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.
As long as you're fighting for the right reasons war is good. As there's always 2 sides to the coin... it's difficult to say whether or not the reasons for war is good. So going in with honour for righteousness is the reason you go to war. Not so shares in stocks rise.
War is good because it refreshes the place. Usually war is necessary in order to re-organize the countries, otherwise the countries stay in the same non-productive way of living.
Oh, and all the people who die, too bad, survival of the fittest
The creation of jobs that was necessary for World War II saved America from the Great Depression. The 2 wars we are in now put us further into debt and didn't help the job market at all. Some wars can have beneficial consequences, but wars don't help the economy by themselves. Our economic problems require a national attitude shift that leads to more jobs and productivity, which is not an essential component of war, and can, in fact, occur outside of war.
No I can't see all ends. I can however see that the wars themselves have cost the United States over a trillion dollars in addition to the normal costs necessary for running a country, and I can see that the reasons that led us into the Iraq war, which accounts for 70% of those funds, were largely based on falsified evidence and stupidity. Maybe something else would have happened if we hadn't gone into that war that would have been worse, but we don't live in that world, we live in the world where we did go into that war, and all we can do is examine the costs and benefits of the Iraq War, and so far, it's not worth it.
War refreshes what place? I agree that sometimes war is necessary, but that has no bearing on the morality of the matter. Also, would you support war even if a country was practicing a productive way of living? The topic creator is arguing that war is morally good by its own merits. As for your views on death, I think you should seriously consider counseling, because if you think a woman who is raped and murdered deserved to die because she was weaker than her attacker or attackers you are a severely disturbed individual.
It depends on your take. From a moral standpoint, if raised in a society similar to the common societies today, war is definitiely bad. But personally, I never really liked morals, so...
War can be a good thing. It pulled America out of the Great Depression, it led to the invention (or at least common use) of technologies such as radar and space travel, and it does tend to remove from a position of power those not suited for it. There could even be an argument about how war will promote intelligence in a race to outsmart the enemy. So it is the case that sometimes, war is a good thing.
productivity at the expense of others? what if you were the man in the trench dodging shell fire and repealing assaults with a bayonet? would you go, at least my own pain is advancing society minusculey so that some day later we can have radar? no as for me, i would say screw it and probably call it quits and find a way home.
war is fought by the young for the old.
some quote that i dont know who said, but i like it and it seemed like the right thing to but up there.
That's why you think it is good??? it is ridiculous! Do you mean if someone will kill many people it will be good because population will decrease??? So, according to your replick murdering is good? And if I kill someone I will make a profit to our lworld?? ...
War is good because it shows a country has partiotism. It is good to protect your citizens. It is good to defend your land. It is good to shoot Nazis through the head- oops, that last one went a little too far.
War is sometimes necessary for us because many times we don't get our rights. If there was no war many countries couldn't get their freedom form other powers, countries like India , America, South Africa and many more would have been still in other powers control. I mean war is not good but if their is need and suffocation from something we don't want or I say community doesn't want so their will be war. And talking about the lives that are taken, the soldiers already have given their lives for their country and if the public says no war then I think it would be a insult to their lives (my personal opinion). We also face war inside ourselves to do great or accomplish great, to face our fear to do something excited.
I think that was a quite a speech and wars are necessary sometimes not every Time
War is bad because it destroy. Never is it beneficial for something to be destroyed. The statement that it refreshes is not true it is an illusion. Yes it might have gotten US out of the depression, but the countries that lost the war suffered greatly. The loss of something is always a loss, never a gain.
Not too many people today would be angered by the destruction of the Third Reich, or of the Ku Klux Klan, or any other supposedly 'evil' society/structure.
War is like evolution. The belief that it could be beneficial or help life in anyway is insane. Explosions (like the big bang) can not create life all it dose is destroy. although war is beneficial to st oping groups of people that have unsound morals, it is still in no way good.
War is inherently bad but sometimes necessary. When freedom is being oppressed, for instance, it is the duty of the people to rebel against the oppressors.
To put it simply, killing is always bad and war always includes killing. I believe morality is based upon the furthering of society, and killing a person is essentially removing a potentially productive part of society, and is therefore only justifiable when the person being killed is doing enough harm in the present to prevent any chance of future redemption.
I already said that I view murder as the removal of potential productivity from the world. Please explain how murder can be a good thing, because although it can have good intentions and consequences, I cannot help from seeing the act itself as bad.
What if the person being murdered/killed is non-productive? What is wrong with killing them? They use up resources, but they do not contribute to society.
Do you not believe that people can change? There are alternatives to murder, such as counseling that turn people into productive members of society, and don't forget that there are many forms of productivity. For instance, many elderly people choose to retire at some point in their lives, at which point "they use up resources, but they do not contribute to society," but they can still be useful in many capacities, such as helping to raise their children and grandchildren and providing unique, subjective viewpoints on historical events. Stay-at-home parents also could be considered to fit your definition of "non-productive," but they can still be helpful in setting good examples for their children and increasing their standards of living. Even children fall under your definition of "non-productive." The average American child consumes many resources and generally makes absolutely no contributions to society. Would you murder them? Personally, I think we must have hope for the future that keeps us from committing such atrocities. In fact, I would argue that a person must be actively detrimental to society before murder should even be considered.
