CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
47
Yes No
Debate Score:113
Arguments:39
Total Votes:135
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (21)
 
 No (18)

Debate Creator

angelsong(114) pic



Is War a Necessary Evil?

Are there good reasons to go to war? Or is war so terrible that there can be no justifications for employing it as a means to resolve an issue?

Yes

Side Score: 66
VS.

No

Side Score: 47
5 points

Yes, war is necessary. Some conflicts cannot be resolved any other way. I'm not saying it's a good thing to go to war whenever possible, but if there is no other option than to go to war to stop an opposing force, then that option should exist. I see war as a last resort to a conflict. If the enemy is a violent regime, also, then war is definitely the best choice since typically, a violent group will not be stopped with peace. As for nuclear war, I don't see a need for nuclear weapons other than for defense. If a nation stockpiles nuclear weapons of mass destruction, this is typically going to be for protection in the form of fear. The use of nuclear weapons is almost always wrong, but there are always exeptions to nearly every rule. ;)

Side: yes
lipyoung(4) Disputed
3 points

i disagree. you said that nuclear weapons should be for defense and if nations stockpile is because of fear. while in the first place why would the nation want to stock pile if nobody is planning to use it? if nobody wants to use it, why bother stockpiling? its all because Americans used it before and people are afraid to use it. however, by stockpiling more and more...more nations will fear that you might wanna start a nuclear war and fololw suit. so if in the first place, people know that there would not be a nuclear war, they would not need to stockpile them right?

Side: No
5 points

I think those who suffered during the holocaust will agree that war is very necessary.

Side: yes
najib(1) Disputed
2 points

ThePyg states that those who suffered the holocaust will agree that war is necessary. I fail to agree to that. The Holocaust, basically a mass destruction of Jews, could never justify that war is necessary. Firstly, the holocaust claimed about 6million innocent lives. Can we justify that to be necessary? Secondly, the main cause of the Holocaust was Adolf Hitler, who ordered to kill these Jews just because of his personal "hatred" against them and also for his lifelong dream of conquering the world. Can we justify that to be necessary? The Holocaust basically is just a way where Hitler could achieve his "dream" of conquering the world. Also, with all the countries that he conquered, he did not do anything good to improve the lives of the citizens living in the countries that he conquered. Thus, I feel that the Holocaust should not be used as a platform to show that war is necessary evil as there is basically no necessity in it.

Side: No
blade(3) Disputed
4 points

Firstly,ThePyg states that that the holocaust agree that war is necessary because it help release the jews from the clutches of the Nazis and not that the germans are going into the war to kill the Jews that is the necessary part.It was because hilter did nothing to improve the lives of the citizen and even took the lives of the innocents such as the Jews in the holocaust that makes the war against the germans even more important. It was a necessity to end the pain suffered by the people but an evil because it will ultimately take more lives in a short time frame.However in the lost run, depending on circumstances , it will be beneficial

Side: yes
blade(3) Disputed
4 points

Firstly,ThePyg states that that the holocaust agree that war is necessary because it help release the jews from the clutches of the Nazis and not that the germans are going into the war to kill the Jews that is the necessary part.It was because hilter did nothing to improve the lives of the citizen and even took the lives of the innocents such as the Jews in the holocaust that makes the war against the germans even more important. It was a necessity to end the pain suffered by the people but an evil because it will ultimately take more lives in a short time frame.However in the lost run, depending on circumstances , it will be beneficial

Side: yes
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
4 points

as blade said, the war is the only thing that ended the holocaust.

without declaration of War the holocaust would have continued and Hitler's Reich would have taken over even more countries.

