Are we heading towards World War III

1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran. Yes, MUST is the key word. MUST means that Obama has no other choice, that he must talk to Iran. Must: Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity): "you must show your ID card". . http://www.google.ca...;This means that Obama will not go to war, as he must shut it out and talk to Iran. Must conveys the message that Obama will talk to Iran, as he has no other choice. For example, let's look at the sentence: You must eat food to survive. Meaning, you have no other choice. Therefore, sooner or later, you will eat food, as you need it to survive. It is the same here. Sooner or later, Obama will talk to Iran.2. China/RussiaPlease note that the source provided by PRO does not prove his earlier claim that "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face. "Therefore, this claim is still proofless and invalid. Furthermore, the source that PRO provides that he believes proves his stance, does not prove his stance at all. It talks alot about how China had ordered its troops to prepare for warfare. However, preparing for warfare does not mean that we are heading to a world war 3. It simply means that tensions are high. However, like I said before, in the 21st century, this war will not happen as countries try to talk first before going into war. For example, let's look at an example. You are going camping, and you bring afterbite to prepare for mosquitos. However, it is entirely possible that no mosquitos may bite you. It is the same here. Tensions are high, so China prepares the army. However, it is entirely possible that no war may occur. Preventative action does not mean that we are heading to war. If anything, it discourages war, as other countries become aware of the damage that another war can cause.3. RelationsYes, relations can be healed over time. In fact, . http://rt.com..., which PRO did not refute last roudn, shows the Russians and US shaking hands. An obvious sign of friendship.4. Sanctioned TradePRO says: "This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task" in response to my point about sanctioned trades actually preventing war. However, we see that this trade sanction is not failing, as there is no world war as of yet. This task only fails if it erupts into a 3rd world war. There has been no third war. Therefore, they are not failing in this task. In fact, the EU and USA are succeeding in their task, as Iran is becoming more and more pressured to get rid of their nuclear weapons as the trade embargo continues. Sooner or later, Iran will need trade and comply to the terms provided. What the EU and USA are doing is right.5. Suez CanalPRO says: "CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument. "Pro concedes that his argument was refuted.6. World WarPRO says: " The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War". I assume the "me" is a may. Please note that PRO used the word "may" instead of "will". This shows that he is not confident in his arguments, and he himself believes that there may be a chance of a third world war. As the resolution is: Resolved: we are heading to a third world war, PRO concedes the debate to me. He must prove that there will be a world war 3, however, he has just said that there may be a world war 3, which is my burden of proof. As a result, PRO has lost this debate.7. World War 1Yes, I know how it happened, and it doesn't prove your case at all. PRO says, "these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers". Like I said, we are more inclined to talk things out in the 21st century, not go directly into war. As a result, this will not lead to a world war 3. Dropped arguments by PROI made these arguments in the 2nd round and they have yet to be refuted:1. PRO did not refute the argument I made that nations are more inclined to talk in the 21st century2. PRO did not refute the argument I made that many organizations in nations want peaceThird round arguments:1. The USA and EU sanctioned trade with Iran to get them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, showing that they are trying to prevent war and they don't like war. These are the main reasons there will be no World War 3 and PRO did not touch upon these yet. It seems he is avoiding these on purpose to try to leave these unnoticed. Unsupported claims by PRO1. A trade sanction will lead to a world war 32. China and Russia helped Iran acquire nuclear energy3. Slightest disturbance will cause a world war 3ConclusionAs you can see, voters, there are many dropped arguments that PRO did not refute. Also, PRO makes several unsupported claims. In fact, PRO also seems to agree with many of my arguments, in essense, conceding the entire debate to me. Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate.