JT Round 2. OnceReturned v orange-light: WWIII

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "There will never be a World War III.”

OnceReturned will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
orange-light will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
orange-light and I have agreed to begin opening statements on the 26th, so that our efforts in the debate will not interfere with the holiday.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "There will never be a World War III.”
OnceReturned will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.


Here’s my plan:

I’m going to argue that there will never be a World War 3. The way I imagine it now, I’m going to pursue two particular lines of argument that will lead inevitably to the conclusion that there will not, in fact, be another world war. The first argument that I’m going to make is that the position of my opponent is no different than any other doom and gloom/apocalypse prophesizing that goes on constantly and always has. It’s a common position that has been adopted with superficial variations countless times throughout history and a position with a rather underwhelming track record. Saying that something bad is going to happen, especially something specific, has been done a lot with little success. The reason that this general form of message is so popular is because it resonates with something deep within us. This presents a challenge for me, because the future that my opponent will tell you is going to happen is so easy to imagine. I would like to call this state of affairs to the judges attention, and advise them to keep in the mind that A) there’s something about apocalyptic predictions that makes them appealing in a deep way and B) they’re almost never right.

The second line of argument that I’m going to pursue is related to the specific case. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; those predicting something horrific in the future are bound to be right occasionally. WW3, though, is not going to be such an instance. Here are some ideas that will be important to this argument: 1)Nuclear weapons are possessed by more nations now than ever in the past, and no nations with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war with each other. 2)Diplomatic and communications channels are more effective and widespread than ever before; more decision makers are connected to each other more directly than ever in history. Diplomacy works to keep us out of another world war, and it’s working better now than ever. 3)Globalization makes world war more difficult and more expensive; interconnected and interdependent economies cannot survive such a war. The economic cost of a world war is higher than it has ever been in the past, which means that the incentive to avoid it is higher than it has ever been.

There are other considerations which I will raise throughout. I’d like to thank my opponent and wish her good luck. I’d like to thank the judges for taking the time to go through all of this; I hope to keep you engaged. I’d like to thank the organizers for making this possible; it’s fun and your time and effort have paid off.

Questions:

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

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

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

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

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...)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
taking my 24 hour extension



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Thank you everybody for joining us in this civilized debate. Thanks to OnceReturned for standing up, and a big thank you to the readers and the judges, and last but not least a warm thank you to The Vagabond for doing the tremendous and amazing work behind the curtains running two tournaments at one time.

There will never be a World War III



When looking around in this world at the beginning of the 21st century I am pretty glad that the luck of the draw has made me to argue the con-position.

We are all afraid of war, especially of world wars since the experiences we had to make in the 20th century seem to be deep down in our bones. Most of us haven’t experienced the horror of these wars personally but everybody in the western world knows somebody who knows someone ……

Personally I am not able to watch movies dealing with the subject. It really scares me.
But yet we all have to face the possibility, that another world war is possible. I really hope that it will never happen, but it is possible.


Why?

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


  • Egoism
  • Stupidity
  • Possibility
  • Intolerance
  • Machismo


and probably some other reasons too.

As mentioned before, we will go into detail of the reasons throughout this debate.

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.

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

By the moment it is a very likely possibility.

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.

Many countries own nuclear weapons, far to many countries and some of these countries have somehow mentally instable leaders.
And for the countries who are regarded being shoo-in, you will never know who is govern next.

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.


Those are my personal feelings.

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.

Not only the USA, or Great Britain or Islamic states like Egypt or Pakistan.
Even harmless nations like Sweden have to fear terrorism, they actually experienced it.

In Germany, my home country, nobody can visit the parliament without heavy control, due to terror warnings.
Main stations of railway for example are watched and maybe protected by policemen with machine guns.

This is real!

Germany experienced a lot of terrorism by the RAF in the 70s of the 20th century. That was somehow homemade. And I bet other countries had now and then similar problems.
But today terror is no longer a homemade problem, it is a global problem which affect each and everyone, every country, every nation, every religious group.

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.

 



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


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.


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


Yes


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


People have been happy having survived WWII


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


 



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


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?


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


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?


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



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   



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?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Response 1 and Rebuttal




My opponent seems to be a man with a great faith in humanity!
If it wouldn’t be unkind, I would like to call him somebody who sees the world through rose tinned spectacles, or who is far too optimistic about humans and their evil sides.

Yeah I hear him already, claiming that I am painting a doomed scenario, which has no real background.

I am sorry, but my opponent isn’t able to face reality.
As I stated before, there is be a big possibility that World War III already takes place or has taken place.
Although the topic of this debate is chosen the way that it is going to happen one day in future, that is no proof, no argument against my thesis, even if OnceReturned wants you to believe this.


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.


Is this really so?
This could be a hypothetically question, couldn’t it?


Socratic Question #1
What definition of WW3 am I using at this point, towards your human sense of reason?



Socratic Question #2
What is a world war in your definition?



Although I am interested in my opponents idea of definitions on World Wars, I would like us to take a look in the definitions of Merriam Webster 1


a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; …



2


A world war is a war affecting the majority of the world's most powerful and populous nations. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters, and last for multiple years.



  • principal nations of the world
  • most powerful nations of the world
  • most populous nations of the world

have to be involved!

3
most populous nations – estimated on December 30 2010


Rank – Country – Population – % of World population
1 – People's Republic of China – 1,341,470,000 – 19.5%
2 – India – 1,192,110,000 – 17.3%
3 – United States – 310,548,000 – 4.51%
……


According to this term we should rather discuss whether WW1 or WW2 have already been world wars


Socratic Question #3
How do you define powerful for a country? Economical power? Nuclear power? Military power?



