Instigator / Pro
7
1439
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#6350
Constant Partial War
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description
That a country, Should seek and participate in war, never seek years of 'complete peace.
That it is advantageous to a country, To have at least part of their military seasoned by war.
With the simple logic that the soldiers are more hardened, Capable.
That the countries military understands best which methods and equipment. Are viable to use.
That the countries civilian government understands best how to properly fund and equip it's military in the event of larger war.
Though myself, I'd argue this be limited to volunteers in,
Peacekeeping forces affiliated with the United Nations.
Mercenaries, Often referred to as Private Security Contractors.
And police actions against pirates, Criminals, Terrorists.
Though again I stress, That the people participating in such conflicts understand what they signed up for, And have reasonable ways of leaving if they are not up to it.
(Full description is meant to be taken 'broadly as further 'description of the 'spirit of the debate, and stance I will take)
The point being contended in this debate is the line below.
That a country, Should seek and participate in partial war, never seek years of 'complete peace.
Round 1
Pro
#1
My thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.
I argue nations already 'tend to situations of minor perpetual war with one another,
Speaking softly, Knifing softly each other in the back. Cold Wars.
With 'freedom fighters, And terrorists. Proxies and allies of strategic interest.
Against drug lords, criminals, And warlords.
But more than that, The perpetuation of 'major wars has not left our 'species, I argue.
While many people may have 'mostly ceased their tribal conflicts, Such as Britain, Japan, America, China, Germany.
There are 'still too many 'differences between greater nations at large. 'Large conflicts 'will come again. Even were all the Earth to globalize, say I,
"The empire, Long divided, Must unite; long united, Must divide. Thus it has ever been"
- Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong
Many a nations economic stance on their militaries reflect this, And if we're shoveling so much of our money into our militaries, Perhaps that money should 'best serve a maximum purpose.
In Keynesian economics, broken windows and repair. In nature, fires that burn out overgrown forests, And regrow, decay, death, and rebirth.
So too military equipment breaks or is outdated, costing in it's replacement.
If it is to be burned through anyhow, maximum use, say I.
The most callous argument I give, Is on the topics of aggression and population.
There are many people in the world to day. One worries 'too many at times, I refer you to the Behavioral sink by ethologist John B. Calhoun
I 'argue that there are 'clear dangers to overpopulation. And now on the topic of aggression, Make the argument that many individuals are prone to aggression. That 'such 'lands many people in prison, Violent movements, And over the top politics.
Such willful antisocial behavior is better encouraged, directed, and regulated, 'And at times fallen 'away from the population.
Finally I come to preparedness, On how well, Military experience helps a military.
I argue that there is no substitute for experience.
Just as mannequins are no substitute for live tissue, Combat 'training while important, Is no substitute for battle experience.
"Responding to the PETA complaint, the UM veterinarian and director for laboratory animal medicine stated that ‘the work of the Survival Flight nurses required that such procedures were performed on living tissue’, and that there was no substitute for this type of training, claiming that both simulators and associated teaching aids simply weren’t adequate."
Mock practice cannot fully prepare a soldier for what he will learn in situational awareness, For his eye for terrain, The stress, Carefulness.
For a mock is just that, Mock, Partial, Incomplete.
Nor can the military 'institution, be but 'prone to rot, without attention, care, and upkeep.
Tools vital, in use, are cared for and looked after.
Ever in history one see's the use of observers in Wars.
One see's militaries enter conflicts with antiquated equipment and tactics, 'broken by new powers rising.
As a weeding process,
Military Boot Camp itself is a uncomfortable experience. In the USA anyway, Some people may claim that there's no getting out once you've signed up, But there is. It's a stress test, of who has the nature to obey, Who has the will to continue, The resilience.
Combat too, weeds people out, 'sooner rather than later.
That they may yet serve in capacities that best suit their abilities.
Even people honorably injured, Who lose eye, Leg, Or arm.
Have value, that too often militaries ignore,
There are 'many tasks that can be completed, That serve one's country, Or fit into military service, Even with disabilities.
