Is war necessary?
Everywhere war, do we need it? Is it good, or should we try to get rid of it?
Of course
Side Score: 27
|
Better to avoid it
Side Score: 34
|
|
|
|
War is always necessary. We need a bit of violence to shake people up! The world is falling apart in the mismanagement of the government, but if we would unite under a single flag, the world would be a better place! And the only way to achieve this sadly remains war, we need war. Side: Of course
2
points
you are talking about specific circumstances, not generalized universals - the necessity of war might exist given certain conditions, but if certain conditions were avoided perpetually the necessity of war would not exist. Thus war is not necessary as a fundamental quality of human beings or civilization. Side: Better to avoid it
3
points
I agree that many (most people are not evolved enough), however i think that although present political and social forces make war circumstantially necessary that it is not a perfect necessity of the human condition - it is not a universally perpetual kind of necessity. So yes kind of, but insofar as how the question was presented (as a universal perpetual), no. Side: Better to avoid it
Peace won't help anybody! We need to regulate the world, and it's good. It is our right to do so. We need to know where we stand in this struggle, and then fight with everything we have got. To create a stable society, we must destroy all opposition and then create one government who rules all. Side: Of course
Peace won't help anybody! Who, besides the arms dealers and reconstructionists, does not benefit from peace? Destruction, desolation, and disease accompany war, and they are friends to no man. We need to regulate the world, and it's good. The world has been here a lot longer than any of us. Let it regulate itself. We need to know where we stand in this struggle, and then fight with everything we have got. Fight whom? Fight what? To create a stable society, we must destroy all opposition and then create one government who rules all. The only truly stable society is a society of one. Side: Better to avoid it
the need for regulation does not imply the perfectly extreme kinds of actions we collectively call war. less extreme forms of regulation are effective and if imposed allow for greater levels of civilization than could ever be attained if war were a perpetual response to undesired qualities and elements of our world system. Although i am not opposed to a one world government, and realize that it war might be necessary to attain this kind of order (potentially more optimal). Once the optimal is attained war is no longer necessary - thus the answer to the question is that war is not necessary as a perpetual universal kind of action to engage in. Also, how do you prevent corruption in this one government (the nazi's had visions for a one world government). I know how i would prevent corruption and facism in such a system but most conceptions of a one world government seems ideologicall corrupt insofar as they prioritize one kind of human existence (one persons non pluralistic conception of an optimal human civilization). how do you avoid the non-pluralistic fascism? (a question which i suppose doesnt really relate to the debate at hand, but nonetheless... how?) Side: Better to avoid it
2
points
1
point
1
point
unless we become extinct, perpetual war would ravage the environment - war is one of the worst human actions to engage in insofar as the environment and other species is concerned. Also, if we were to become extinct by war this would need to be attained by nuclear biological or chemical means, the nuclear option and chemical option would kill most or all other life too so you are left with targeted biological weapons - however do you really think that humans need to be wiped out in order to allow the environment to recover? I think that we can exist and be better, we just need to control ourselves necessarily and predicate rights on optimal restrictions to certain kinds of acts (polution, numbers of children allowed, etc...) Side: Better to avoid it
1
point
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/War_what_is_it_good_for http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/War_is_good http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_war_always_just http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/War_is_but_a_necessary_evil http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_War_a_Necessary_Evil http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_war_ever_just http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Could_war_ever_be_banned http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Can we please have some more originality people? Side: Of course
1
point
We must be careful to avoid unnecessary violence, but yes, to some form we do need war. Then, in the long term, we could create a more regulated but safer world. Absurd notions like free speech would be surpressed, and we could all feel and be safer. This would stimulate the people to work better, and a more efficient economy would result. It is a noble sacrifice to die for such a cause. Side: Of course
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yes. Because if we want to live in a peaceful time we need to keep a balance. From a mathematic view as my grandpa quotes the harmonious world consists of 3 things: Geometrical figures, balances and symmetries. The second point is that the balance which heps to arrange everything on their correct place. Thus, we need to tend to the world to keep in a balance. I don't mean that we need try to organize the war. No, we need to put all things in correct place and attitude to them as it happened and finished in one day. Side: Of course
Is war necessary? Sometimes. It's not difficult to conjure up examples where war was the only viable option. We shouldn't always rush headlong into war, but sometimes it is necessary. Of course we should avoid unnecessary wars. We should try to solve problems after exhausting all other available means first, and then and only then should we resort to war. I look forward to the day when war is no longer necessary if that day should ever come, but until that time it is something we must make the best of. Side: Of course
|
4
points
2
points
3
points
Of course not! War destroys everything around it, and the world that remains is unstable and unhappy. We need to turn around before it is too late and save the world. In every possible case we must find alternative solutions to war to strengthen the economy and not distract from real problems in pointless quarrels. Side: Better to avoid it
Without bloodthirsty governments, would there really be war? It is not as though a group of individuals will wage a war with another; a rumble, maybe, but war is characterized by government involvement, sending people away to far lands to kill people who, likewise, have been conscripted and forced to go kill people who are otherwise of no consequence. Side: Better to avoid it
War is not necessary. According to definitions by the free dictionary: 1) Animals survive and don't war with each other. 2) Animals don't need it to do anything. 3) See 1 4)Animals are not required to war with each other. Side: Better to avoid it
Although war is inevitable in countries, we still have to reduce the rate of it as quickly as possible. War not only kills soldiers but innocent people too. Just by a president's wrong decision, thousands of people can die out. If technology develops and nuclear weapons are introduced in war, probably the whole world will be wiped out, a disastrous event. Side: Better to avoid it
It might be necessary to have war when circumstances arise but it is not a necessary element of our human existence, not fundamental to civilization. It is theoretically possible to not have war, and most people would think that this is more optimal than a reality in which war is frequent. Most kinds of events that are possible are never necessary in terms of being fundamental. The word necessary is too strong with regard to a concept of war unless you are talking about the necessity with relation to a specific circumstance - an important distinction to make. Side: Better to avoid it
1
point
|