Side: yes
QueenB Disputed
1 point

ThePyg stated that those who suffered due to the Holocaust would find that war is necessary, but I disagree. The Holocaust is one of the main reasons WWII started. It was Hitler using his position of power to achieve his dream and to spread his personal beliefs against the Jewish people. Yes, there comes a point where a line has been crossed and war, unfortunately, becomes necessary, but it did not need to come to that point. Hitler could have been stopped before the war actually started. No one wanted to have to deal with him. The Nazis forced the Jews into concentration camps, but if the war had never started there would be no concentration camps and the Jews would not have to agree that war is necessary. Also, ThePyg cannot talk for all the people that suffered during the Holocaust. They are their own person each entitled to their own opinion.

Side: No
5 points

Yes, we have to admit war is evil, but it should also be noted that war is sometimes necessary in situation when there is a urgent need to solve problems where war is used as a last resort and when dealing with human rights issues or fighting against evil. In this paragraph, we shall put our focus on going for war with good intention, in particular on fighting for human right issues. At times where minorities are discriminated till a unacceptable state where even the basic human rights are denied, wars could have been the best solution to stop the discrimination from existing and continuing. Taking the case of American Civil War where the blacks were treated as slaves with some of them, their families tore apart by the Whites. If not for the war, the blacks would not have been freed and obtained their basic human rights which they deserve to have in the first place. It would be nearly impossible to have the problem solved through peaceful means as no Whites would want to free their Blacks slave and pay them like a worker, when they can chose not to. In such a case, it is definitely necessary to have a war to stop the discrimination. Hence, this would have proved that there are times when war is a necessary to fight for human rights where the intention of war is actually good.

Side: yes
lpoql Disputed
4 points

While I do agree that, under rare circumstances, defensive war is a regrettable necessity, I disagree with your use of the Civil War as such an example. Almost every nation outside of the US had abolished slavery without resorting to civil war or massive bloodshed. In such light I regard the Civil war as completely unnecessary.

Examples:

In Britain the Slavery Abolition Act was passed by the Parliament on August 24, 1833 and became law August 1, 1834, whereupon an estimated 800,000 blacks held in bondage in the British colonies became emancipated. Slavery was abolished throughout the British possessions abroad. This date is remembered as Emancipation Day and celebrated as a public holiday in most of the ex-British colonies. The sum of $100 million was appropriated by the British Parliament to compensate dispossessed slave owners.

France on 27 April 1848, under the Second Republic (1848–52), abolished slavery. The state bought the slaves from the colonists and then freed them.

Argentina: 1813

Chile: 1823

Mexico: 1829

Denmark: 1848, including all colonies

Russia: In 1861 Emancipation of Serfs, releasing 20 million

The Netherlands: 1863, including all colonies

etc.

The Civil War was a terrible tragedy that did not have to happen. Slavery could have ended through peaceful means (education, activism, legislation, buying and freeing of slaves). Nations all over the world had proved this. Abolitionists in the US were making headway. This did not need to happen. I agree that slavery should not have been tolerated for one second let alone hundreds of years and all haste should have been made to put an end to it but not through war.

Did the Civil War eventually achieve an end to slavery in the US? Yes, but at what cost?

In 1860, slaves cost around 900-1000 dollars to buy (around $12,000 in 2009 dollars). Approximate number of slaves at that time, about 4 million. Cost to buy them back and free them, 4 billion. Let's compare that to the cost of the Civil War.

Human cost: ~600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers

Cost in dollars and cents, 1879 US estimate:

Union: $6,190,000,000

Confederacy $2,099,808,707.

By 1906 another $3.3 billion on Northerners' pensions and benefits. The amount spent on Southern benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.

Altogether, around 14-15 billion dollars, over a 1 million casualties and the South burned, pillaged and left in ruins, the effects of which are still felt today.

4 bil to free slaves

VS.

15 bil for a stupid war, 600k dead, South destroyed

Was it worth it? Was it necessary? No.

Think about that before anyone tries to rattle the saber for more wars. The costs of war should be fully and carefully understood. Every last option should be fully entertained, exhausted, re-exhausted and damage should be incurred before war is even considered, before it's the last bitter option left. War is hell, It's not romantic, it's not patriotic, it's not noble it is not a solution to any of the worlds problems, its a horribly dismal position of last resort. It should be vehemently avoided if at all possible. Present wars included, especially. Everyone loses in war.

