JT Round 2. OnceReturned v orange-light: WWIII, page 1

The why is what we are going to elaborate throughout this debate.
Roughly speaking:

Egoism

Stupidity

Possibility

Intolerance

Machismo

Those factors are always in place, yet we’re not always in a world war. If those things were sufficient causes of world war three, it would have happened already. There is no indication that the issues on your list are increasing or becoming more of a problem over time. If they haven’t brought us to world war 3 yet, they’re probably not going to.

Additionally, the first two world wars were not caused by these factors. The first world war was caused by a coincidence of events - none of which were psychological states like “egoism” or “intolerance” - and the second world war was caused by the invasion of Poland by Germany. There is no reason to believe that the prevalence of the items on this list are indicative of the likelihood of world war. Psychological factors such as these certainly don’t necessitate war.

I don’t want to provide a doom scenario in this debate; the world is hopefully not doomed.
If you are aware of the mechanisms, which will lead to a third world war, you can learn and help the world to prevent this scenario.

I disagree. As long as you’re not prepared to describe any specifics regarding the beginning of the war that you predict, it really is just doom and gloom prophecy. The mechanisms leading to any war - hypothetical or not - are actual events, not merely features of the human psyche. Unless you’re prepared to say that country A will begin the war by attacking country B sometime in the next X number of years because of reason Y, your entire message is indistinguishable from any of the countless other intentionally vague (and therefore trivial) quasi-apocalyptic prophecies.

The case for WW3 can’t be taken seriously when any and all details and specifics are omitted.

If you are not aware, if you won’t learn, than it will happen!

This can’t be true, otherwise it would have already happened. It is a matter of fact that appealing to the dark side of human nature is not enough. The dark side always exists yet world war does not. Actual events will have to take place in order for WW3 to begin. It is my argument that those events will not take place.

By the moment it is a very likely possibility.

It’s not that likely. The last world war ended 65 years ago and the darker aspects of human nature have been in place all along since then. If those factors made another world war “very likely” then that likelihood would have come to fruition by now.

My opponent mentioned that meanwhile nuclear weapons are possessed by many countries. Not only nuclear weapons, also the industry to control nuclear energy for “peaceful” means.

Every nuclear plant consists the possibility to built the bomb – I don’t believe those who try to tell me that it is otherwise. They are fooling our intelligence.

Even if we accept your claim that nuclear power can be easily translated into nuclear bombs, that’s a good thing. Nuclear weapons - by all indications - are the greatest peacemakers in human history. Two countries that possess nuclear weapons have never gone to war with one another, and there is no indication that they would. A rational argument cannot be made that nuclear weapons increase the likelihood of another world war.

Remember, it was the threat of mutually assured destruction at the hands of nuclear weapons that kept the cold war cold.

Personally I am happier that Mr Obama has control over the special suitcase in the USA than I have been with Mr Bush, but even Obama might feel depressed one morning ……… and boom.

Both Obama and Bush, as well as ever other president of every country since Truman, have decided not to drop the bomb. There is no reason to believe that this will change, and the idea that Obama might wake up on the wrong side of the bed and destroy the world is ridiculous.

Certainly the nations of the world have come to a better agreement with each other than they have been at the beginning of the 20th century or at the 19th century, but never before we had to cope the fear of terrorism on such a global level as we have today in December 2010.

Terrorism is by its very nature not the sort of thing that could precipitate world war. Terrorists are not equated with nations or the armies of nations and therefore terrorist attacks are not seen to be on the behalf of specific nations. Because of this, nations are not likely to go to war over terrorists attacks. 9/11 brought the US to war with Afghanistan, but consider the number of terrorist attacks that have occurred that haven’t lead to war between countries. These same sorts of attacks would never be tolerated if they had been committed by nations instead of terrorist organizations.

Actually I dare to claim that WW III has already begun – war on terrorism can be considered as WW III.
We will go closer into details.

This is not an acceptable line of argument. If WW3 had already begun, the topic of the debate wouldn’t be "There will never be a World War III.” This is clear because if there already were a WW3, there would be no pro position to be argued in the debate. This means without a doubt that whatever definition of WW3 you’re using, it is not an acceptable one; either to the judges or to a normal human’s sense of reason. . . No one believes WW3 is going on right now - it’s the sort of thing we would know about if it were going on.

Reply to the Socratic Questions of OnceReturned

1) Mutually assured destruction was an effective deterrent during the cold war. Why do you think that is?

It causes fear

And that fear was evidently enough to prevent war. I propose that the same deterrent - fear of nuclear retaliation - is still in place and is still effective, which is one of the reasons WW3 isn’t going to happen.

2) What evidence is there that countries that both possess nuclear weapons would go to war?

The idea that it is possible to pull the trigger faster than the opponent.

Ideas aren’t evidence, they’re just ideas. The fact is that there is no evidence that countries which possess nuclear weapons would go to war with one another.

3) Do you think that a world war 3 could occur without the participation of any nuclear armed nations?

Yes

I disagree. World wars involve the major armies of the world. The major armies of the world today have nuclear weapons. It wouldn’t be a world war if it was a war between third world countries on a single continent, and a war of larger scope than that would necessarily involve nuclear armed nations.

