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

War does more good than harm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 2,047 times Debate No: 57050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




War, the 'tradgedy of humanity,' but despite the disasters it has caused and the millions of lives lost,there are positive affects that benefit us humans today.


I accept your challenge, and when we start Round 2, I already have an argument ready. I will keep my sources on a list, and if asked to present these sources, I will be able to.
Debate Round No. 1


War. All in all if has caused geneside,murder and destroyed great cities. However this cost is mere compared to all the lives it has benefited.

Penicillin was the first mass produced drug in the world and was mass produced in war to save soldiers at the front. Since then has saved over 200 million lives in the past 73 years.This mass production fuelled by war did bot only save over 200 million lives, but fuelled a new industry:the drugs industry(medical drugs).Sinse 1945, the drugs industry has almost tripled in size. Vaccines were also mass produced at the beginning of ww2 and have saved 365 million lives. Without war, the medical industry wouldn't have had the kick start it needed to make as much of an impact as it has.


The scientific benefit of war has actually been counter-productive. During the burning of Nazi Books, many books that had many knowledge were destroyed. In addition, other ancient examples including the great burning of books in the Library of Alexandria has brought back society hundreds of years. Not to add that when countries are at war, the scientific community is brought to total war. This means instead of focusing on scientific advancements that would benefit people (Ex. Better medicine based on helping diseases that inflict people today such as HIV/AIDS and Cancer, and technology that would assist travel like the car and the airplane, which were both intended not for war and for civilian usage) they would focus on building the bigger gun or building the best airplane. The best example of this could been seen in the late 1800's to the early 1900's in the United States, when the car, telephone, and the airplane (Three tools that would be used for both civilian and military usage) would be made. War merely brought advancement to these three technologies.

Not to consider that scientific advancements in the war are meant to be meant about killing others rather than other things. The best example of wartime technology that was made specifically to kill rather than assist would be the Atom Bomb. This bomb was made under the Manhattan Project in the 40's by many scientific researchers. Though this bomb was crucial in the winning of the war, the technology has led to catastrophic injuries to the planet including radioactive zones that nobody can enter without being killed from radiation poisoning, the world being technically put at the brink of war multiple times because of the development of this weapon, and numerous times where this weapon has caused international crisis's (Look at Iran and North Korea alone nowadays and you can understand. Look at the Soviet Nuclear weapons test that put us in an issue).

If you are meaning competition, that does drive scientific development in many fields. Look at the Cold War (Which is no more than talk and a few proxy wars in a couple of countries). This war involved Russia trying to build ahead of our technology, but we did not allow that.

Not to mention the fact that wars do include massive genocides, radicalization of populations, and occupation where war occurred.

For example, the radicalization of populations. The United States was very racist against Japanese, German, and Italian people during World War 2 directly because the nations that they represented were enemies of the state. Another example would include the racist policies that occurred in Japan during the time, attacking Chinese people out of hatred, directly related to the fact that they were enemies of the state.

Massive Genocides also occur because of this radicalization of the populations.

Occupation and the costs of occupation can be easily shown in Afghanistan. The United States alone has been put 60.45 billion dollars in Iraq and 100 Billion dollars in Afghanistan, still with little to no improvements being seen in these countries. This has been shown to be a catastrophe.

War in general has been very harmful to society.
Debate Round No. 2


I cant be bothered to debate . Next debate I will actually research.


Agreed. Than I will make certain about other things. First of all, the fact involving vaccines is wrong. Vaccines have existed since the 1700's, 1800's, and 1900's. Penicillin wasn't actually discovered until 1928, after World War I. Not only such, but showing from your history on World War 2, it holds a huge financial burden. In efforts, World War 2 costed 4 trillion USD (Current USD) only for the United States. This shows without a doubt that the 4 trillion that was in that could had been used in many other good ways.

Going to ancient times, many villages and cities were pillaged during war. The Sacking of Rome was related directly to a war. Because of the Sacking of Rome, there are few ancient structures that existed in Rome that exist today.
Debate Round No. 3


jungleseu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gotleib 7 years ago
Jungleseu, if you are not going to post anything, the respectable thing to do would be to forfeit the argument or not post anything for the next one so the voting period can go forward. If you are forfeiting, than the right thing to do is to forfeit so this debate can be closed.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Posted by jungleseu 7 years ago
Just to tell you I am doing this debate to simply see the system of debating (as this is the first debate on this website). I know a lot about history and ww2 aswell as the pilitics involved. I am preparing my counter argument using what knowledge I know already from documentries and books.
Posted by witheringtrees 7 years ago
I think this is a very interesting topic and should really be researched more. You competitors have only based this off of two things:
1. You are using facts you already knew, but not any opinions you have
2. You have done some research on it, but have either of you studied for hours on the nets, or spent a weekend at the library?
I know there are multiple debates on this certain subject. It is an important topic. But having important topics doesn't mean two people who care about war fighting through good grammar on the internet. We should try to get more of the world into politics, war, and even government abilities. Think of the cheesy movies where Miss Congeniality declares, "That's easy. I have always wanted World Peace." This is not taken seriously at all, but think of the very first person who thought of that. World peace is what he/she wanted. He/she didn't repeat the scripted words . . . why do we not care that lives are being destroyed? And especially since it is merely for a few resources. More resources mined, more land, bragging rights to be declared the wealthiest nation and/or government, and their religions to dominate the world are a few examples of why the greedy nations toss living beings into a trash can. Why is this?
More research is what I would suggest. If necessary or even wanted, I can and will start my own debate. I will continue to study this topic as I have now started when I opened this website for the first time and came immediately to a debate on war. I am hoping that the debaters aren't finding an interesting topic to help kill time, because it deserves better than that.

-- Withering Trees --
Posted by IceClimbers 7 years ago
i do not think hes need to be more specific i dont see how this is hard to understand i dont see how people cant use their brains
that's why in this debate you would hit the war in all different angles instead of just one......smh
Posted by Werdna 7 years ago
I agree with the other person who commented. There have been many different wars throughout history, some longer and more significant than others.
Posted by Malacoda 7 years ago
You need to be way more specific. Take one war and look at its effects. Not war in general.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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.