Whether it's to deter the unprepared as a recruiter, As with the man in Starship Troopers.
Or to continue a job, One is still perfectly capable of preforming.
'Many a civilian contractor in the US military, previously served.
My round 1 summed up, I assert
1, War is inevitable.
2, War has economic value.
3, Population and Aggression needs an outlet.
4, There is no substitute for experience.
5, The losses acquired in war, Are of benefit or recoverable.
Con
#2
Sorry for the delay!
First-The Inevitability of War Is Not an Argument for Its Pursuit.
While it is true that war has recurred across history, inevitability does not justify deliberate provocation. Acknowledging that major wars may happen is not equivalent to just chasing conflict as a matter of policy. We do not institutionalize war simply because it inevitably emerges. We instead prevent and negotiate (or raise our defense budget). Nations can-and do-prepare defensively without actually engaging. And you can see that international norms, diplomacy, and economic interdependence have significantly reduced the frequency and scale of conflicts since 1945.
Accepting “war is inevitable” as a rationale for partial perpetual war is intellectually lazy fatalism rather than a logical policy.
Second-The Economic Case Overstates Benefits and Ignores Costs.
The claim that partial war creates economic value is a misreading of Keynesian economics and a poor analogy to “broken windows.”
Breaking windows-destroying property-does indeed require repair, but it creates no net gain. It merely diverts resources from more productive uses.
Wars consume enormous resources: funding personel, replacing destroyed material, treating wounded soldiers, and rebuilding.
They also create systemic risk in the future such as: unexpected escalation, destabilization of trade, unpredictable costs, and blowback.
Peace dividends are real: post-Cold War demilitarization and reallocation of funds to technology, education, and infrastructure helped economic growth.
War economies do the opposite. They tend toward inefficiency, corruption, and misallocation. The fact that equipment will eventually be replaced does not justify burning through it for the sake of appearances. If efficiency is the goal, peacetime exercises, wargames, and modernization programs achieve readiness without the damage of actual conflict (Most developed countries do this)
Third-The Morality and Social Cost of turning aggression into an instrument. (Since we agreed to debate in any aspect)
Arguing that partial wars are necessary outlets for aggression and overpopulation is morally and socially unacceptable. Treating individuals-especially the disadvantaged, or those with fewer alternatives-as expendable instruments to vent aggression is brutaly dehumanizing.
Moreover, to invoke Calhoun’s “behavioral sink” as justification for blood shedding is fictional pseudoscience applied to-and bearing-real society consequences.
Population pressures and crime are better addressed through social policy.
(Personal opinion: brutal moral argument from my opponent)
Fourth-There is no substitute for Experience. But there is also no Substitute for Ethics, Strategy, Innovation, international relations and many other economic factors.
It is true that real combat experience improves tactics. But there is a difference between unavoidable necessity and intentional exposure.
Modern simulation technologies, field exercises, joint multinational drills, and deployments in genuinely defensive or peacekeeping operations can create a seasoned, competent force without inflicting avoidable human costs.
Moreover, warfare evolves rapidly. The Ukrainian conflict shows that electronic warfare (drones) define success nowdays.
A military obsessed with constant small wars risks 'doctrinal stagnation', preparing to fight yesterday’s battles.
Fifth-Political and Diplomatic Repercussions.
A nation that systematically pursues conflict-however partial-risks losing legitimacy in the international sense. Even limited interventions generate diplomatic isolation over time.
I think Cold War history shows very well that proxy engagements are the ones that fuel insurgency and extremism.
Global alliances and trade partnerships (famously nato) rely on trust and predictability. A state that openly pursues permanent conflict undermines the credibility of itself and also increases the likelihood that smaller conflicts escalate into larger ones. Peacekeeping missions and defensive alliances are not the same as partial wars.
And just for closing: Modern ethical governance requires minimizing suffering and avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible. That is what i would expect from my government. I guess everyone, as a citizen, would expect the same.
Round 2
Pro
#3
1st, Inevitability,
"I don't want peace. I want problems, always."