Most Powerful Nations of the World
4


1. The United States of America
2. Russian Federation
3. Peoples Republic of China
4. France
5. Britain
6. Japan
7. Republic of India
8. Federal Republic of Germany
9. Republic of Pakistan
10. Republic of Brazil


Since we live in countries like the USA or in Europe which have been somehow without wars since 1945 we all get the impression, that the world is free from wars.
But we have to face that in the last 50 years there have only been about 30 days without war. There is always a conflict going on on this planet.

Just have a look at a list of wars 5 between 1945 and 1989. When looking at it, I don’t have to create a doomed scenario. The world is already doing that by herself.


  • France, UK, Japan fought Indochina in 1945
  • Indonesia fought Netherlands and UK in 1945
  • First Indochina War was supported by China, USA, UK
  • Soviet war in Afghanistan – supported Pakistan, USA; China, and Soviet Union


Powerful, populous nations of the world have been involved.

Even today at the very moment the USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Poland, Turkey, Romania, Australia, Spain and 37 other countries are fighting in Afghanistan. Fighting against Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Oh yeah, how nasty of me to think this is a war.
It is called a freedom mission.
We are only helping the Afghanian people to get rid of the Taliban.
Sorry, my fault.

I don’t know how President Obama is calling what is going on in Afghanistan, but the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and the Minister of Defense of Germany Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg are calling it WAR.

Most powerful nations are involved.
Most populous nations are involved.
It goes on for years by now.
And now nuclear powers are involved, although some of the involved nations have the bomb.

Today people get fooled by their leaders, they get lied to by their leaders.
It is so much more harmless to call a war a conflict with arms or an operation – very popular: “Operation Freedom” – yay – sounds friendly, really, can’t be harmful.

But we have to face it: those conflicts are WAR. Not more not less, and the world is involved!

 


My opponent says:


Nuclear weapons - by all indications - are the greatest peacemakers in human history.



Actually with the knowledge of having had only 30 days in total of no armed conflict or war in the last 50 years, I don’t think that we can call nuclear weapons the greatest peacemakers.

Socratic Question #4
Do you think peace is just the absence of fighting?



OnceReturned claims:

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,


I really hope he will be right, but actually that it hasn’t happened in the past is no evidence that it won’t be happening in the future.
Everybody should be afraid that even countries like Iran have the opportunity to get hands on nuclear material … yeah today they claim that they will never built a bomb.
Can we really trust them?
I doubt it.

Today not only the USA, Russia, Great Britain, France and China are in possession of nuclear bombs, also countries like Israel, India, Pakistan and People’s Republic of Corea own nuclear bombs. We have the idea that Iran and Saudi-Arabia also have nuclear bombs, although it is not verified yet.
Some countries have had nuclear bombs, who claim that they don’t have them anymore.

Heck, there are countries on that list who are permanently in conflicts like Israel, countries with leaders whom I don’t trust really, like Iran or Corea.

Yeah call it again a doomed scenario,

Socratic Question #5
but what makes you so sure that none of those guys will ever press the tiny little red button?



 



Terrorism is by its very nature not the sort of thing that could precipitate world war.


We are already fighting against al-Qaeda, the mother of today’s terrorism.



And that fear was evidently enough to prevent war.


Yeah for 30 days in 50 years!



World wars involve the major armies of the world.


Parts of those armies are involved in the Afghanistan War.



I’m not sure of it, but there is no country that would benefit from another world war - especially in the nuclear age


My opponent seems to believe that leaders are sitting in their nice little office and figure out what benefit they would gain from attacking other countries. And he is too much involved of the idea that nuclear power prevents war.
Modern wars will happen differently.
We don’t need nuclear powers anymore. Just pull the socket of the Internet and no wars will happen again


Just think of WikiLeak and the pain the USA is suffering today by getting the secrets published. And the efforts they are now undertaking not to make it ever happen again, quiet a challenge for them.


No one has to accept anyone else, they just have to not go to war over it.


Understanding each other will help to prevent wars!


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?


USA, China, Europe, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, ……


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?


The idea that it will be possible to attack……it only takes a moment!


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


People get used to it, people are no longer aware of it.
Idea is that we are living so ling in the so called balance of terror, that nobody really cares anymore.


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?


One response after the other ……… you deal in your way with the debate me in my way, there is nothing written on ATS that we have to have a mutual agreement how to deal with a debate.


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


Just read my thesis on the Afghanistan War!



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   


My opponent seems to be a man with a great faith in humanity!
If it wouldn’t be unkind, I would like to call him somebody who sees the world through rose tinned spectacles, or who is far too optimistic about humans and their evil sides.

Yeah I hear him already, claiming that I am painting a doomed scenario, which has no real background.


My position does not arise from unrealistic optimism. Rather, the evidence supports my position when interpreted in an objective, rational way; the most important factors favor a future that does not include another world war. The situation in the world today does not suggest that a world war is imminent; there are no conflicts or hostilities today that could realistically lead to a world war. If there were, you would be able to point them out. Furthermore, there is no indication that such a situation is imminent or that the state of the world is progressing towards such a situation. Again, if there were, you would be able to point them out.

On the contrary, your prediction is based purely on irrational pessimism. You’re unable to describe the conditions leading up to the war, the specific reason for the war, or even the countries that will be involved. This lack of specifics comes from a lack of evidence. You’re just counting on the notion that people are so evil that another world war is inevitable. Such a notion cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no fact-based response to be made to the evidence which undermines your position. Obviously, the position that relies more on general inklings and less on specific reasoning is the weaker one.



