCE ONLY! You were only supposed to state acceptance.

1) Why or how was the war needed? If we didn't have it, Germany would have lived in ruins and then some new rule would have came in overtime and changed things. All WWI did was bring Germany under embargo and suppression, causing Hitler to rise to power as chancellor in 1933 and then soon enough, dictator. After WWII, Hitler died and his Nazi Commanders were sent on trial at the Nuremberg Trials.

2) Most men did in fact get mowed down. WWI was the first days of the machine gun, so these infantry squads would run into thousands of bullets and just die. Then the opposing side would attempt the same thing. It was a game of do I run or hide?

3) Trench Warfare is in no way, shape or form the best kind of warfare out there. It was very stupid, as partially explained in my second response. Trench Warfare left soldiers digging and hiding in trenches and lead Germany's military out to the ocean when they planned on attacking France. The trenches were built from one side of the area out to the ocean and Germany had to go around through Belgium into France, where the war took place (Belgium and France). All they would do is sit in their trenches waiting to run out and attack yet fail and die. This was how most of the First World War took place.

Those are my responses. Also, ever hear of trench foot? Yeah, I wouldn't want to end up with that.

State your next argument please.


The_halo_master forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


You have failed to make a first argument. That will count against you. Please proceed to actually have an argument for the next round or be automatically disqualified.

On another note, all World War One did was lead to the second World War which really didn't change much, in fact, it was darkest era of human history, tens of millions of people being purged, imprisoned and sent to war. Stalin's death toll at about 20 million and Hitler's at about 13 million. Either way you look at it not nice guys.

And let's not even say that WWI was the war that lasted 6 years when it was supposed to last 6 weeks. I find it disturbing how you find WWI to have been a necessary war. Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June of 1914, and then Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum on Serbia, yet if it wasn't for the allies system, the war would have just been between Serbia and A-H. But no! Germany, Russia, France, the US and the United Kingdom just had to get involved.

After WWI, Germany was in an even bigger mess and so was Japan because of things happening in "pacific world" during the First World War. After WWI, Manchuria was invaded by Japan which caused a whole big mess that would probably have been prevented if WWI hadn't existed. Imperialist Japan was a result of American trade embargoes placed on Japan by the League of Nations, perhaps if Japan hadn't stuck in their nose in the wrong war and gotten involved with the Central Powers they would have been fine.

And this time, try to actually state an argument sir.


The_halo_master forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RepublicanMan 7 years ago
I ask that anyone voting vote against my opponent. They made one argument out of three. They wasted my time, therefore I will reopen the debate soon after the voting period of this one and I will select a reputable opponent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Ful Forfeit. 7 points to pro.

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