4) Why do you think WW3 hasn’t happened in the decades since WW2?

People have been happy having survived WWII

I would argue that whatever the reason, it is effectively keeping us out of WW3 and there is no indication that that will change.

5) Do you have a particular scenario in mind that you can be specific about as far as the start of this war? (specific countries, timeframe, reasons, ect...)

No

As long as you don’t have a particular scenario, it’s the same vague, trivial doom and gloom that one hears all the time and that never comes true - something that I’ve already addressed.

Socratic Question #1
Why do you think that globalization makes a new world war much more difficult and much more expensive?

The economies of major nations are more interdependent now than ever before. Consider the US and China; the US is China’s primary market for many industries, and China is the US’ supplier for many industries. Similar relationships exist connecting all major nations and many minor nations. Those relationships would be severed in the event of war and economies would suffer greatly. If China and the US went to war, China would lose a tremendous portion of their market and therefore their income, and the US would find itself with no source of many goods.

The economic interdependence that exists in modern times means that the cost of world war would be greater now than ever before. This is a major incentive for nations to avoid such wars.

Socratic Question #2
Do you really believe that people all over the world, no matter what nation, origin, education etc. are that much developed that they are only guided by responsibility and logical thinking?

Of course not, but that’s a long way away from saying that we’re doomed to have a world war because people are too irresponsible and illogical not to.

Socratic Question #3
What makes you so sure that no country has already a plan for a new world war?

I’m not sure of it, but there is no country that would benefit from another world war - especially in the nuclear age - so I, like you and everyone else, have no reason to believe that such a plan exists.

Socratic Question #4
Don’t you think that the difficulties in accepting the religious believes of other people might lead to a world wide conflict?

No. There are countless people right now who don’t accept each other’s religious beliefs but who are not at war. That’s not a factor that will bring us to WW3 or it already would have.

Socratic Question #5
What is your concept for teaching people enough tolerance to accept the difference in each others believes and thinking?

I have no such plan. No such plan is necessary. The situation only needs to remain as it is; the international community discourages conflicts and is intolerant of religious wars. No one has to accept anyone else, they just have to not go to war over it.
Questions:

1) You said that world war 3 would be possible without any nuclear armed nations. Can you list the nations that would participate in this hypothetical world war?

2) The psychological factors which you suggest will lead to WW3 are already in place, yet we’re not in WW3. What will change that will actually lead to the war?

3) Why do you think that the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent will diminish? (What will change about this deterrent?)

4) How can we hope to proceed with a debate about whether or not an event (WW3) will occur, when you’re unable to describe anything about the event such a who, when, how, and why? Remember that you’re saying this will occur, the burden of proof is on you. . . What, exactly, will occur?

5) What criteria need to be realized in order for the situation to be considered World War 3?

"There will never be a World War III.”

Answer to above question: The US rushed in in response to 9/11. We were attacked and the people supported an immediate response. We encouraged the participation of our allies because A) It’s easier and cheaper to fight a war if your allies help B) We wanted to show that the US and all of our allies stood together against our enemies C) We wanted Europe on board so that we couldn’t be singled out as warmongers. A more sophisticated answer is beyond the scope of this debate.

Recall the following from my opening statement:

A) there’s something about apocalyptic predictions that makes them appealing in a deep way and B) they’re almost never right.

Since then, my opponent has advanced three ideas in support of her position. These ideas were, in short:

1) The vague notion that human beings are bad and therefore inclined to cause another world war for indeterminate, trivial reasons.

2) The intuitively absurd assertion that WW3 is already happening.

3) Social unrest and upheaval due to poverty and/or fanaticism will spread like wildfire, bringing war in its wake, and eventually lead to a 3rd world war.

The first two ideas can essentially be dismissed prima facie, but I will eliminate them here nonetheless.

The first point that my opponent makes is frustrating only because it is so poorly defined. She threw out nonsensical hypothetical causes for WW3 such as:

…even Obama might feel depressed one morning ……… and boom.

And refused to propose any serious debatable causes:

5) Do you have a particular scenario in mind that you can be specific about as far as the start of this war? (specific countries, timeframe, reasons, ect...)

No

Except perhaps that the most powerful men in the world couldn’t help but start WW3 due to mental illness:

Many countries own nuclear weapons, far to many countries and some of these countries have somehow mentally instable leaders.

This line of argument can certainly be lumped in with the generic doom-and-gloom beliefs about the future which deserve little consideration. There’s no reason to believe that this point ought to be taken seriously, and even if one were to attempt to address it in detail one finds that there is little to address: no details, no supporting evidence, no historical background, no reasonable argument to be made. . . This is an empty argument; incapable of being defending and incapable of compelling anyone outside of those who already believe it. All that can be said is that one simply chooses to believe it or not. It is more a faith-based position than anything else, and for those of us who lack the arbitrary faith, there is no evidence. Evidence is synonymous with reason to believe; without evidence, we have no reason to believe. Such is the case here.