I am sorry, but my opponent isn’t able to face reality.


Reality comes with some specifics. If you can provide details, I will face them. Until then, you’re not dealing in reality, you’re dealing notions so vague as to be meaningless and indistinguishable from anything other than a bad feeling about what the future holds.



As I stated before, there is be a big possibility that World War III already takes place or has taken place.
Although the topic of this debate is chosen the way that it is going to happen one day in future, that is no proof, no argument against my thesis, even if OnceReturned wants you to believe this.


If the question is, “Will there be a world war three?” - which it is - that assumes that there is not already a world war three. Understanding the meaning of the question necessitates an understanding of this fact.



Is this really so?
This could be a hypothetically question, couldn’t it?


No, it’s a direct question. Will there or won’t there? Not hypothetically - actually.



Socratic Question #1
What definition of WW3 am I using at this point, towards your human sense of reason?



I don’t know what you meaning by “towards your human sense of reason.” I also don’t know what definition of world war three you’re using, you haven’t said.



Socratic Question #2
What is a world war in your definition?



I think that the definitions that you provided from Merriam Webster’s is accurate:


a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; …


You go on to point out:

3
most populous nations – estimated on December 30 2010


Rank – Country – Population – % of World population
1 – People's Republic of China – 1,341,470,000 – 19.5%
2 – India – 1,192,110,000 – 17.3%
3 – United States – 310,548,000 – 4.51%
……


None of these nations are engaged in a war with the other principal nations of the world, and there is no indication that such a war is likely.



Socratic Question #3
How do you define powerful for a country? Economical power? Nuclear power? Military power?



Military, economic, and political power. i.e. the most powerful military, the largest GDP, the most political influence. . .

Most Powerful Nations of the World
4


1. The United States of America
2. Russian Federation
3. Peoples Republic of China
4. France
5. Britain
6. Japan
7. Republic of India
8. Federal Republic of Germany
9. Republic of Pakistan
10. Republic of Brazil


I think that list is reasonably accurate. None of these countries are at war with one another and there is no indication that they will go to war with one another.



Since we live in countries like the USA or in Europe which have been somehow without wars since 1945 we all get the impression, that the world is free from wars.


First of all, it’s no coincidence that world war 3 has been avoided; the leaders of our nations are intentionally avoiding it. . . Second of all, no one is under the impression that the world is free from war.



But we have to face that in the last 50 years there have only been about 30 days without war. There is always a conflict going on on this planet.


You’re right, but normal wars are not world wars. Smaller wars are not indicative of world wars, and the fact that you have provided here is of little relevance to the question of a future world war.



Just have a look at a list of wars 5 between 1945 and 1989. When looking at it, I don’t have to create a doomed scenario. The world is already doing that by herself.


Even if you believe that it’s self evident, I would still appreciate it if you would humor us and describe your doom scenario.



Powerful, populous nations of the world have been involved.


Major nations fighting minor nations don’t make world wars. World war requires major nations fighting other major nations. That hasn’t happened, and so far all indications are that the preventative mechanisms that are in place are effective deterrents of world war.



I don’t know how President Obama is calling what is going on in Afghanistan, but the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and the Minister of Defense of Germany Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg are calling it WAR.


No one is calling it a world war, and that’s what we’re concerned with here.



My opponent says:


Nuclear weapons - by all indications - are the greatest peacemakers in human history.



Actually with the knowledge of having had only 30 days in total of no armed conflict or war in the last 50 years, I don’t think that we can call nuclear weapons the greatest peacemakers.


No nations armed with nuclear weapons have made war with each other. There is no reason to believe that they ever would.



Socratic Question #4
Do you think peace is just the absence of fighting?



For our purposes, peace is the absence of war.



OnceReturned claims:

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,


I really hope he will be right, but actually that it hasn’t happened in the past is no evidence that it won’t be happening in the future.


That’s speculation without basis. There is certainly no reason to believe that this situation will change.



Today not only the USA, Russia, Great Britain, France and China are in possession of nuclear bombs, also countries like Israel, India, Pakistan and People’s Republic of [K]orea own nuclear bombs. We have the idea that Iran and Saudi-Arabia also have nuclear bombs, although it is not verified yet.
Some countries have had nuclear bombs, who claim that they don’t have them anymore.


The more countries that have bombs the better. Mutually assured destruction is an effective deterrent (as we have seen in the past) and because of this two countries with nuclear bombs would never attack one another.



Socratic Question #5
but what makes you so sure that none of those guys will ever press the tiny little red button?



They haven’t yet, and there is no indication that they ever will. We’ve already had a close call with the cold war and peace prevailed because of the threat of nuclear destruction. This is a strong indication that the threat is enough to prevent a world war. I don’t believe that they will press the button because there is no evidence that they will. Evidence is synonymous with reason to believe; there is no evidence and therefore no reason to believe that anyone will press the little read button.




We are already fighting against al-Qaeda, the mother of today’s terrorism.


Yes, but it’s not a world war. Terrorism has never precipitated a world war in the past and there is no indication that it ever would.




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?


USA, China, Europe, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, ……


All of nations possess nuclear arms except Iraq and Iran. The question still stands.




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?


The idea that it will be possible to attack……it only takes a moment!


The idea is not enough; the idea exists now and we’re not at war.

Questions:

1) If a world war were to occur without any nuclear armed nations participating, which nations would participate?

2) Which major nations would fight against which other major nations in WW3?

3) What would be the cause of the war? (Presumably, this cause has not yet been realized as the war hasn’t materialized. . .)