- A YouTuber's rendition of Shao Kahn
"Many great men are procrastinators, but there is not one among them, who would not be greater still, if he possessed the resolve to face an unpleasant task or truth."
- Dr Stan, Another Gaming Comic
'Conflict, is such a truth.
A truth so deadly, that hypotheticals and shadow practice is not enough.
'Practice how to fight, and you get best at 'practice fights.
'Fight, and you get best at fighting.
Punching bags are great, beneficial to combat readiness,
But they don't beat the experience of giving and taking a punch to the face.
Moreover War Games run the risk of 'pretense,
"When a wargame becomes a “big deal,” attended by a number of senior decision-makers, it is also likely to attract the attention of the press, and therefore the results of the game will be of marked interest. This means that perceived failures or shortcomings are to be avoided as an embarrassment, and that the game is inevitably slanted to generate a “successful outcome” (as far as an external third-party in concerned), regardless of the original aims.
In which case the game is no longer a wargame, but instead a triumphant procession through the plan to a successful outcome, with only trivial points “learned” to justify the event afterwards."
'Peacetime militaries, produce societies and militaries concerned with 'peacetime concerns.
'Inclusivity, 'Representation, 'Appearance, and 'Parade.
Though a country might 'try to retain the values of War,
The Meritocracy more easily falls away in peace.
'War, 'Forces the military to care, to promote standards and individuals capable and 'proven in 'War. Not 'peacetime military activities.
1.2, Peace
Why should we trust one another to remain allies?
If Trump was just a 'bit more mad, I can imagine Canada and America in conflict again.
And should Britain flinch, as Chamberlain did?
What if Britain's value of military might fades? Atrophied through a lack of use or value?
What might come of the ice in the north melted, and new demographics and cultures?
Military might and readiness, is something that should 'never be placed second in importance.
Only by 'War, can the highest standards be maintained and valued.
Only by 'War, tested.
Train as they like, every nation is but a silhouette, until 'tested in 'reality, not theory.
What a Paper Tiger, Russia, proved to be.
2nd Economic Costs
When I speak of Keynesian and Windows, I speak of necessity.
"To sum up, by assuming full employment, the broken window fallacy simply assumes away the problem we need to solve, namely, pulling the economy out of recession. That is why Keynesian economics asserts that during the periods of high unemployment, it would be better to pay workers to dig out holes and fill them up again, or even to break and fix windows, than doing nothing at all. Of course, it will be much more desirable to pay workers for socially desirable projects, but you get the drift of the argument."
"If War did not exist, it would be necessary to invent one."
- 'Almost Voltaire
Military weapons, supplies, vehicles and so on.
Are 'going to 'break, or be outdated.
A 'lesser method of recovering the economic losses of staying readily equipped.
Can be to use them in war games, or to trade them to nations of even 'less military means.
But better I say, to use them ourselves. 'See what works, by the surest means available, The 'necessary means. . . 'War.
It benefits us, and benefits us again, when we sell the data learned, and/or sell what remains of the weapons.
2.2 Financial Costs of War
The days 'are, more past than not, of the 'plunder of war. . . In the 'obvious sense.
War 'does seem to lay a financial cost upon a nation. . . But what does it reap?
'Vastly more, than what is spent, when war and the world is 'calculated.
It is 'by 'War and Intervention, that Trade is struck and the Market Forced.
When one is 'ever active in the Wars of the world, one is 'ever directing the situation to one's ends.
What right to a slice, has the individual who sits out war?
How large a 'piece, can one demand through non-intervention?
Empires have ever been made through War,
Have ever 'held their own, by 'being War Forged.
By a 'willingness and 'ability to enter War.
Nations such as Japan or China, ignored the outside world for a time, 'neglected 'True Military might, as is compared with nations 'outside oneself.
And had their ports forced open. To the Economic benefits of Britain and America.
The Black Ships (Japan), Opium Wars (China)
Had America sat out the World Wars, as we 'could have,
What 'hand would we have in the New World Orders after 'such a war?
