CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Chemical Warfare had the greatest impact because it lead to the development of Nuclear Warheads. Also the use of Mustard Gas during the war struck fear into the enemy because it became an enemy that no one could defend against.
Chemical warfare had the greatest impact because using different chemicals and nuclear weapons was able to kill more at one time and it defeated the enemy faster.
The reason why chemical weaponry is banned is because it has a long lasting effect to the environment and future generations (e.g Agent Orange and Antrax).
War itself is an idiotic decision but to drive the rest of the living world with the stupidity of man is going too far
Chemical warfare had the greatest effect on WWI because it slowed down the battle because soldiers could not pass or they would die. It killed whoever inhaled it and it made trench warfare possible.
Yes because, all the chemicals in the gasses affected some people soon and others had problems for longer periods of time. They used the gasses because, they didn't exactly know all the effects.
I also agree with my classmates because Chemical weapons are a faster defense and to save ammo. The best thing about chemical warfare weapons they were peaceful. "Silent but Deadly"
I think that chemical warfare had the greatest, longest impact and effect on WWI because it spread everywhere quickly. I also think that chemical warfare was the main cause of people dying.It killed 5,000 allied troops. Mustard shells are so bad because it still injures people on old battlefields today.
The use of chemicals was bad because it contaminated the air and deformed millions of people and their families died so that family tree ended. It also destroyed the environment and will kill anyone who comes close. Because it never goes away.
I support that Chemical warfare had the greatest impact & the longest effect on the world during WWI. Chemical warfare gives us the advantage of covering a wider range. Even though there are injuries to the people in charge of the Chemicals, it is very effective & an intelligent war strategy.
Chemical warfare has a great effect on the WWI because it help kill some of the enemies. It also makes some of them can become blind and not able to see so the opposite team can come and do what ever they want to them.
Chemical Warfare is not such a bad idea. For you can not see or taste the chemicals. Also if we were to drop an atomic or hydrogen bomb on any one city or country, it would wipe out the advisory way faster than to send in a troop of soldiers.
I think that chemical warfare had the greatest impact on WWI because without the nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be as much mass destruction as there was. Without the poisonous gases we wouldn't have had as numerous explosion and kills with just guns or explosives.
Just now a chemical attack killed 25 people instead of me being more placid it's time to get serious. chemical warfare was noxious and some was very kindle. Lethal injection killed strong criminals that could not have been contained.
I think that chemical warfare had a great effect on WWI because they needed a new way to defeat their enemies and that's where Chemical warfare came in! Using Chemical warfare we were able reduce the amount of tanks & gear. The stature of Chemical warfare makes it easier to transport!
Chemical agents are grouped into categories based on their physiological effects. Lachrymators are primarily designed to affect the eyes, but also cause respiratory problems when soldiers are exposed to a large quantity of the chemical. Asphyxiators cause fluid to enter the lungs and prevent oxygen from reaching the blood. Toxic gases pass through the lungs and into the blood and prevent the circulation and release of oxygen in the body. Sternutators caused respiratory irritation, sneezing, nausea, and vomiting. Blister agents initially cause pain in the eyes, throats, and lungs, but later cause blisters on exposed skin.So cheicals helped them alot and effected it alot.
Chemicals weapons in World War I were primarily used to demoralize, injure and kill entrenched defenders against who the indiscriminate and generally slow-moving or static nature of gas clouds would be most effective.
Chemical Warfare is a much quicker process. It allows you to kill the opposing armies without even really putting yourself in harms way. Also there would be a lot more money saved, if we did not have to build heavy machinery.
CHEMICAL WARFARE WAS IN FACT THE MOST CRUCIAL WEAPON IN THIS WAR BECAUSE IT USED CHEMICALS AND BY USING CHEMICALS IT CAN GET IN THE AIR AND HAVE A MORE RANGE OF ATTACK AND KILL MORE OF YOUR ENEMIES.
Chemical warfare had the greatest impact because using different chemicals and nuclear weapons was able to kill more at one time and it defeated the enemy faster.
Yes because, we are still paying for it today. With all the problems we have with our environment. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!!!!!!!!!
A lethal agent is designed to injure or incapacitate the enemy, or deny unhindered use of a particular area of terrain. Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. It can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. With proper protective equipment, training, and decontamination measures, the primary effects of chemical weapons can be overcome. Many nations possess vast stockpiles of weaponized agents in preparation for wartime use. The threat and the perceived threat have become strategic tools in planning both measures, and counter–measures.
This is Correct Because We Are Today Still Paying For It . With Global Warning and The Hole In the Ozone Layer .. So My Answer Is Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chemical Warfare is not such a bad idea. For you can not see or taste the chemicals. Also if we were to drop an atomic or hydrogen bomb on any one city or country, it would wipe out the advisory way faster than to send in a troop of soldiers.