4) Do you believe that the majority of major nations today have more of an incentive to engage in a world war or to avoid a world war?

5) Consider the costs of a third world war. What potential benefits outweigh these costs?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Response 2 and Rebuttal




The situation in the world today does not suggest that a world war is imminent; there are no conflicts or hostilities today that could realistically lead to a world war.


Oh my my!
Faith in humanity and also blind!

OnceReturned why are you not able to see?

Political leaders are lying to us, by claiming that wars and armed conflicts are “operations” like “operation freedom”.

This world has to face tremendous social and cultural instability in near future.
Maybe you are not aware in the country you are living in.

Germany for example has to deal with problems of unemployment, so called permanently unemployed persons having more and more difficulties to find jobs. If they find a job, they can’t live on the money.

You might think: “OK than they should get a second or third job, as they do it in America.”
But that is not the way it works here.

So working people have less money than unemployed people. So they get the difference by welfare – working and depending on welfare is not what creates social stability.

On the other hand, politicians claim that industry is missing experts.
So experts should be hired e.g. in India.
Situation: even educated people can’t find a job in Germany but industry is going to hire experts from abroad!
That’s ridiculous.

If you look around in this world you will easily detect that people are experience falling outlook on life.
They are working for 40 years and have to face that they will live in poverty when being old.
Numbers of people are increasing. Today 2.3% of senior citizens in Germany are poor, in about 20 years the number will increase up to 10%. And don’t forget that age pyramide is turned upside-down meanwhile. Fewer and fewer young people, more and more old people.
So the 10% of poor seniors in 20 years will be totally a very huge group! Just imagine that!

Can’t you see the explosiveness in this?
And this is only one part.

Another part is poor education, poor integration of immigrants ……

The list can be extended.

Chances in life are decreasing.

And we have to face that beside complains money is always there for banking institutions.

This is not pessimism, this is the result of observations during the past 24 months.

 



Our definition of a world war is:


a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; …


This does not necessarily mean that e.g. the USA has to fight Germany, or Russia has to fight China.

It can also mean that governmental troops are fighting the rest of the people.

By the moment principal nations of the world are fighting in Afghanistan, principal nations are fighting in Iraq.

Engaged can also mean: obligated or being busy with.
You can say: nations of the world are involved.

This is what happens in the stated countries.

During the last couple of months I have learned that it is always a way, how you define what is happening.
Leaders are lying bare face to us. Operation freedom is just a war – nothing else, nothing better.

Due to our definition I would call Afghanistan a World War – World War III.


 



If the question is, “Will there be a world war three?” - which it is - that assumes that there is not already a world war three.


Or it assumes that the author of that question is as brain washed as you seem to be, my dear opponent.


 



First of all, it’s no coincidence that world war 3 has been avoided; the leaders of our nations are intentionally avoiding it.


Actually I don’t have the impression that the leaders of our nations are avoiding war. Especially the USA seems to jump on every band wagon that leads to war in the last 20 or 30 years.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, Libyan, Panama, El Salvador, Bosnia … I doubt that my list is full.

And under the smoke-screen of so called freedom missions and NATO-Alliance they force other countries like Great-Britain or Germany to go on the same missions with them, and if they refuse – like Germany’s Ex-Chancellor Schröder did for the Iraq war, they feel insulted.


So I have my true doubts with the leaders of our nations.

And yeah the leaders of our nations can be somehow called sensible.
There are other leaders of smaller nations, who can be called a bit instable and you can never know how they might act next.
And even if they have been quiet for the last 10 or 20 years, I sure won’t vouch for people like Kim Jong-Ill or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


 



You stated for the war in Afghanistan:


No one is calling it a world war,


Since autumn 2010 nobody was even calling it a war, so don’t believe that they will tell you the truth now.

It is all propaganda.
Keep the people straight in line, don’t let them think it is a war, otherwise the system will get instable.

Modern Wars and modern World Wars don’t have to be fought necessarily with nuclear weapons.
Somehow nuclear weapons are old-fashioned.
Sure the nations stick to them, maybe like somebody sticks to an old pullover or a loved pair of shoes. And smaller countries want to have the bomb to feel big.
It is that simple as it is with guys and cars – the bigger the better.
And Pete wants to have what Bill has ……

But we can agree: nobody wants to fight with the bomb.

Why making a big blast if you can put anthrax or other biological agents in their water.
Destroy the economy, cut their information lines ………


 


To reply to your Socratic Questions:


1) If a world war were to occur without any nuclear armed nations participating, which nations would participate?


Nobody can say which nations would actually participate in a future World War.
Likely: Iran, Israel, some former soviet states, some African states ……


2) Which major nations would fight against which other major nations in WW3?


As we stated before there is no necessity that major nations have to fight each other, major nations can fight together the rest of the world.

3) What would be the cause of the war? (Presumably, this cause has not yet been realized as the war hasn’t materialized. . .)


Social instability!


4) Do you believe that the majority of major nations today have more of an incentive to engage in a world war or to avoid a world war?


Yes


5) Consider the costs of a third world war. What potential benefits outweigh these costs?


Gain of power, reorganizing the world.

 


Socratic Question #1
What scenario could lead to a World War in your eyes?


Socratic Question #2
Why is the USA engaged in so many wars after 1945?


Socratic Question #3
Do you think your political leaders are always telling you the truth about their military actions? Especially when they are engaged with other countries in war-like action?


Socratic Question #4
Don’t you think the social imbalance of this planet could lead to a planet wide war?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
taking my extension



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   



The situation in the world today does not suggest that a world war is imminent; there are no conflicts or hostilities today that could realistically lead to a world war.