I also state a callback to inefficiently and misallocation of militaries in peacetime.
https://sjms.nu/articles/10.31374/sjms.121 - Wargames,
When 'War is not 'forced by the necessity of 'being War, to be the first concern of the military,
'Lesser concerns, 'Irrelevant concerns to the 'purpose of a military, creep in. Wokeness, for example.
3rd Morality and Social
We 'did 'roughly agree to debate any aspect,
But by accepting my debate you 'also agreed to the 'rough description including 'Volunteers.
Who are you or I, to 'stop individuals, with an interest in war or benefits that service might provide.
In America, being a Veteran has 'many benefits.
Education, Health Care, Trade Skills, Counseling, Job Resume, Politics, Home Loans, Various Discounts at private businesses.
And if the most aggressive of the human race should pursue such a career?
Well, The overpopulation angle 'is a bit of a long shot,
But humans have no natural predator that I know of,
While we may get a handle on our growth, For the moment, I simply present another minor faucet of partial war, That would serve a purpose.
That humans 'need some form of selection.
I do not argue for 'killing them, Though my argument does note war has a high occurrence of death.
In best light, I argue that aggressive people seek a career in which their proclivities are relevant to their work. That perhaps in a disciplined environment that encourages Duty, Honor, Country.
A responsibility towards their society, And a responsibility they expect to be returned.
In the worse light, I do note society would have fewer violent individuals from death.
"The study confirms that the military attracts men who are generally less neurotic, less likely to worry, less likely to be concerned about seeking out novel experiences. When compared with men in civilian pursuits, those entering the military also are more aggressive, more interested in competition than cooperation and less concerned about the feelings of others, the study finds."
3.2 Fictional Pseudoscience
How it the behavioral sink a fictional pseudoscience?
Humans are animals, and at times scientists study and test animals in social experiments or observation in their natural habitats.
"In 2021, there were 11.7 million property victimizations. Property crime includes burglary, trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and household theft. Between 2017–2021, property victimization decreased from 108.4 per 1,000 households to 90.3, a 17% decline."
All science and facts start from 'somewhere,
That we understand there is more yet to learn, does not mean we do not apply what we yet have.
"The research analyzes crime statistics and demographic data from 2010 to 2023, identifying how increased population density contributes to higher crime rates, including violent offenses, theft, and drug-related activities. The analysis explores the socio-economic factors—such as poverty, unemployment, and limited resources—that exacerbate criminal behaviour in overpopulated environments. Using time-series and regression analysis, the study demonstrates a strong correlation between rising population density and increased crime rates, with a notable spike during peak tourist seasons. The findings suggest that economic disparity and lack of employment opportunities further intensify the effects of overpopulation on crime."
At least my method, it is freely chosen, not 'forced as some population controls.
Such as the one child policy.
A moral duty, risk of one's own life, to safeguard one's people, and the ideals and values of one's nation abroad.
4rth, Experience
The Unavoidable Necessity Necessitates Intentional Exposure.
I state a callback to inefficiently and misallocation of militaries in peacetime.
https://sjms.nu/articles/10.31374/sjms.121 - Wargames,
As well as my argument, that when War is not a Necessity, Lesser Concerns and Weaknesses become focuses of a military.
And the wrong sorts of people, good at parades, theory, and do nothing projects to put on their profile sheet, get promoted.
Peacekeeping,
"Modern simulation technologies, field exercises, joint multinational drills, and deployments in genuinely defensive or peacekeeping operations"
'Are good, though some peacekeeping operations could have included more war on the part of the peacekeepers.
"[At] its heart the Rwandan story is the failure of humanity to heed a call for help from an endangered people. While most nations agreed something should be done, they all had an excuse why they should not be the ones to do it. As a result the UN was denied the political will and material means to prevent the tragedy."
― Roméo Dallaire, Shake Hands with the Devil
War evolves rapidly, Yes! I agree,
Which is why we must keep a finger on the pulse of War.
Constantly testing our equipment and tactics, replacing when need be.