Any civil war buffs? Are my numbers off?

Sources:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31087613_ITM

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103011706AAjPIlF

Side: No
lipyoung(4) Disputed
3 points

Yes, taking the American Civil war in consideration, it seems to be a good idea as it has generated positive results and help the blacks,however, what about other instances or war? was dropping the two nuclear bomb a good intention? was fighting for the freedom of nationalist Vietnamese good? this is an isolated case and should not be used to claim that there are times where war is necessary. As war breeds more violence and suffering, not just to the people but to the economy.

Side: No
4 points

War is a necessary because if all the countrys decided to get rid of all war and one country decided to keep some and then invaded another country there would be no hope

Side: yes
4 points

Everyone knows if you want peace you need to get ready for war. People are greedy, ideals conflict, and when heads butt, sometimes the only way out is through.

Side: yes
3 points

War is a lesser of two evils, sadly required to protect our nation and to liberate the oppressed people of the world. In response to the September 11 terror attacks, the U.S. waged war out of self-defense. The World Trade Center was not the only thing that was destroyed that day. Our sense of nationalistic pride and dignity was diminished by these terrorist. How could we stand and watch as one of the greatest American symbols collapsed? In order to reclaim our sense of dignity, war was the only option. Self-defense is a universal characteristic of all humans, and war was just that. Humans were ultimately bred for war. Natural selection favors the survival of the fittest, which drives us to be the best we can be and dominate others if necessary. What's war but another form of domination? How can anyone go tell millions of Jews to go back to concentration camps because the war we waged on their behalf against Hitler was unnecessary or a mistake? As gruesome and terrible war may be, it is undeniably a trademark of any and every society. War has always been present in the past, continues to exist today, and will persist throughout the long future. War is not something that is simply waged, it is something that we, as humans, will forever carry with us.

Side: yes
mikeavram(4) Disputed
2 points

I totally disagree with the idea that USA has the right to declare war because 1. You cannot blame an entire nation for the crimes of certain individuals; 2. USA used war as a political tool in order to gain influence in the Middle East; 3. Tell the soldiers that have been crippled in the war that they had to risk their lives only to protect the nationalistic pride and dignity, and because a symbol had collapsed.

2 752 people died in the WTC incident and of course it is a tragedy. The war in Irak has caused over 2 million casualties of not only "terrorists" but civilians as well ... Tell me one thing, why does US authorities consider that 2.000 American lives are worth 2 mil irakian lives?

Side: No
3 points

If there is a point to war, then I am for war.

For instance, the Germanic tribes attacked Rome because they needed more land. Without more land, they would die. Under those circumstances, the only logical choice is to gain land. If that means war, then so be it.

When the Mongols spread their empire into Eastern Europe, they would burn and pillage all the towns and villages in their way. Under those circumstances, the Europeans should fight back.

The Spartans had what was known as the 'Agoge'. They would raise males from the age of seven onwards to be soldiers. That was logical, seeing as how the ancient Greeks and their neighbors were quite warlike. I have had this debate with others, those who contest my opinion say that by training for war they are both expecting it and accepting it.

I disagree. By training for war they are expecting it and they are accepting it. But, I ask them, is it not better to expect an inevitable war and prepare than to hide from it and be raped and slaughtered when the war does arrive? It would arrive whether they wanted it or not, whether they prepared for it or not.

However, there are also bad wars. America's involvement in Vietnam and Korea was to spread their democratic ideals. The Americans have no right to meddle in their affairs and to force democracy on a nation not wanting those ideals. They blame the Vietnamese and the Koreans for fighting back, but wouldn't they do the same if somebody was forcing monarchy or communism on them?

