Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 26 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 11 |
Debates: | 5 |
This question is hard to answer for both sides in a war have different views on why they fight. But both sides ( if morally right) will not accept the loss of human life and therefore they must rather prefer a peaceful solution rather than bloodshed.
Also if you wanted to really have world peace or even a petty political argument between countries, why couldn't the majority of the world come up witha gigantic judicial branch. There we could say what we want or even prevent combat between nations.
We definitely to search for a different form of intelligent life beings that know more about the oceans than humans do. Or we need to know that we are the biggest force out there in the world. Otherwise we will have to resort to an interspieces war.
First of all this question seems to favor each side.
But if our soldiers did not have an initiative we would never win any battles. Because it is well known that all plans go wrong in a battle. Every time we win is because a soldier or soldiers decide to do something about the battle they're in.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |