CreateDebate


Debate Info

27
34
Of course Better to avoid it
Debate Score:61
Arguments:41
Total Votes:72
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of course (14)
 
 Better to avoid it (25)

Debate Creator

valentine9(32) pic



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
VS.

Better to avoid it

Side Score: 34
3 points

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
valentine9(32) Disputed
2 points

Violence is the answer?!! The world would fall apart! We would be left in a weaker state than ever and nothing would be saved!

Side: Better to avoid it
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

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

Humanity isn't ready for mature alternatives to war, so war at this moment in our young prosperity is still one of our only options since we aren't evolved enough to act less barbaric.

Side: Of course
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

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
2 points

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
Wiggin(5) Disputed
1 point

In my opinion, you are being too extreme. War is not good, it is just sadly necessary, and helps the world in the long run.

Side: Better to avoid it
Liber(1730) Disputed
1 point

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
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

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

Of course. How else are we gonna keep the world's population in check ;)

Side: Of course
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

war is often not significant as a population reducing or stablizing agent

Side: Better to avoid it

Correction. War is not significant as a population reducing agent until you bring in the nukes. Then it works wonders ;)

Side: Better to avoid it
0 points

That is a great point. We will stop polluting the world as much if there were just less people! Humans have not done a good job with the problem, why not just die out and give other species a chance? One of the best ways to accomplish this is war!

Side: Of course

Plus, war has the added benefit of getting rid of people that piss me off ;)

Side: Of course
Nick91983(269) Disputed
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
Liber(1730) Disputed
1 point

Can we please have some more originality people?

What do you suggest? Why not make more of your own debates if everybody else's debates fail to live up to your standards?

Side: Better to avoid it
scamp(1) Disputed
0 points

Those debates never show the real story. All outdated and very unoriginal.

Side: Better to avoid it
ChuckHades(3197) Disputed
1 point

1. What is the real story?

2. This debate is less original than it's predecessors. This question has been regurgitated several times.

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
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

i agree but although perhaps circumstantially necessary, it is not absolutely necessary - thus i was on the other side of the debate

Side: Better to avoid it
1 point

War is a necessary evil some times .

Side: Of course
valentine9(32) Disputed
1 point

Why should it be? Evil is never necessary, just selfish. Who wins in war? People die and the world is left unstable.

Side: Better to avoid it

Have you seen one of JellyPeach's debates? ;)

Side: Of course

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
0 points

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

People have to discard their own petty problems for the greater good of society. We do not need countless people to die for nothing, and for what?

What is truly gained in war?

Side: Better to avoid it
2 points

Nothing. Anything you have can be equally earned. But will be lost in death. Nothing will be gained but sadness... But is the way of human life

Side: Better to avoid it
1 point

I agree mostly, however, war can be circumstantially necessary such as to defend the world from fascism and other threats to freedom. so we gain freedom from oppression from war in specific circumstances. Otherwise i agree totally :)

Side: Better to avoid it
rihaana(85) Clarified
1 point

We nvr gain in war..but we can stop that person doing such things again in his life......by teaching him/her a lesson...

Side: Of course
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
Wiggin(5) Disputed
4 points

An idealistic view, but sadly impossible. There are too many people who don't want to save the world for anybody to get forwards.

Side: Of course
2 points

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
2 points

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
1 point

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
1 point

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

No war is necessary. War is evil and bad. All wars can be averted.

Side: Better to avoid it