frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




War! What is it good for?

Debate Information

Absolutely Nothing! Unless you're Cheney, in which case it's good for profit, it's not so good for the hundreds of thousands of people killed of maimed, but who cares? You rich! And you're never going to have to deal with the consequences of committing mass murder, the people who expose your crimes, Julian Assange for example, well it ain't looking good for them. And people will totally forget what you did and forgive you after 10 years! Well, not the people you killed and maimed, (of course the people you killed can't forgive you), but just the people who you spied on, which by the way you also got away with, unlike that bastard Edward Snowden, in fact, your accomplice, who happens to be your daughter Liz, is now loved by many of the people! They want her to be president! I bet you would be so proud!
BobbyColovviePepsiguy



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Sometimes it's the only way to deal with evil

    Could Hitler's quest for world domination and destruction of Judaism be stopped with pacifism? No.
    Could South Korea be liberated with pacifism? No.
    Could slavery be stopped in the confederacy with pacifism? No.

    JulesKorngoldNomenclaturejackZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: If you wanted to deal with evil you'd arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes

    Could Hitler's quest for world domination and destruction of Judaism be stopped with pacifism? No.

    Saddam didn't have a quest for world domination and invading Iraq was illegal under the provisions of the UN Charter, dummy. That makes YOU the evil, not Saddam. America reneged on its agreement to the world not to invade any sovereign nation without a UN resolution, and it did so on the basis of a complete effing lie.

    Arguing with brainwashed drones like you is infuriating. Are you aware that the US has a military presence in 170 out of 195 countries? And you're talking about quests for world domination? Are you mad? 

    Could South Korea be liberated with pacifism? No.

    You didn't liberate South Korea you numpty. North and South Korea were to be divided like East and West Germany. While it is true that North Korea went into South Korea first, it is also true that the North was invaded after America got involved. The Chinese then got involved, pushed the Americans out of North Korea and the end result was a stalemate.

    It beggars belief how they convince you numbskulls that America are always the good guys. You're a bunch of adults who walk around with the naivety of small children.

    ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    From the game-theoretical perspective this is an unsustainable mentality. If player A can improve his position by hurting player B's position and player B does not react to such a move, then the optimal strategy for player A is to repeatedly hurt player B's position. When translated into the real world, it means that when the reaction to actions of a murderous regime is pacifist, then the murderous regime has every incentive to crank up the violence. Eventually someone will have to fight back, and the longer everyone waits, the more painful the eventual (inevitable) war will be.

    I do not know if a military invasion was warranted in the particular cases you referenced, but the idea that it is never warranted is unrealistic. It is the same as with small scale violence: however pacifistic you want to be, if a murderer comes into your house, his gun is not going to care about the height of your moral ground. There are cases in which you have to fight to defend yourself or others, and there are cases in which you have to enter wars with the same purpose.
    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 22
    @MayCaesar
    From the game-theoretical perspective this is an unsustainable mentality. If player A can improve his position by hurting player B's position and player B does not react to such a move, then the optimal strategy for player A is to repeatedly hurt player B's position. When translated into the real world, it means that when the reaction to actions of a murderous regime is pacifist, then the murderous regime has every incentive to crank up the violence.

    The problem is the idea that the world is playing a game and the aim of the game is to hurt the other player's position. If that is the case -- and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- then the world is playing a game of its own making, with the objective game being survival against the universe, which is continuously trying to kill us. 

    I do not know if a military invasion was warranted in the particular cases you referenced, but the idea that it is never warranted is unrealistic. It is the same as with small scale violence: however pacifistic you want to be, if a murderer comes into your house, his gun is not going to care about the height of your moral ground.

    I think you might be conflating two separate ideas here. Everybody should have the right to defend themselves, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion in America about where defence ends and attack begins. Sending your troops halfway across the world to invade another country is always attack, never defence. In certain rare cases, such as the rampage of Hitler across Europe, attack can be morally justified. However, it is still attack, and the problem with forgetting that fact is it then becomes abundantly easier to falsely justify future invasions on the same basis. 

    ZeusAres42
  • @Nomenclature

    I think you might be conflating two separate ideas here. Everybody should have the right to defend themselves, This is a fallacy for in America evertone has liberty to defend, preserve and protect as a united state of law American Constitution as a United State of higher law.

     but there seems to be a great deal of confusion in America about where defence ends and attack begins. Sending your troops halfway across the world to invade another country is always attack, never defence. Again wrong, when those people do not hold a united state of constitution in law it is an asulat as preservation. The agument before Congress is that the legilsators themselves fail to hold states as a republic for the safty of "We the people."

    In certain rare cases, such as the XXX(rampage)XXX Edit: BLITZKRIEG! of Hitler across Europe, attack can be morally justified. However, it is still attack, ( is not ) and the problem with forgetting that fact is it then becomes abundantly easier to falsely justify future invasions on the same basis. No, its just you coaching a few witnesses.....that's all.

    NomenclatureZeusAres42
  •  but there seems to be a great deal of confusion in America about where defence ends and attack begins. Sending your troops halfway across the world to invade another country is always attack, never defence. Again wrong, when those people do not hold a united state of constitution in law it is an assault as preservation. The argument before Congress is that the legislators themselves in Congress fail to hold thier own states as a republic for the safety of "We the people."