Involvement in wars, gives us first hand, and first rights to military intelligence of conflicts.
So called small wars, are 'not small in the benefits they provide us.
Our involvement and allying with Israel for instance, a great benefit on missile deterrence.
Involvement in Ukraine, great benefit gaining intelligence on drones.
But,
They haven't replaced boots.
"Drones were no longer just vulnerable air power assets, equipped with cameras and laser-guided bombs to enable precision war at long distances without “boots on the ground.” Instead, the war saw the use of commercial drones delivering explosives and even becoming low-cost ammunition with varying degrees of precision. The lack of scholarly foresight can be attributed to the literature drawing lessons from the fight against international terrorism, which focused on large drones. Security studies literature has thus not yet developed robust tools to analyze the consequences of small, low-cost drones deployed in modern warfare. Put simply, the war in Ukraine shows that drones have boots."
Though I admit one must be careful what wars, and how 'deep, one wades.
5th Political and Diplomatic Repercussions.
It is only by conflict one 'stays relevant.
Where is Britain now? Where it's Empire?
They lost it by greed, causing insurrection, in what they might have kept by largeness.
Where is America now? And where'd we be by isolationism?
Had we avoided the Barbary Wars, 1812, WW1, WW2, Russia during the Cold War?
A great many Wars has seen great gains for America Diplomatically.
I have not argued for 'maximizing deaths,
I've only ever in this debate argued for necessary sacrifices, to prevent greater ones.
My round 2 summed up I assert,
1, War is inevitable.
2, War has economic value.
3, Population and Aggression needs an outlet.
4, There is no substitute for experience.
5, By War, great Diplomacy is gained.
Con
#4
It is simply incorrect to claim that only real wars build competence.Modern militaries can achieve combat experience through exercises and live-fire training under realistic stress conditions (e.g., NATO’s Trident Juncture, RedFlag. You can look these up). All those spendings aren't for nothing.
The performance of Ukraine’s forces-who trained for years with NATO advisers without engaging in constant wars-shows that.
The Economic Argument Ignores Opportunity Costs (Economics 101)
War spending diverts talent, capital, and innovation away from sectors that actually provide prosperity such as education, infrastructure, civilian R&D.
Furthermore, Even Keynes himself preferred productive spending over destructive spending. Repairing bombed cities is less beneficial to humanity in the long run than building new ones.
Economies like Switzerland, Japan, and post war Germany achieved significant strength while going through decades of peace, no wars. Germany and Japan being 3rd and 4th biggest economies. I repeat, without war.
Morality and Social Costs Cannot Be Set Aside.
You propose that war conveniently selects aggressive individuals and creates social cohesion. First, "disposing off agressive people in war" is not moral in itself.
Second, in reality, conflict harms trust, traumatizes populations, and perpetuates cycles of violence. Even voluntary participation does not dissolve a society’s moral obligation to avoid unnecessary suffering (Read the ending of my first argument).
When all other options exist to avoid war, war is the least ethical choice. America’s interventions in the 2000s mostly succeeded but not because war was inherently good. It was because the US had overwhelming economic and geographic advantages. But That does not last indefinitely. Repeated wars destroy credibility, drain resources, and actually cause more resentment abroad. A military that is constantly at war, usually becomes less trusted in international diplomacy.
Finally, your argument presumes that only war can inspire discipline,innovation, and solidarity.
But history shows societies can succeed to grand challenges -industrial and technological revolutions, exploration, culturalachievements- that do not involve the deliberate killing of others. A civilization that defaults to war as its primary proving ground betrays its own capacity for progress.
And for a simple analogy. A nation that seeks inspiration from war is like a dictator that forces people to applause his speech. The dictator only shows his inability to deliver a plausible speech just like that nation shows its inability to develop independently.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Economics
Wars cost money and time, yes.
But as I argued, wars can also recoup said losses, and often even more, through War's influence upon the world.
Training costs money, war costs money,
War 'is training it is experience,
Wars can gain a country money,
Training 'without war, will only 'cost money.
By Choice?