Oh my my!
Faith in humanity and also blind!


This is not a faith based claim, it’s a matter of fact that no such conflicts exist. If you disagree, identify a specific conflict that supports your position. My first question:

1) What specific conflict exists today that could realistically lead to a world war?



Political leaders are lying to us, by claiming that wars and armed conflicts are “operations” like “operation freedom”.


Those names are not meant to imply that we’re not talking about war. I live in America, and the American people know that we’re at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we call them wars. Politicians, including the president, refer to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as “wars” all the time, including in public. The media also refers to these wars as “wars.” Names like “Operation Iraqi Freedom” aren’t confusing anyone; we’re all aware that this is a war. The name is just the name of the operation, it’s not a replacement for the title of “war.” My second question:

2) How does the name of these events relate to whether or not there will be a world war three?



Germany for example has to deal with problems of unemployment, so called permanently unemployed persons having more and more difficulties to find jobs. If they find a job, they can’t live on the money.

You might think: “OK than they should get a second or third job, as they do it in America.”
But that is not the way it works here.

So working people have less money than unemployed people. So they get the difference by welfare – working and depending on welfare is not what creates social stability.


Poverty does not lead to world war; it never has in the past, and there is no indication that it will. These sorts of social issues lead to revolutions within a country, but not to war with other countries. High unemployment rates do not correlate with an increased likelihood of going to war with another country, and there is no reason that the two would be connected. My third question:

3) Based on history, is it more likely that poverty and a welfare state will lead to revolution within a country or to war with other countries?



If you look around in this world you will easily detect that people are experience falling outlook on life.
They are working for 40 years and have to face that they will live in poverty when being old.
Numbers of people are increasing. Today 2.3% of senior citizens in Germany are poor, in about 20 years the number will increase up to 10%. And don’t forget that age pyramide is turned upside-down meanwhile. Fewer and fewer young people, more and more old people.
So the 10% of poor seniors in 20 years will be totally a very huge group! Just imagine that!

Can’t you see the explosiveness in this?


So, what? The 10% of seniors are going to start world war three? That doesn’t make sense for a number of reason, one of which is that impoverished old people are in no condition to wage a world war.



Chances in life are decreasing.


That’s not really true, and it certainly won’t be the cause of the next world war. The percentage of the world population living in poverty has drastically decreased since the industrial revolution, and there is no indication that this global trend of improvement is going away anytime soon. There are less impoverished people now than there were at the time of the other world wars. Poverty has not been a cause of world war three and it’s influence is less now than it has been in the past. My fourth question:

4) If you believe poverty will be the cause of the next world war, how do you account for the fact that poverty is decreasing and when it was higher, it did not cause a world war?



Our definition of a world war is:


a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; …


This does not necessarily mean that e.g. the USA has to fight Germany, or Russia has to fight China.

It can also mean that governmental troops are fighting the rest of the people.

By the moment principal nations of the world are fighting in Afghanistan, principal nations are fighting in Iraq.


If that definition leads one to conclude that the war in Afghanistan is a world war, then we need a new definition. The scale of the operation - by any measure - does not qualify as a world war. No one believes we’re in a world war right now, because we aren’t. We’re fighting a small number of unorganized tribesmen in a small area of the desert, and even though a coalition of many nations is involved, the world is not at war. A handful of nations are fighting against an organization, not even another country. Even if we throw reason out the window and stick to this definition in the strictest possible terms, it doesn’t qualify. Neither “all” nor “most” of the major nations are involved in Afghanistan. It’s fairly obvious that the world is not at war, despite semantic technicalities that may be found in Merriam Webster’s dictionary. My final question:

5) Do you think that your interpretation of this definition corresponds to the intended meaning of the definition? Do you think that the people who wrote the dictionary believe that world war three is going on right now, despite the fact that no one else does? Or do you think that a non-trivial portion of the population believes world war three is occurring as we speak?

Do the people who make the dictionary set the meaning of the words, or do they examine how the words are used - what they mean to people when they use them - and try to capture that meaning? If it’s the latter case, does your interpretation of this definition make sense? If it’s the former case, does it matter that an exceedingly small group wordsmiths agree with your interpretation of their definition when the rest of the world doesn’t?



Operation freedom is just a war – nothing else, nothing better.


I assure you that literally everyone is aware of this fact.


Due to our definition I would call Afghanistan a World War – World War III.


Are you aware of anyone else in the world who agrees with you, let alone a substantial portion of the populace? When it comes to the meaning of words, technicalities that can be found in dictionaries doesn’t really matter. Words mean what they mean to people when they use the words. World war 3 simply doesn’t refer to what’s going on in Afghanistan, and that’s a matter of fact.

(I’m asking more questions here than my five, but they’re rhetorical and I don’t expect answers.)



Socratic Question #1
What scenario could lead to a World War in your eyes?


Socratic Question #2
Why is the USA engaged in so many wars after 1945?


Socratic Question #3
Do you think your political leaders are always telling you the truth about their military actions? Especially when they are engaged with other countries in war-like action?


Socratic Question #4
Don’t you think the social imbalance of this planet could lead to a planet wide war?



1) I can’t conceive of a realistic scenario that would lead to WW3. If pressed, I would appeal to history; in the past world wars have consisted of major conflicts between major nations. I would suspect that if WW3 were to happen, it would be the result of major nations deciding to fight each other over some issue that I can’t yet imagine.