If you don't believe people can improve then why would you waste your time debating? If there is no hope for humanity, it seems that the only options would be a life of extreme hedonism or suicide. Physical therapy and steadily improving science and medicine solve most physical problems, meaning that those people, like children, have the potential to become productive in the future. As for the specific cases you bring up, many people with Down's Syndrome lead very productive lives. There are many jobs that most people would not do that people with Down's Syndrome can do that allow them to contribute to society, and recently there was an episode of the American tv show Glee that featured two actresses with Down's Syndrome, and they played their parts very well, meaning that they can go into the entertainment business as well. As for comatose people, they are certainly non-productive for some period of time, but often people can come out of comas, proving that they can eventually restart their lives as productive citizens. When there is no reason to believe a person will come out of a coma and they are only kept alive by the wishes of their families and friends, I would probably recommend stopping the machines and allowing them to die, but I still believe in freedom, and as long as the family can pay to keep them alive, I have no problem with letting people live in a comatose state. As for the point that children will eventually contribute to society, I agree with you. That is the point I was making, but it seems to contradict your obvious lack of hope for the future as evidenced by your first point. If there was an adult that was incapable of present or future productivity in any sense, it would not bother me to allow them to die, but I still wouldn't support their murder, because that would involve someone actively going out of their way to prevent a non-productive person from being non-productive even longer. It would be a waste of time and energy. As for your argument that criminals should be executed, I think it should be an absolute last resort in any situation. I firmly believe in capture and reform by counseling and hard labor, unless the person refuses to listen to reason or question their own actions, in which case it is probably the only solution.
If you don't believe people can improve then why would you waste your time debating?
Because I like to debate.
If there is no hope for humanity, it seems that the only options would be a life of extreme hedonism or suicide.
Yup, that's about it. The Greeks had it right all along.
Physical therapy and steadily improving science and medicine solve most physical problems, meaning that those people, like children, have the potential to become productive in the future.
May have the potential.
I'm still pro-eugenics in this debate, though.
As for the specific cases you bring up, many people with Down's Syndrome lead very productive lives.
Not nearly as productive as their peers.
On the other hand, let them do all the shitty jobs while we - the normal people - have fun, eh?
American tv show Glee that featured two actresses with Down's Syndrome, and they played their parts very well, meaning that they can go into the entertainment business as well.
I can see it now: The red carpet, paparazzi, film posters, and retards!
They are not good enough for cinema unless they are specifically playing characters with mental disabilities.
As for comatose people, they are certainly non-productive for some period of time, but often people can come out of comas,
Often?
I'd like some proof of that.
When there is no reason to believe a person will come out of a coma and they are only kept alive by the wishes of their families and friends,
There's another problem: allowing people with emotional attachments to make decisions.
but I still wouldn't support their murder
Eugenics isn't "murder", but rather "state-funded cessation of vital functions".
As for your argument that criminals should be executed, I think it should be an absolute last resort in any situation.
I don't.
I firmly believe in capture and reform by counseling and hard labor, unless the person refuses to listen to reason or question their own actions, in which case it is probably the only solution.
Recidivism rates show that that often doesn't help.
Potential isn't hypothetical. Something either has potential or doesn't. It is true that most potentialities never occur, but if there is a chance of future productivity in a person and that person isn't actively harming society, murder isn't a defensible position. I saw you posted in a different argument, "I'd sooner live in a war zone; at least there I could be free." How do you reconcile the value you place on freedom with your stance on eugenics? You put a negative spin on your response to my Downs Syndrome point that I don't think is necessary, but you grasped the general idea. If I had Downs Syndrome, I would still want to contribute to society in whatever way I thought possible, even if that means menial, repetitive tasks. As for your doubt about my vague coma statistic, see the link I added for some more specific data. Another part of freedom is allowing people you don't agree with (i.e. people with emotional attachments) to make their own decisions, which you clearly don't support. You can call eugenics whatever you want, but it is still essentially taking someone's life usually without their consent. Now it is your turn to find statistics for your vague claim about recidivism rates.
Supporting Evidence:
Coma Information
(health.howstuffworks.com)
Killing is not always bad! What if someone points a gun at you and fires? You have the right to defend yourself! It also depends on your perspective. Good is not universal. Muslims terrorists obviously think its good to kill and make war against Christians and Jews. We think its good to kill Muslim radicals because they are bastards. That's all there is to it. :D
I never belived that killing is good because when you kill someone it is taking away their right (to live). And i believe we should not take other people's rights in general (unless a person commited a crime then there are consequences, of course)
War is bad because it destroy. Never is it beneficial for something to be destroyed. The statement that it refreshes is not true it is an illusion. Yes it might have gotten US out of the depression, but the countries that lost the war suffered greatly. The loss of something is always a loss, never a gain.
this topic is uneasy. we can learn very useful things our past whatever good case or terrible incident. WAR is one of our ancestor's achievement. war is catalyst in historical, BUT war can destory our family, happiness, society. if you suffer the pain of war, then you can't forget that forever. so do you still think war is good?
War is not good because of the number of people who die. If death was worth everything we fight for, then why do we cry at the soldier's funeral. If war was truly worth it, we could understand that this soldier gave up for his life, and we should not mourn.
War, or conflict of any kind, is not a good thing in my opinion. It usually ends up with death and negativity. However, I accept that there will always be wars and conflict. That's just how the human race works.
That is not true.. Did you learn about National Service? National service is beneficial as working adults can also fight in the war when one comes.. Hence, no one works at that time.. Economic will go down not up if you were smart
War is not good. It kills billions of people. People with families, people with kids, people with lives! People who die, leaving it all behind. How could any sane person belive that war is for the best? Maybe a suicidal soldier, but that would mean killing even more people than yourself! The hippies were right; love, not war. War is just a stupid, idiotic way to "solve problems" that doesnt even solve problems! It makes them worse! In the words of just about any teacher: fight with words, not fists. That applies to guns as well! War doesn't solve conflicts, it creates them.
War = Death=sadness how could it be good?...True war has fixed depression before and probably could again but weapons and war are the things that start these depressions.If we stopped wasting tax dollars on wars we could lower taxes#1 and help people get a job or a hospital bed