Switzerland, Japan, and post war Germany,
Were at peace, by the choices of other nations, not themselves.
And 'while a country 'keeps to peace, keeps their military weaker,
They are 'ever at peace, by the choices of 'others.
Morality
"And just for closing: Modern ethical governance requires minimizing suffering and avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible. That is what i would expect from my government. I guess everyone, as a citizen, would expect the same."
- Umbrellacorp Round 1 ending of first argument.
But I have not 'argued for 'unnecessary suffering or violence.
People 'want violence, conflict, and crusades.
They want it 'more when they have nothing to do.
Look at Covid, and American Protestors, is it an unreasonable theory that many of them were bored, and 'jumped at an excuse to get out of the house to exercise their right of protest?
Additionally, this desire for destruction can increase depending on population size, environment, ideologies.
To give them moral war and crusade, is to give them what they 'want.
And under government policy, ever seeking the favor of the people, just Wars are then pursued.
Discipline, innovation, and solidarity.
I would not say war is the 'only factor which can inspire these.
But it 'is a large and vital one.
No nation 'can achieve in peace, without first being secure in war.
Least that is the picture 'I read in history.
And when their strength was 'less, 'other 'took their peaceful achievements.
And I do not believe 'anything inspires solidarity in a group of humans, as much as an 'outside group.
I cannot agree with your analogy, by my examples of how 'often peacetime militaries fail to keep up.
Humans 'need stress, and pressure, and conflict.
Remove all pressure from a human, as in space for example, human body 'just doesn't do well.
Same for psychology.
"You get the right amount of stress and we call it stimulation.
The goal in life isn't to get rid of stress, the goal in life is to have the right type of stress.
Because when it is the right type we love it.
We jump out of our seats to experience it, we pay good money to get stressed that way.
It tends to be a moderate stressor, where you've got a stressor that's transient.
It's not for nothing that roller coaster rides are not three weeks long, and most of all what they're about is you relinquish a little bit of control in a setting that overall feels safe."
- Robert Sapolsky
I have not advocated for Total War, Totaler Krieg,
A danger 'ever present by the history of humans,
But for a moderated, yet 'real War.
My round 3 summed up I assert,
1, War has economic value.
2, Security in strength
3, Freedom and Purpose to the People
4, The 'Correct, most Achieving Stress for the Military by War
Con
#6
"Wars cost money and time, yes.But as I argued, wars can also recoupsaid losses, and often even more, through War's influence upon the world.Training costs money, war costs money,War 'is training it is experience,Wars can gain a country money,Training 'without war, will only 'costmoney."
Wars can gain a country money, i agree. In most cases that is not true. Only military superpowers have the capability to gain from war (rarily).
In the case of the ukraine war; Russia, even being a super-power has suffered significant economic pushback.
My argument was that there is no net profit. Usa will never recoup their military spending. Even if they might make some profit in the middle east, the total net profit is negative by a lot.
Spending only for defense is much more efficient in the long term than both maintaining defense spendings and funding a war.
"By Choice?Switzerland, Japan, and post warGermany,Were at peace, by the choices of othernations, not themselves.And 'while a country 'keeps to peace,keeps their military weaker,They are 'ever at peace, by thechoices of 'others."
I did not mention the word choice.
What i said was: By choice or not, These countries are proof that economic prosperity can be achieved without war.
"But I have not 'argued for'unnecessary suffering or violence.People 'want violence, conflict, andcrusades.They want it 'more when they havenothing to do.Look at Covid, and AmericanProtestors, is it an unreasonable theory that many of them were bored, and'jumped at an excuse to get out of the house to exercise their right ofprotest?"
Sending people to die just because they want violence is exactly what unnecessary suffering is.
Its just like saying we must send protesters to war because if we don't they will let out their agression inside the country.
Why should another country suffer and get destroyed just because your people want violence?
"To give them moral war and crusade, isto give them what they 'want.And under government policy, everseeking the favor of the people, just Wars are then pursued."
There is no such thing as a moral war. War cannot be justified on moral grounds.