2) We became worlds greatest military power after WW2 and were the world’s modern super-power. We have only ever been attacked by terrorists since WW2, and it’s only lead directly to one war. The other wars have specific causes and there’s not really a way to generalize them. I guess I would say we’ve imposed our military might in order to protect and promote our interests abroad, including defending our allies.

3) No, I’m sure that deception has occurred when it comes to military action. On the other hand, calling the Iraq war “Operation Iraqi Freedom” an “operation” is not a lie; it’s not meant to deceive and no one is being deceived. It’s called that and at the same time acknowledged as a war.

4) No. Social imbalance leads to revolution within, not war with other countries. I think that what you’re talking about [I]could[/I] lead to widespread revolution, but it doesn’t make sense that it should lead to war with other countries on a global scale.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Reponse 3 and Rebuttal




1) What specific conflict exists today that could realistically lead to a world war?


As I mentioned before, War on Terrorism: organizations like al-Qaeda are supported by countries like Sudan or Pakistan.
We have to differentiate between official support and unofficial support. Some Islamic countries identify themselves with the ideas of al-Qaeda but will never officially admit that.


2) How does the name of these events relate to whether or not there will be a world war three?


I mentioned it before – you can play with the names. it sounds harmless and it is actually a brutal war. It is a way of tricking people. It is kind of window dressing.
You seem to believe that everybody is aware that these names are given to war.
Actually we had had a discussion in Germany in late fall 2010 about Afghanistan being named a war.

Before fall 2010 everybody felt that government is lying to public about this. We felt that it is a war, but the politicians kept calling it an operation, an armed conflict ……
In fall 2010 the German Minister of Defense first called it war – the media just blow away.

In her annual speech on New Year’s Eve the German Chancellor called the actions war.

Germany is fighting side to side with the USA in Afghanistan – you said that it is quiet obvious to the American people that there is war. For some reason, which I don’t know other politicians needed to hide it from their people.
If this happens, anything else can happen to.

They lie to us on the exact number of victims.
They lie to us on the so-called collateral victims – heaven what a word, those are human beings we are talking about. People who died because some foreign nations feel obligated to throw bombs on their country in the name of freeing them from some – as you call them – tribes, tribes they maybe agree with, they don’t mind being there.

They say they have to defend their interests in those countries.
America is blowing the horn and countries like Germany, UK and France have to follow.

What interest does a country like the USA has in a far away country like Afghanistan, Iraq or Nicaragua?
Most times: economical interests.
And here you have your perfect reason for another world war: economy, economical power, economical control or just simple: money.

They will rush into a war when they believe that the outcome is bigger than the input!
As Hitler attacked Poland to gain more area of land for the growing German population, which then lead to World War II. It wasn’t necessarily meant to create a World War. Just take Poland and go home! And he never officially declared war to Poland, just attacked!
Than countries like UK, France and USA got involved.

Back to a new World War.
Give them the idea that they can’t control the oil sources anymore, or gas resources – just as an example – than they will jump and attack the very country.
Meanwhile it seems to be not necessary since most countries of the OPEC are friends with the USA. Friendships can change!

Actually the USA is at war with one of the OPEC countries – Iraq.
The politicians told us that they have to rush in, because the bad boy Saddam Hussein has some weapons – weapons of mass destruction – he shouldn’t have and Uncle Sam is just walking in to take them away from him, and by the way they are freeing Iraq from that bad boy.
Later on we all had to face that the reason was a lie, that the guys behind the curtains had forced the US-government since 1998 to fight Iraq, to get rid of Saddam and G. W. Bush was willingly jumping on the band-wagon.

We have to face that since the beginning of the Iraq-War about 650,000 people = 2.5% of the Iraq population had died. Before that due to an embargo after the 2nd Golf-War 500,000 to 1.5 Million children younger than 14 years died due to the results of that embargo – in Iraq up to the year 2005.
Makes another 5 % of the Iraq population.

Maybe that is not that much compared to the victims of World War II – during that war all in all 55-60 Million people died.

But those are innocent people who had nothing to do with the ideas of the USA.

I just want you to get aware that there are wars around us. Maybe small wars compared to the big war between 1939 and 1945. All wars start small. All wars start with the idea of a single man or a single government that it seems easy to attack that very country.
Before they do so, they have usually had contracts not to attack each other – Hitler-Stalin-Pact or START – but when they make the decision non of the contracts is worth the ink they have been written with.

Just that simple.

Even if my opponent wants you to believe that it is not longer possible in the 21st century – I assure you it is. Mankind hasn’t changed that much.
You need just one man who gets the idea that it is possible, that they won’t use their strongest weapons to hit him, and than he goes out and does it.
Just one man!


3) Based on history, is it more likely that poverty and a welfare state will lead to revolution within a country or to war with other countries?


In former times it usually lead to a revolution within a country.
Meanwhile countries are so much connected that is is also likely that it leads to a war between countries.
Just have a look at the EU – the actual crisis of the Euro in some of the EU-countries.
Economics are so merged with each other, that a riot in Greece can likely swap over to Germany or Great Britain.


4) If you believe poverty will be the cause of the next world war, how do you account for the fact that poverty is decreasing and when it was higher, it did not cause a world war?


I don’t account that it is a fact that poverty is decreasing!
My opponent is just claiming that poverty is decreasing, but lacks of providing us the real facts.
All I know is that poverty in so called rich countries like Germany is growing.

My opponent poked some fun on the fact that in future 10% of the German seniors will live in poverty.


So, what? The 10% of seniors are going to start world war three? That doesn’t make sense for a number of reason, one of which is that impoverished old people are in no condition to wage a world war.


