Instigator / Con
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#3786

You select the topic.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1700
rating
544
debates
68.01%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.

Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .

***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THE SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***

Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.

Round 1
Con
#1
Greetings.
What do you say there?
Pro
#2
War is beneficial vs zero war if we had to redo humanity's path of doing things.

You are Con as this is the side you chose.

You are to argue against the idea that war has been beneficial in our evolution and progression 
Round 2
Con
#3
Someone can argue war is beneficial in terms of a fighting country not allowed to be terrorized .

A country that won't fight, won't go to war may suffer oppression categorized as a weak nation.

Such as a bully that will continue to oppress someone that appears weak, will not fight back and go to war .
Pro
#4
Someone can argue war is beneficial in terms of a fighting country not allowed to be terrorized .

A country that won't fight, won't go to war may suffer oppression categorized as a weak nation.

Such as a bully that will continue to oppress someone that appears weak, will not fight back and go to war .
Con has argued Pro.

This is a major error by Con.

I will now agree with Con on all points there except that the second is not an inherent issue. It is fine to be weak with the correct alliances and situation, that has no bearing on the debate.

'Why is that so?' you may ask...

Well, it comes down to what 'beneficial' is.

armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this

From the club to spear to knife to bamboo stick to harpoon to slingshot to... the firearm to grenade and bomb. The most basic needs for innovation were the following:

  • War
  • Medicine
  • Compensating for lack of physical prowess and good looks when securing a mate (AKA cunning/tactical evolution)
Poison interestingly was part of all three.

When your tribe is at war, the fact is the tribe that is superior at strategy, science and has the fortitude to pull through will generally win. The only exception would be mass-murder surprise attacks where the losing side has no time to react but that itself is a form of evolution itself; those who are totally lacking in stress and awareness perish as much as those who are essentially paralysed or at least crippled by excesses of both.

We must understand what happens in life; the strong initially survive, the smart outdo and the cunning pull the rug from beneath both.

We have the brute-force fast-thinking and strong types, the intelligent and honest scientific types and within both as well as outside both comes a whole different ball-game; cunning tactics.

What good is your black belt and wonderfully fit body if you lack the awareness and readiness for the sucker-punches and backstabs that come your way?

We are the dominant species on the fucking planet in terms of all-rounded respects other than population (insects thwart us there, let alone bacteria). Humans never dominated Earth until they fought. It wasn't fighting and war that made us dominant, it was a catalyst for the urge to improve things, innovate, be aware of threats and react proactively that separated winning tribes and individuals from losing ones.

Imagine being the unknowingly pseudo-cucked man that thinks he's raising his children when they're his brother's. That's the dirty shit I'm talking about and that's not even the start of large-scale war. What do you think the winners do? They don't just slaughter all the women and children if they want to last, they bang the women and raise the future generation well (or lead them at least).

The computer we are debating on?

Turing’s wartime legacy
Turing’s contributions to the modern world were not merely theoretical. During the second world war, he worked as a codebreaker for the UK government, attempting to decode the Enigma cipher machine encryption devices used by the German military.

Enigma was a typewriter-like device that worked by mixing up the letters of the alphabet to encrypt a message. UK spies were able to intercept German transmissions, but with nearly 159 billion billion possible encryption schemes, they seemed impossible to decode.

Building on work by Polish mathematicians, Turing and his colleagues at the codebreaking centre Bletchley Park developed a machine called the bombe capable of scanning through these possibilities.

This allowed the UK and its allies to read German intelligence and led to a significant turning point in the war. Some estimates say that without Turing’s work, the war would have lasted years more and cost millions more lives.

The language we are debating in? Sure, English is just 'luck' so what the English won that's not the point. The point is grammar, spelling, the fact that we are the only species to have pushed communication in wartime so much so that those that lacked it perished. Can you imagine the ideas, discoveries and even opinions of your ancestors in your local community being zero-sum games even if they were geniuses? That's what every single species suffers. There are genius cats and they try their best and when they die that means nothing at all unless by luck their offspring inherited it.

War and peace are an integral part of the history of humankind. Wars can have a major effect on language as they bring about language contact situations which can disturb and change the language ecology of a region. This can lead to either the death of languages or the creation of new languages. Wars influence language change in various ways, and are responsible for the creation of new words and expressions. Warmongers manipulate and use language as one of their weapons. Peacemakers have also seen the potential of language for promoting peace. Political battles are often fought over language rights. Language issues are often inseparable from other struggles. The relationship between war and language can be viewed from many angles and this theme offers many possibilities for fruitful research.

Overseas imports and the development of the English language
Elizabethan exploration, privateering and piracy was another source for English vocabulary. These came mainly from the Spanish and Portuguese, including many Caribbean and Native American words explorers from the nations had adopted, such as 'tobacco' and 'potato'.
More like this


Who wrote the first thesaurus?
Stuart colonialism on the eastern shores of America saw a great number of words from Native Americans being adopted and entering the English language direct, including 'canoe', and 'hammock'. The Pilgrim Fathers and subsequent English settlements adopted even more.
Britain's share in world trade saw a steady rise during the Tudor and Stuarts' exploration policies through to the Victorian empire building. This increase in trade would see another wave of new words entering the English vocabulary from foreign climes, including words from the Netherlands such as: landscape; scone; booze; schooner; skipper; avast; knapsack; easel; sketch – and a great deal more.

The British empire at its height encompassed one quarter of the Earth's land mass, and ruled over hundreds of millions of different peoples throughout the world. The English language evolved alongside this empire, with words being adopted into the vocabulary. Numerous words from India alone have become common in English today, such as: pyjamas; khaki; bungalow; jodhpurs; juggernaut; curry; chutney; shampoo and thug – to name but a few.

Imagine a world that still had no 'global language' that at least some decent percentage of people could generally speak as a second language (exclusing isolated tribes). We have a language we all speak, share ideas through and even if we don't the entire technological invention of the internet wouldn't have been possible if not for the war that led to the computer in the first place and the internet is why the world is so connected and amazing.
Round 3
Con
#5
Would you say it's beneficial for someone to defend themselves even if it means going to war?

Really the bottom line.
Pro
#6
Perhaps, yes and history supports that it has been beneficial for pater generations even if not for the military themselves.