Chemical warfare effected WW1 because the chemicals that were being released from the planes were leading to blindness and paralysis. Some of the chemicals were hazardous and soon they hit the soldiers they inhaled the dangerous chemicals they immediately suffered from poison and instantly died. Which led to fewer soldiers in World War I !
If we use the chemicals it will decrease the cost of bullets and weapons. But, if we use weapons and bullets the budget money for weapons, bullets, and stuff like that then we want be able to use the money to fix the broken stuff. Also if we use the chemicals it will help us kill more people than 1 at a time. Using bullets and weapons it we only allow us to use 1 bullet or shot for 1 person and you don't want to waste the limited amount of ammo you have, than if you have chemicals then you can kill as many people you can with one bomb or something like that. :)
Chemical weapons kill much faster than guns and other weapons because you have a wider range with chemicals and you don't run as much of a risk of missing your target with chemicals.
If you are hit by a chemical, you are killed instantly. But, if you are shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife, then you will die over a few minutes. Most people would stay and wait for the person to die to make sure they die... but when you will use the chemicals you will be able to leave right when the chemicals hits the person and get to other bad people.
Using chemicals wil allow us to keep our troops safe and out of danger. But, if we use
weapons instead that is making a conflict come up between troops lives & and the generals life.. hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But they also need intelligent people behind them that have good enough accuracy as to hit them in the brain or heart, or to make them bleed to death. Bombs hava a wider range so that they can kill more.
Using chemical weapons are dangerous, because when dropping a chemical bomb, rather than a small explosion, a massive explosion happens damaging area's that were not suppose to be bombed; possibly if it hit's a part of an other country or state.
One, that doesn't kill your own people that often. & 2, if it does it's killing more of the other people, and when your in the war, you know the risk before you even enter.
Using Chemical Weapons makes it easier to use things instead of having to use all those bullets to kill all the other people. Using the chemicals can wipe out lots more people with chemicals
Chemical Warfare can harm us. Why? because using just 1 chemical weapon can kill off as much as 70,000 people and 1 million injuries.
Then after the war he have to aid them paying over billions of money to aid the wounds.
Like WWII the first atomic bomb was tested, the people there never knew they would die later on; and those people who lived around that area had kids who came out Morphed.
i say no because we could use alot more and all other kind of machinces to kill alot more people than the chemical when the people are in tanks then the chemicals won't affect them as much because the tanks are thick
The argument you posted has nothing to do with what we are debating about! The correct "2 opposing alliances" were the Central Powers & the Triple Entante.
chemical warfare was risky because if you dropped a gas bomb in enemy territory a good wind could blow it right back on to your front lines and killing your men.Also it takes time for a chemical bomb takes time to kill a person the enemy could still when the battle and die at a later time.also it harmed the environment greatly.The machine gun is what greatly changed the tide of the war because when the enemy came out of their fox holes the machine gun would mow them down also provided very good cover fire .also tanks provided great cover for mobile men.
world war 1 was a military conflict lasting from 1914 to 1918 which involved nearly all the biggest powers of the world.....Sooooo wats ya point wit the chemical war fair wepons?
Like WWII the first atomic bomb was tested, the people there never knew they would die later on; and those people who lived around that area had kids who came out Morphed.
There are several sources of military records which may be helpful for researching a family member who served in the First World War. See our page for advice on how to get started, which records are available for those who died, their Service Records and Medal Records and what information these records can offer
the chemical warfare is not better than the guns,tanks and men because the men could get a faster attack than the chemical warfare could because we could easily reload our weapons faster
Hey, I really don't know and also I don't care.....I don't do work anyways.....so ok um but yeah guns and bombs are better than those stupid chemicals......but bye.......and GOODLUCK ''no team'' C( :
NOOOOO, guns and other weapons like bombs were better than mustard gas and other chemical objects. Because if you were around the mustard gas you could be killed yourself. Also you can kill a person instantly, if you use a chemical you have to yet a little while. And thats why I think guns in WWI was better than chemical weapons.
No chemical warfare is not better than other things like bombs and guns guns is better than chemical warfare mustard gas is also better than chemical warfare
Chemical bombs kill everyone and everything because they are so boss in the household mailman to sniff and die from the smell and toxins because of 9/11.
the chemical warfare made there side sick with the chemicals and toxins while our side used nontoxic chemicals so therefore your side lose more people than they could gain before attacking
The effects of chemical warfare were largely negated by protective measures such as the gas mask. Furthermore, the tank had a much greater effect, as it was the weapon which broke the stalemate in the trenches.
However, the use of chemical weapons indicates just how desperate certain nations were to win.
Guns and bombs etc, was the best way to kill the rivals I think so because you could pin point who you wanted to kill in the war you did not have to get real close to them during the WW1