If old people who have worked their lifetime to built up a country, and a really good amount of them is living in poverty after that in a country who is known to be rich, just be aware this is a tremendous change in society. Maybe not the seniors will grab the gun, but due to the pension fund in Germany basing on a inter-generational contract, young people are paying for old people … it might be the young people who are causing the war for that reason.

I am stating this to make you aware how fragile society is these days!


5) Do you think that your interpretation of this definition corresponds to the intended meaning of the definition? Do you think that the people who wrote the dictionary believe that world war three is going on right now, despite the fact that no one else does? Or do you think that a non-trivial portion of the population believes world war three is occurring as we speak?

Do the people who make the dictionary set the meaning of the words, or do they examine how the words are used - what they mean to people when they use them - and try to capture that meaning? If it’s the latter case, does your interpretation of this definition make sense? If it’s the former case, does it matter that an exceedingly small group wordsmiths agree with your interpretation of their definition when the rest of the world doesn’t?


This is more than just ONE question!!

I don’t know how the meaning was intended.
Due to my understanding of the word of the definition I perfectly believe that my interpretation is what it is meant to be!


 


On Afghanistan war:

fighting a small number of unorganized tribesmen in a small area of the desert


Socratic Question #1:
If it is just a small number of unorganized tribesmen, why did the USA rush in and also demanded that other NATO countries like Germany or UK fighting with her? I would like to know the real reason, not the official one)



the world is not at war.


Just because that war is not in your front yard, it does not necessarily mean that the world is not at war!
Be happy that all the wars of the world are happening outside your little suburb.


Neither “all” nor “most” of the major nations are involved in Afghanistan.


Involved in that very war are:


United States – 95,000
United Kingdom – 10,500
Germany – 4,877
France – 4,000
Italy – 3,770
Canada – 2,913
Poland – 2,488
Turkey – 1,815
Romania – 1,664
Australia – 1,550
Spain – 1,505
37 other countries

1
emphasis mine

Most Powerful Nations of the World


1. The United States of America
2. Russian Federation
3. Peoples Republic of China
4 France
5. Britains
6. Japan
7. Republic of India
8. Federal Republic of Germany
9. Republic of Pakistan
10. Republic of Brazil 2


When I am counting right at least 4 nations of the most power ful nations of the world are involved in the Afghanistan war.


The Axis powers were a group of countries led by Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy (however, in the final years, only its northern part, as the Italian Social Republic) and the Empire of Japan. … The Allies, led by the United Kingdom, its Commonwealth and until its defeat, France, were joined in the European theatre by the Soviet Union in June 1941 and by the United States in December 1941. In the Asia-Pacific theater, the Allies were led by the Republic of China, …3
emphasis mine

7 out of 10 nations.
4

On the list of WW1 we see among others:



  • Brazil
  • China
  • France
  • Japan
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom
  • India – [I]as part of the commonwealth[/I]
  • United States United States
  • Germany …
emphasis mine

9 out of 10 – so in the terms of the given list, WW 1 has more been a WW than WW2.
But the list of the most powerful nations of the world probably has been different in 1914 and 1939 than in 2010.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
"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.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Closing



My opponent stated that there will never be a World War 3 since everything seems to be fine and quiet on our planet – at least somehow.
Some minor conflicts are happening, but nothing to worry about.

No political leader will start a world war, since most of them own nuclear weapons, and are aware of the damage when they are going to play with those toys.

Hopefully he is right!

But still I doubt it.

Actually I have found no proof by my opponent, that everything is really that peaceful.

The people of the western world are lucky these days because the wars of today are happening somewhere else, in Afghanistan, Iraq or in Africa.

Good for us.

My opponent brushes arguments about social instability aside as if they were mosquitoes in summer. How arrogant.

Even the USA is facing a drastically rising of her national debt. About 1 Billion Dollars of loans are needed every day!
The whole western world is facing the biggest financial crisis since the second world war.

These are tremendous problems.

It might happen that a country like the USA – the biggest western leader – is going bankrupt.

My opponent might claim that this will never happen – hey we are talking about the USA, not about a small African country or about Greece – the USA!

Have you ever asked yourself why President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize of Peace?
Maybe to make him step away from a war against Iran?

Just an idea!

Israel seems to be very pleased to fight Iran.
The USA is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq – all neighbors of Iran.
They are fighting there but failing to bring peace to these areas.
They have evolved many NATO-Countries in this fight, so troops of Germany, UK and France are already down there.

The USA seems to train the biggest army exactly in these areas around Iran.

My opponent might claim: Huuu she didn’t make it with Afghanistan and a bit of Iraq, now she is trying Iran.

Just look at it.
That is the region with the biggest Oil resources of the world.

By the moment the USA is withstanding to announce war to Iran, but when looking at the dead beating money situation of the United States of America they might have no choice one-day soon. The USA is one of the most indebt country on this planet. You might not know it, but it is fact that the USA is no longer the only powerful state on this earth, have a look at China, and China actually doesn’t like that the USA claims to be more powerful and important.

So Banks, Oil Majors, arms industry, pressure groups and Israel friendly groups might increase the pressure on the USA and the President to go on war against Iran.
And this is a hot topic.

Even if it seems to be another war like Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if the same troops might get involved, this is much more hot than anything else before.
China will be on Iran’s side, as well Russia in some aspects.
On the side of the USA and maybe Israel, we will find the whole NATO.

My opponent will claim that costs of such a war are to high and if a country is in debt they won’t be able to go on war. To expensive!