Side: yes
1 point

adding on to the spartan bit their neighbors were quite warlike for example the persians which had a keen eye on taking them over and eventually did in the battle of Thermopylae of which Sparta and their allies (led under king Leonidas and Demophilus) had around 7000 troops whereas persia ( led under King Xerxes I, Mardonius and Hydarnes II) had around 70,000-300,000 troops . The war ended with sparta losing 4000 troops and persia losing 20,000 troops (unlike the film)

( sorry if i used a bit of yours but i had to for it too make sens)

Side: Yes
2 points

Some people say that war is a threat to democracy and the basic human rights. My response to them is the following :

A case in which war is necessary are the revolutions. Take for instance the example of The French Revolution of 1789 which was indeed a bloody revolution but people were being oppressed by the absolutist regime, they wanted to achieve democracy, they wanted to have fundamental rights. The outcome was clearly significant: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the actual French Democracy, the French Constitution, even the American Constitution is an indirect consequence of the French Revolution and the ideas of the revolution. Of course on might say that democracy could have been achieved by other means. Peaceful means of achieving are: 1. Including Consensus; 2. Long lasting - time which is spend on reaching consensus is time in which the tyranny is still in force ; 3. People that want to make a peaceful reform throughout history have been declared enemies of the state and prosecuted by the dictatorial regime; 4. The consensus is made by two parties which are rarely equal in power. 5. In some cases peaceful reforms are led by the same dictator, and he is merely changing the color of the party and the people in order to satisfy the general will of the electorate. By this they obtain the trust of the people and can still express their influence in almost all economical sectors. Example of such countries - most of the former Soviet Republics.

Side: yes
2 points

Norms of International law forbid declaration of war. Legislation is only effective if it is enforced properly. The country that declares war should be aware that the risk they assume is not only the closing down of embassies and ending of diplomatic cooperation or economic cooperation, but also the fact that other countries will enforce all the necessary measures to try and prevent it, including self-defense. An eye for an eye is absolutely unethical, but in some cases war is justifiable and it makes perfect rational sense to respond to war in order to preserve peace on the long term and prevent grave crimes like genocide.

Side: yes
1 point

Of course war is necessary. However, it is not evil. It helps boost the economy of nations involved (except in certain cases [generally civil wars]) and often leads to the betterment of the government of the losing nation. The American Civil War was necessary because most Southerners were, at that time, too stubborn to listen to the Northerners. The Vietnam War, while not won by America, was necessary to create more jobs in America (and we got the 26th Amendment out of that, too!!). World War II (do I need to go into this?) was necessary because Adolf Hitler would not listen to reason and attacked his fellow European nations.

I believe my argument is valid and that my information stands.

Side: yes
mikeavram(4) Disputed
2 points

How about wars in Africa, that are a result of political crisis and dictatorship. The economy is in stagnation because countries like Russia and the USA are interested in selling them ammunition instead of helping them build schools or hospitals. Political leaders in Africa have chosen to direct their resources and finances to buying more guns and engaging in wars instead of trying to prosper, build a stable economy, eradicate corruption and so on. War not only is a crime but it also has a negative impact on economy, because war generates chaos and in chaos most crimes are committed. What you are talking about is war-profiters, which should be declared criminally liable for unjust enrichment. (e.g. The Krupp factory in during Nazi Germany)

Side: No
1 point

I think, there are quite few people who actually believe that the war is something good, wholesome and useful. It is and has always been one of the worst and most disgusting, destructive events that can happen. But it is to the same degree wrong to accuse it of all the deadly sins existing in the world. Although war is always evil, sometimes it is the lesser evil, in some cases it is inevitable.

I, of course, don’t support the idea that the war is necessary in socio-economical sense – there is such a point of view, stating that the war is the motive power of progress and effective method of keeping demographic situation stable. Of course, some inventions were first applied in military, but also because this research has always been better supplied. And, although a lot of people die in the course of wars, it is not enough to really influence demographics, especially nowadays.