Seeking the favour of your people by killing other people is not moral or just in any setting.
By your argument you also justify Hitler: He was just giving his people what they want on the expense of other people and nations.
I don't see how there could be any moral excuse to that.
""You get the right amount ofstress and we call it stimulation.The goal in life isn't to get rid ofstress, the goal in life is to have the right type of stress.Because when it is the right type welove it.We jump out of our seats to experienceit, we pay good money to get stressed that way.It tends to be a moderate stressor,where you've got a stressor that's transient.It's not for nothing that rollercoaster rides are not three weeks long, and most of all what they're about isyou relinquish a little bit of control in a setting that overall feelssafe."- Robert Sapolsky"
I doubt if anyone would go to war just for the stimulation. Anyway, equating war to a rollercoaster ride, both in levels of stress or stimulation, is a furious analogy and misuse of this quote.
If someone gets his stimulation by killing others, would you call that moral just because it is the 'right type of stress' for him?
"Discipline, innovation, andsolidarity.I would not say war is the 'onlyfactor which can inspire these.But it 'is a large and vital one."
War only inspires discipline for the army personel. It only inspires innovation for weapons contractors. And only inspires solidarity on which group of people we agree to kill.
What about the rest of the nation? The ones who do not live their lives on the expense of others?
War provides nothing for them but wasting of their taxes to fund destruction and killing.
"I cannot agree with your analogy, bymy examples of how 'often peacetime militaries fail to keep up.Humans 'need stress, and pressure, andconflict.Remove all pressure from a human, asin space for example, human body 'just doesn't do well.Same for psychology."
This statement is very primal. Stress only drives adaption in the mere biological sense of survival.
In modern times we have grown past survival constraints.
Has our progress in science, art, and civilization flourished due to war?
Has our progress in science, art, and civilization flourished due to war?
Stable, peaceful environments that allow focus and creativity make it happen.
Chronic stress degrades health and judgment; it is not a prerequisite for excellence.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Lemming provided arguments with upmost confidence, skillfulness and facts/sources
One example is:
Economics
Wars cost money and time, yes.
But as I argued, wars can also recoup said losses, and often even more, through War's influence upon the world.
Training costs money, war costs money,
War 'is training it is experience,
Wars can gain a country money,
Training 'without war, will only 'cost money.
By Choice?
Switzerland, Japan, and post war Germany,
Were at peace, by the choices of other nations, not themselves.
And 'while a country 'keeps to peace, keeps their military weaker,
They are 'ever at peace, by the choices of 'others.
Morality
"And just for closing: Modern ethical governance requires minimizing suffering and avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible. That is what i would expect from my government. I guess everyone, as a citizen, would expect the same."
- Umbrellacorp Round 1 ending of first argument.
But I have not 'argued for 'unnecessary suffering or violence.
People 'want violence, conflict, and crusades.
They want it 'more when they have nothing to do.
Look at Covid, and American Protestors, is it an unreasonable theory that many of them were bored, and 'jumped at an excuse to get out of the house to exercise their right of protest?
Additionally, this desire for destruction can increase depending on population size, environment, ideologies.
To give them moral war and crusade, is to give them what they 'want.
And under government policy, ever seeking the favor of the people, just Wars are then pursued.
Discipline, innovation, and solidarity.
I would not say war is the 'only factor which can inspire these.
But it 'is a large and vital one.
No nation 'can achieve in peace, without first being secure in war.
Least that is the picture 'I read in history.
And when their strength was 'less, 'other 'took their peaceful achievements.
And I do not believe 'anything inspires solidarity in a group of humans, as much as an 'outside group.
I cannot agree with your analogy, by my examples of how 'often peacetime militaries fail to keep up.
Humans 'need stress, and pressure, and conflict.
Remove all pressure from a human, as in space for example, human body 'just doesn't do well.
Same for psychology.
"You get the right amount of stress and we call it stimulation.
The goal in life isn't to get rid of stress, the goal in life is to have the right type of stress.
Because when it is the right type we love it.