Before they entered Worl War 1 the USA faced the hugest economical crisis in the 20ths century and before World War 2 we had to face global economical crisis.
Those two World Wars helped the USA to reconstruct their finances and to become the hugest economical power of the last century.
Tell me a reason why not to try this way a third time?

The temptation is big.

In times of war the central bank will print money to finance everything and everybody – USA, Europe, and all other involved countries have to face a huge inflation – as we did during the last World Wars.

Winners will be: Banks and Army industry and their side industries.

Even if the Afghanistan War, where we find so many nations involved, is not a actual world war, it is the practice ground of such a world war.

Social instability and terrorism are doing their own job bringing this world much closer to the cliff.

And yeah I don’t trust media and journalism in reporting about the wars of this world.
It is always a way of labeling it.
I can do google research after google research and claiming: “Oh I haven’t found anything, that calls Obama’s skin dark” – if it is actually dark.
We are also living in times of political correctness. So please don’t tell me you are believing everything that is claimed in our media, especially mainstream media.

And claiming that something won’t happen, because it never happened before, is just silly.
There is not a special check for political leaders to make sure that they won’t get instable one day.
Some actually are a ticking time bomb.

It is more than stupid to put the head in the sandy ground pretending all is fine.
Nothing is fine.
People still worship the God Mammon. So we are far far away from an ideal world which is presented in colorfully in shows like star treck etc. – no more money needed, no more hunger, world at peace, off to explore the stars and act according the first rule not to interfer.
If to fight, than just for self defence.

A wonderful dream, but not for us these days.

We have to prepare ourselves because we are at the edge of a huge world war.

Help us God.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
This debate is closed and awaiting judgment.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   


Judgement for OnceReturned vs orange-light:

WWIII

Note: according to my character-count, OnceReturned's second post went over the 10000 character limit. This could have been avoided by using fewer or smaller quotes from orange-light, and cutting off the end of the post to the 10000 character limit would only have removed some Socratic Questions which orange-light answers
anyway. Since there's no real advantage to these extra characters I have let them stand in judging the debate.

This is a tough call to make, but I give this debate to OnceReturned.

Neither debater really convinced me of their argument, but OnceReturned was more direct in refuting orange-light's points. There were points I would have liked to see explored that never were (for example, while the nuclear deterrent may have been effective in preventing the cold war from going hot when the powers in question were the USSR and USA, on opposite sides of the globe, are the factors the same between Pakistan and India, given tension over the Kashmir region?)

I thought orange-light's argument that we may already be in WWIII could have been stronger, (she could even have argued that the Cold War could be considered WWIII - does a world war require that the fighting be on the soil of the major nations or do multiple proxy wars count?) She also could have countered OnceReturned's assertion that no one calls what's going on now a World War fairly easily (for example, President Bush described 9/11 as the opening of World War III on at least one occasion).

As orange-light points out, OnceReturned relies too heavily on the idea that if it hasn't happened yet it won't in the future. She does not provide enough specifics though about why the factors that have so far prevented direct wars between major powers may not always hold. OnceReturned's strongest argument is that of economic entanglement between the major nations making direct war between those nations unlikely, and this goes largely unrefuted. Orange-light does somewhat address this idea in her closing, pointing out that previous world wars have worked to the economic advantage of the winners, but doesn't directly address the question of whether economic interdependence actually makes war less likely.

Overall, a narrow win for OnceReturned.




This was a Really good debate, and great to see we have good debaters in the JT .

I had this debated scored evenly throughout the round. Orangelight did not make this debate easy, and they tried to debate issues not related to the topic, they made the same mistakes in this debate as losers of wars that open to many fronts.

OnceRetured Did a masterful job of presenting his arguments; OnceReturned won based on the globalization
of the world and proved that none of the current world powers are at war or proxy war against each other and with current economic globalization, WW III is unlikely.

Orangelight would have done better with a different topic I think

Winner: OnceReturned




As openings go, I believe OnceReturned laid out a case that had me biased against his opponent orange-light even though I actually agree more with orange-light. The reason is that the layout of Once's opening laid out a concise and logical explanation of the debates topic, completely staying away from "feelings" and politics and
emphasized the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction. I would have liked to see Orange use more historical reference and use a political science approach to the subject from the get-go.

Throughout the body of the debate again OnceReturned used logic and historical reference to tear apart Orange's debate. When it came to defending positions, answering questions thoroughly and keeping specifically on topic in a very organized way, OnceReturned did very well. Most impressive to me was that most of Once's
platforms for his side of the debate could have been used by Orange. Whether it's nuclear weapons, economics, general Human stupidity, it's really only opinion as far as guessing the future. Thus it comes down to who can formulate their opinion to make the most sense.

Orange gets credit for bringing up an important question in the debate as to "what is" a World War, are we engaged in one now, have we been in the past. Even though Once's remarks that it's off topic, which technically it was, I have to say it added a bit of a blow to his stance. I don't think Once adequately defended his position there, though I also don't think Orange backed up the position either.

Ultimately for the actual body of the debate, Once gets the point, not only because his way of presenting the debate was marginally better, he did a far better job of answering questions. I would have liked to see more than one-three word responses or one line sentences from Orange. Answering debate questions posed to you really strengthens your argument.

As for the closing, Orange came out ahead. The summary was well done, and effectively refuted much of Once's argument. Especially by pointing out that for a peaceful world, there certainly have been a lot of wars past and current.

In the closing argument I would have liked to see Once stick to his logical argument, there seemed to be something lacking to the strength of his argument unlike in the opening and body of the debate.

I judge overall OnceReturned came out ahead for the win.


Congratulations to OnceReturned. He will move on to the next round.






top topics



 
4

log in

join