As for issue number two, that world war 3 is occurring as we speak, there are at least two strong justifications for our intuition that this is an absurd assertion.

First of all, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have the qualities of world wars. Their scope is not comparable to past world wars, and neither is the nature of the conflict. There are major nations involved, but they’re all on the same side. The opposition is not a major nation nor a comparable fighting force by any measure. The extent to which the fighting is localized, the magnitude of the enemy, the regard for civilians, the threat to the coalition nations, and the causes of the conflicts are all totally incongruent with what has come to be known as world war.

Second of all, the people of the developed world have a concept of world war - if not from experience then from history class in grade school - and outside of this debate that concept is not being applied to any current conflicts. Governments, media organizations, and individuals know what is meant by “world war,” and they know that this isn’t it. Consider that if one searches “World War 3” on Google News right now, there are 9 results and none of them support my opponent’s position that world war 3 is ongoing. The simple fact is that a world war is not the sort of thing that could go unnoticed, yet that’s what my opponent would lead you to believe. She grasps for technicalities in the dictionary definition or “world war,” namely the issue of major nations being involved. But, as I said before, technicalities found in dictionaries don’t trump meaning-in-usage when it comes to the meaning of words. When people say WW3, they don’t mean the American wars in the middle east, and common sense tells us that if asked, no informed person would say that yes, world war 3 is ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Finally, “The topic for this debate is "There will never be a World War III.” The positions assigned are that “there will be” or that “there will not be.” “Will be” refers to a future state; “there will be” means that something - in this case the state of affairs known as WW3 - is going to exist at some point in time that comes after the present. These statements do not apply to or reference the present except in order to implicitly exclude it. Therefore, the present state cannot - by definition - determine the truth value of a statement of the form “There will be X.” Whether or not there already is X does not tell us whether or not there will be. Consider that if one were to ask, “Will it be cold?” One would be no closer to an answer if they received the reply, “It is cold now.”

The fact that the topic of the debate doesn’t make sense if my opponent’s assertion is true, as well as the fact that there is a clear difference between “Will there” and “Is there,” makes clear that what my opponent is attempting to argue is not applicable to the question at hand. If the creator of the debate wanted to know if WW3 was ongoing, that’s what they would have asked. Instead they asked if it will occur, which is a question that cannot be answer by saying whether or not is it [I] presently[/I] occuring. The question does not address the present, it addresses the future. The positions assigned to us for the debate (The answers to the question) are therefore not about whether or not WW3 [I]is[/I] occurring. This means that my opponent’s argument that the war is already occurring is not consistent with her assigned position. The debate is about a future event.

My opponent’s final line of discussion, which I summarized as follows: “Social unrest and upheaval due to poverty and/or fanaticism will spread like wildfire, bringing war in its wake, and eventually lead to a 3rd world war,” is the only serious claim that she has made thus far. (By serious I mean something that can at least be assembled into a debatable assertion.) This point stands out from the others to such an extent that it gives the impression that it may be a fairly robust argument, but I assure the readers that this effect is only present when the exercise is comparative and this argument is made after one’s expectations are lowered by it’s predecessors (Insanity on the part of world leaders and that WW3 is already happening. . .).

In fact, there is no reason to believe that terrorism or a recession in the developed world will lead to World War 3. The economic issue is the easiest to consider, so I’ll begin there: It doesn’t make sense that poverty within a nation should lead to war with other nations, and history supports the contrary position that poverty leads to revolution and internal conflict, not external wars. My opponent references the current global recession and particularly its effects in the western world. She supposes that unemployment and shrinking retirement benefits may be the catalyst for world war. I ask the judges only to survey wars that have taken place since 1900, with particular emphasis on the world wars and the wars that have nearly become world wars. Given the history, is one inclined to believe that these factors lead to wars? If not, what reason do we have to believe that this situation will change? The answer is that no major wars involving developed nations in modern times have been caused by unemployment or poverty, and we have no reason to believe that this will change.

I find myself out of space, so with regard to the terrorism issue and al-Qaeda I have only this to say: Terrorism has existed for thousands of years. The primary feature of terrorism is that it’s source is always fringe, extremist elements of a society. These elements are not up for fighting a war against the world, they’re not major nations, and their attacks don’t provoke tensions between major nations. The problem of terrorism is well understood today, and with that understanding comes the judgment to not jump into a WW3 because a handful of lunatics blow things up. The world is familiar with terrorism and world leaders do not conflate terrorists with governments; we’re past the point where rogue elements could provoke a misinformed world into destroying itself. I challenge my opponent to cite any indications to the contrary.

I know my opponent will disagree, but level heads will prevail. The costs of WW are too high and the benefits too small for major nations to do anything but prevent WW3 at all costs. Major nations are lead by smart people, and these people aren’t going to jump into anything that will destroy the world without good reason. I submit that no “good reason” exists or will exist, and certainly that my opponent has not identified one. It doesn’t make sense to destroy the world, which is what would happen in WW3 because of nukes. This is the greatest reason that WW3 will never happen.

There will never be a World War III

Response 1 and Rebuttal

Response 2 and Rebuttal

Reponse 3 and Rebuttal

Closing