We jump out of our seats to experience it, we pay good money to get stressed that way.
It tends to be a moderate stressor, where you've got a stressor that's transient.
It's not for nothing that roller coaster rides are not three weeks long, and most of all what they're about is you relinquish a little bit of control in a setting that overall feels safe."
- Robert Sapolsky
I have not advocated for Total War, Totaler Krieg,
A danger 'ever present by the history of humans,
But for a moderated, yet 'real War.
My round 3 summed up I assert,
1, War has economic value.
2, Security in strength
3, Freedom and Purpose to the People
4, The 'Correct, most Achieving Stress for the Military by War
This is a beautiful argument in which counters many of umbrellacorps, and is really beautifully skilfully made
Take it eaz faggot.
Don't forget to make strong remarks about women! LOL!!!!!!!! Faggot!
Ok sorry I tried. I was in a bit of a rush anyway.
If it got personal to you, I’m deeply sorry for your state of mind.
''You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.''
No, he is just spreading hate before the site goes down bcs i called him gay in the forum once. You should have seen his post tho... He is a smart guy!
@21Pilots
I 'do appreciate the effort, and didn't 'report your vote or the last.
But it 'probably doesn't meet the ideal standards of votes on DART.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
@Umbrellacorp
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Friendly feedback is more likely to get honest explanation, than Negative feedback.
Negative feedback gets resentment and goal of hurting, not explaining.
21pilots please be careful with the teeth faggot.
Vote reported: 21pilots
Mod action removed
7 to pro
It was a good argument, and it will be one of the last of debate art,
Good bye DART
This will be my final vote
User does not conform to voting standards
Oke
Ah, 'c'mon, you can do a better reason for vote than that.
I 'definitely enjoyed debating you.
It is an odd topic,
But the idea interested me.
Good debate!
Don't worry, no one is gonna read our debate anyway i think. long debates do not seem to get votes here.
Ah, I meant it as a joke.
It's from 8-Bit Theater, a webcomic about a party of psychopaths.
I'm a 'bit sorry I deleted it now, As you have replied.
But I figured other people might not find it as funny as me, and thought, 15 minute window to delete, probably no one read it.
But instant I click delete, heh, notification.
. . .
I'm not 'terribly serious about the topic,
Though I 'do find it interesting, and think there are argument to be made for seeking war.
Are we just gonna pretend that this is right?
Which film is this btw? Or show?
Should've also made a summary in the end like my opponent since no one likes reading all that. Anyways:
The fact that wars happen does not justify deliberately provoking them. Wise policy prepares for war without starting it.
War consumes resources and undermines prosperity. It is not a sustainable or productive economic engine.
Using war to manage aggression and population is unethical and dehumanizing.
Readiness and adaptation come from modern training and innovation, not conflict.
A strategy of constant war erodes alliances, breeds instability, and damages a nation’s reputation.
I'm open to it being about any effects, be they Military, Political, Economic, Moral, or Other.
The Black Forest in Germany, is somewhere I've often thought would be interesting to see.
Are we arguing only about keeping the quality of the army to a certain level? Or are we gonna treat this from all aspects. Political and economic. Or maybe moral?
Btw: Oregon is amazing!
Higher life expectancy too.
Certainly they are fine countries.
Varying in aspects of life's qualities that they excel in.
But still, I would choose America, for what it excels in, and I value, for me.
Japan and Switzerland have higher quality of life.
I hear it's a fine country,
Though I am fond of the redwoods of Oregon.
Switzerland is better to live in than USA.
And 'by that, their military suffered and rusted some.
'Had Germany invaded in WW2, as was considered, the Swiss would not have held out as 'well, as if they 'had minded war.
Switzerland wasnt at war for over 200 years.
'Would they?
Swiss Mercenaries have 'such a fame in history.
And if Japan had not 'cut themselves off from the world, during the Sakoku Era, but instead had kept their weapons 'relevant and honed,
The Black Ships of Admiral Perry, might not have laid before Japan such threat, as to force open their ports to trade.
Switzerland and Japan would disagree.