    We know this is true as representatives already make false claims their states are Democratic states openly as piont of polotics. Democracy is a liberty we all hold together as one united state or it is not held at all. We do not write illegal law and use an executive order to imply tough, live with it. That is just ……..just……pointless, we are allowed to disobey all orders which are in violation of codes of conduct. Article 92 states it is only wrong to disobey a lawful order when two or more laws conflict they are both no longer lawful and become unlawful as the connection to established justice is broken by the conflict. Popularity don’t mean sh%t.fix it or shut the 4377 up. SNAFU


    Nomenclature
  • The question is when someone declares War on you........do you really have the liberty to say you are not at War with them?

    When someone declares War have they made themsevles clear they are not at War with everyone?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    This is a fallacy for in America evertone has liberty to defend, preserve and protect

    It isn't a fallacy at all, John. Defence and attack are linguistic opposites, but your population has been brainwashed into using them interchangeably. Flying your troops halfway across the world to launch a ground invasion is not defence. That's attack, and there should be absolutely no confusion about that. America is a military culture and in all military cultures a narrative must be laid down to persuade the ordinary citizens that they are the good guys, otherwise it will lead to civil unrest. 

    Again wrong, when those people do not hold a united state of constitution in law it is an assault as preservation.

    I am 100 percent correct John and your failure to comprehend the basic difference between attack and defence only proves my point. The inability of many Americans to understand such basic truths is why it is so infuriating arguing with you. Perhaps we should test the theory in real terms. Give me your address, I'll come over and pistol whip you, then we can both agree that was defence because I was preserving myself from annoyance.

  • @anarchist100

    They want her to be president!
    A women cannot be held as a President of the United States of America, at least legally, all women can be held forever by a United States in Constitutional Right assigned as Presadera....

  • @Nomenclature

    It isn't a fallacy at all, John. Defence and attack are linguistic opposites, but your population has been brainwashed into using them interchangeably. Flying your troops halfway across the world to launch a ground invasion is not defence. That's attack, and there should be absolutely no confusion about that. America is a military culture and in all military cultures a narrative must be laid down to persuade the ordinary citizens that they are the good guys, otherwise it will lead to civil unrest. 

    It was a movement towards source of infiltration.................Period.


  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: War! What is it good for?


    Hello a:

    It cleans out clogged pipes.

    excon
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    War is good for at least one very good purpose, (there are others) it forces nations to think straight.    Throughout history, wars have been lost, even by great powers against smaller ones, because the small nation thought straight and the big nation did not.     The latest example is the Russia-Ukraine war, where Putin confidently thought that Russia would over run Ukraine in just a few days, the Ukrainians would not resist. the Ukrainian government would flee, so his military did not even need an organised logistics tail.     Events proved him wrong one very count.    And now the fool is in a quagmire.

     Throughout history, wars have been lost because of such stupidity, at both the strategic and operational level.   Warlords who relied upon astrologers, a belief in divine protection, ideological perfection, or that shamans, witchdoctors, feminists, or transgender activists could give advise to whiskered warriors advice on in how armies should be organised, and wars should be fought, usually ended up on the losing side.    

      My favourite example of how ideology trumped practical military necessity was the example of Communist China, who in 1979 went to war with Vietnam.     Their ideology was absolutely obsessed with equality, and so the commissars decreed that the Red Chinese Army must not display badges of rank on their uniforms.    It was this almost leaderless rabble that attempted to invade Vietnam, when the normal chain of military command could not be instantly recognised by the guys on the front line.     The consequences were catastrophic.    The Chinese lost more soldiers dead in 3 months of fighting the Vietnamese, than the Americans lost in 8 years fighting the same enemy.     Even the CCP knew that they could no longer rely on their own ideology for success, and they hurriedly reinstituted badges of rank in the Chinese army.

     The CCP also learned a lesson from the Gulf War which changed Chinese society.    The ideological position was that advanced weapons were not necessary, China could defend itself simply by giving arms to the peasantry in times of war.   It's tanks, artillery,  and air force were positively antiquated.     The advances in military technology used by the western allies in the Gulf shocked the Chinese government and armed forces leaders to the core.     They realised that to have a credible defense, they had to change their political and economic system from a left wing totalitarian system to a right wing totalitarian system.   That did not make much difference to the CCP, the guys at the top who had all the money and power, and all the young girls their tongues could handle, simply changed from right to left, and it made no difference to them.

     War changed Britain as well.    For 200 years, the British Army was defeated in just about every battle it fought in because of political correctness.    That was, that the government was so leery of the Army taking control of Parliament, that only the most trusted senior officers were given control of military units.     Loyalty trumped proficiency.     It was all Cromwell's fault, he marched the Army into Parliament not once, but twice.     So the British had a system not unlike in Putin's Russia today.    They did not care how much of a complete fool any senior officer proved to be, as long as they could trust him, that was okay with them.

     This led to a long line of defeats by university and staff college trained elitists who thought that they were all Alexanders, because of who they were, not because they knew anything about fighting a war.     They just assumed that they would always win every battle because their social position mandated that they must always be right.    So these hubris drenched dunderheads managed to get defeated, time after time, by semi literate Boer farmers, or illiterate tribesmen, who may not have known Shakespeare or Shelley, but who knew how to use terrain, and knew how march harder, dig faster, and shoot straighter than the British.

     The British government itself finally grew a brain and realised that just giving military positions to out of touch nobles,  was not going to win them any wars.     They had to do something about using merit to fill the ranks of the officer core.    Although, today, they have a new political correct idea that you can fill your military ranks with women, and men who may be religiously or culturally akin to your nations enemies, and it won't make any difference when the bullets start to fly.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch