A Just Society Sould Never Deliberately Initiate War

I guess the AC, NC order is working out, so I'll just stick with it for this round. Thanks for Pro for accepting the rematch--I think it's been closer then the round we did at NCFLs. Maybe the flipped sides had something to do with that...IDK. Anyway, I'll stop digressing and get to the debating. Bsh1: Fine, I can agree with your whole definition so long as it is understood that the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist. Obs. 1 - Most people would agree that the Koreas are still at war, despite the lack of widespread conflict, so that kinda backs up what I said earlier--war doesn't need widespread conflict to be war. As for the Congo-Rwanda example, that may be true in their geopolitical situation, but the geopolitical situation in Korea is different. This means that, depending on locale, war is not necessarily widespread. Obs. 2 - Regardless of the source, "very rare" is a colloquial definitions. The examples you offer are colloquial. Not only that, but most definitions/dictionaries define "never" the way I did. You never rebutted this, and when I say that, I don't mean "very rarely." Flow this point across. Thus, my definition is more predictable and fair, and should be preferred. PA: No, obviously MAD won't prevent war in all cases--but you never rebut that MAD does prevent some war. But, the fact that MAD isn't foolproof is correct. That's why we have a UN, with enforceable resolutions, and why we have the Geneva Convention. These check against the risk of "total war," because nations don't want these penalties imposed on them. You use the example of Syria, well, look at Syria now. The U.S. threatened it with war unless it stopped using WMDs, and Syria stopped. This shows how war itself can be used as a tool against "total war." this turns your argument by showing that initiations of war (as the U.S. was about to do) can be good. PB: You totally drop my argument that Murdoch is talking about "unilaterally" imposed thresholds. That's completely fixable, and I, in my world, can fix it. Thus, this argument doesn't actually harm my advocacy. Then, you talk about "cycle of violence" as not reserved for power-mongering. Yet, power was the only thing Schuman addressed. And really, humanitarian efforts like Libya have not led to more violence, so that kinda defeats your claim that initiating war always leads to these cycles. PC: You basically concede that this offense is insufficient to affirm, which is all I wanted to show. So...yeah. That's good. PD: War is a last resort strategy. If we try alternatives first, we won't always have to annoy other nations. Then, if the alternatives fail, we can use war when we need it. Some war with some annoyance is better then tying our hands. And, don't forget, I don't say that war is the best option in all cases, just that it should be a tool in the toolkit. PE: You admit that I can perm your argument. Thus, I can co-opt all the benefits of alternatives while still having war as a potential tool in case I need it. That's good for me. Alright, everyone. Let's summarize my offense thus far. (1) Never is an absolute prohibition. Bsh1 must show that initiating war is ALWAYS impermissible for a just society. (2) Total War is unlikely when you consider MAD as well as international checks against it. (3) PC is insufficient offense for Bsh1 to win the debate. (4) I can co-opt his alternatives and their benefits. Thus, I not only get those benefits, but also any potential benefits from war. So, if war has any benefits AT ALL, I will have more benefits that Bsh1, who is limited to his alternatives. Under a pragmatic calculus, then, I win. LtCmdrData: OV: This is now a nonissue... Obs. 1, 2, 3 - Already hashed-out... P1: The cesium example was cool. Great imagery. Yet, even cesium can have some benefits. If I want to break into a safe for example. Then, cesium would be great. So, clearly, I should still keep some cesium around, just in case I'm in a larcenous mood. P2: Yeah, don't have the link to the Canterbury stuff. It's in text form. But, W&G still can be corroborated by it... P3: Fine, so homeland and military are different, and you can do self-defense. But, not being able to prevent attacks still sucks. If the bomber are already about to unload their contents over New York city, its a bit late to scramble the jets in defense. It's so much better just to annihilate the bomber before they've even taken off. Preemption is a key component of effective self-defense. If you accept that, then you accept that initiating war is sometimes okay. At that point, you ought to vote for me. P4: Okay, yeah. So I might need to tradeoff every now and again. So what? Having options gives me flexibility; in that sense, the very fact that I have a tradeoff is nice, 'cause I can weigh the options. P5: Yeah, yeah. Already covered this. More analysis of the offense: (1) Preemption is beneficial. (2) Cesium is fun--er, I mean it can be useful. So, I have a ton of offense that shows that war is a pragmatic choice. Vote for me! Gracias and adios!