I am speaking about the war as the conflict of interests and state that yes, in certain situations war is necessary and even turns out into a thing to be proud of. War may be offensive and defensive and, just like in the case of self-defense, in the event of armed attack from another country any kind of violence used in retaliation is acceptable, because any other course of action will mean suicide. Looking at the same analogy, there is no much difference between a country attacking another country from a mugger on the street. The fact that the offenders are numerous, wear uniforms and deliver speeches makes absolutely no difference.

Side: Yes
1 point

On December 10 Barack Obama receivedthe Nobel Peace Prize. He used his acceptance speech to defend the USrole in Afghanistan, and to argue that the use of force could bringlasting peace to the world. Praised by the Nobel committee for his"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy andco-operation between peoples," just 9 days earlier he had announced hewas sending 30,000 additional troops to the battlefield in Afghanistanbecause "war is sometimes necessary."

There were a number of absurdities inObama's speech. He resurrected the concept of a "just war" to defendhumanity from evil. He portrayed the U.S. as a moral agent striving tomaintain global security, and claimed that the "use of force not onlynecessary but morally justified." Nevertheless, he admitted, "we willnot eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."

Side: Yes
1 point

believe that war is a necessary evil because even though it causes lots of pain, suffering and even death but it also can bring a massive amount of benefits as it can bring long lasting peace e.g. world war 2 it was tragic and evil but because of it many technologies were discovered such as the jerry can, the dyanmo powered torch, pressurised plane cabins, raido navigation, synthetic rubber and oil ,radar and more and also because of world war the EU (european union) was made which has made tons of benefits to every country in europe providing military basing rights, research agreements and a sort of inter european police force and also eurovision was formed which was made to bring countries together and to all compete in a friendly competition.

Another reason war is a necessary evil is because if a government or monarchy is not ruling justly or fairly the people will have to revolt to get equal rights for example the American Revolution which was because they believed the taxes were unconstitutional and now America has turned into the richest the country by arguably around 6-7 trillion dollars (not including the EU which could arguably have a higher gdp).

War is also a massive contributor to the population control and without it we could possibly be in a world hunger problem and we might not be able to support ourselves or we could be facing overpopulation or over crowding.

Conflict will also always happen as long as there are humans or anything that lives it is a part of human nature. It has been scientifically proven that there is very little difference between human reaction to danger or threats and those of animals. Animals feel the need to fight to prove themselves, to gain more territory and land to maybe graze on or to get the best food from and also to defend their territory which is just like humans and if there wasn’t any of this no one would be ahead of anything and without conflict we wouldn’t have been able to kill the mammoths in the pre-historic period thus many of us would have died also the only reason stone tools were invented were because of conflict and stone tools then got adapted to suit agricultural purposes such as for gardening hoes, shovels etc and is probably one of the greatest and most revelutionary technologies ever discovered.

damn son

Side: Yes
-1 points

war is kool it gives us awsome movies and pretty explosions also is there a better reason to kill muslms

Side: yes
mlgdebater(1) Disputed
1 point

thats a dumb reason write a real one ur obviously oblivious to actual war and what it is like i personally agree that it is a necessary evil but this is dumb

Side: No
5 points

War breeds destruction not just to mankind and infrastructure but also to the environment, from massive deforestation to air pollution. In other words, war not only inhibits the progress of society’s development but also causes the chances of surviving to diminish greatly due to the harmful effects war presents to our environment. Since ancient history, war has developed into an environmental issue. Medieval weapons like battering rams require the use of lots of wood resulting in numerous trees being chopped down. In other words, massive deforestation has resulted from the creation of such weapons. Numerous weapons, both medieval and modern, are used to set the enemy's properties on fire. Arrows and catapult missiles are ignited before being launched while modern missiles and bombs simply explode upon impact. Buildings are burnt, releasing pollutants such as soot which harms the ozone. In addition, there have been occasions where the fires spread and burn off nearby plantations. Modern warfare also involves the usage of chemical agents. Chemical agents pollute the sea, air and land, destroying a large number of habitats and killing off its inhabitants. One good example of how warfare has resulted in great damage to the environment is the launching of the atomic bombs. Its widespread impact not only destroyed trees and life present in its target area, but the radiation it emitted affected the land and sea for long periods of time. It made the land barren and the sea dead. Since war ultimately leads to a world where it is becoming less suitable to live in and also to a world where a society’s efforts to develop are constantly being destroyed and wasted, war is thus unnecessary.

Side: No
Hayden(2) Disputed
5 points

Firstly, you have only managed to talk about the severe consequences of war and not about why a war is really needed. The INTENT of the war is the real issue here. We have to understand that at times, people are fighting for a reason and one of which will be the fighting of evil such as the cases of genocide. Human lives are being lost everyday and something has to be done to save those people. This is the point where negotiations will be useless as the intent of the genocide is to kill people of a particular race or religion completely. We have to deal with them by force and to fight for those people whose lives are at great danger. Yes, the consequences may be devastating but it is definitely necessary.

Side: yes
lipyoung(4) Disputed
3 points

Yes, it is true that we have to fight to save people's life however, have you thought about the long term effects that could happen by waging war and using force to help those people?

Look at what deforestation brought us, a hole in the ozone and increase risk of having skin cancer. Look at what global warming is doing to us, how it affects us. when those polar ice caps melt, more people are gonna die then in a genocide. why? cause its going to be global, not just one country is affected but many. so what if by using those bombs and chemicals you can save those people now? you are in-directing killing them all off later. So then, is it necessary? its either they kill themselves, or you save them so they can die another day.

Side: yes
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
4 points

War actually builds economies and infrastructure. People work in factories and in the military drastically reducing unemployment and leading to advancements in medical, consumer and military technology.

Today's weapons are not made of wood and the weapons that are used are very precise therefore limiting collateral damage which means less buildings destroyed and less pollutants released. When we destroy our enemies properties we are doing what is strategically logical. Destroy our enemies means of production, agriculture and living structures.

Today, chemical, biological and nuclear warfare are illegal according to the UN. Besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving today. (Much better that Detroit is.)

War is making the world safer to live in by getting rid of people who try to destroy the free world.

Side: yes
zhenwei(18) Disputed
3 points

However, if people could not even live in the way they want to, like cases where severe discrimination take place or when evil are taking innocent lives, then war might be necessary to solve problems especially when no other ways are able to solve it where war is the only last resort.

Side: yes
3 points

I think war is a manly way to solve problems, but not the best way. I really don't see how it overall benefits anything. War is brought on by a shitfaced leader who doesn't have the balls to face his opponet like a man, so he pulls out people who will follow him to do the work for him, and it leaves the other side with no option but to follow suit. It's pretty ridiculous. People should be able to just sit at an effin table and talk things out rather than put a gun to your head and say "do this."

Side: No
3 points

We teach our kids that they shouldn't fight with their little friends over toys, food, etc. Instead, they should talk and reach a consensus. "If your little friend keeps hitting you, ignore him, or talk to him, but never fight back, because then the problem will never be solved."

We should now teach adults that war doesn't solve problems, and is bad to both winners and losers.

Side: No
3 points

war.. causes mass destruction.. and how can evil be necessary. India attained freedom by the means of non-violence.. peace is the call for hour.. if wars continue armagaedon is just hair breadth away.. plz plz stop war.. ask the family of the victims died in war.. then all favoring war will get an answer..

Side: No
1 point

War is good my friend.

War means victory no? Oh wait, it means a loss for you. HAHAHAHA Loser!

Side: No
1 point

It is unfair that people should be given the opportunity of which they can decide to begin a war. There are many types of war including terrorism, civil, nuclear, holy and conventional. As a strongly believer of Christianity, my lord Jesus commanded that 'thou shalt not kill' or animals. It is important that this it taken seriously. Also Jesus claimed to 'love his neighbor'. To me kill your neighbor is not loving them. Don't you agree?

Side: No

I feel all wars can be averted. Wars cause nothing but death and destruction.

Side: No