War is the continuation of politics by other means.

I wish to cite for everyone what clearly my opponent stated was my responsibilities. In his first round he stated my burden of proof was: “Con: will attempt to prove that wars have been waged over differing circumstances; and not solely a political agenda. ” With my one round of argumentation I have shown that war did not have solely a political agenda. I clearly laid out a case where now today, we can know that indeed sheer love of war has driven both soldiers and world leaders such as Alexander the Great. My opponents claims of insults: I would also like to clarify for my opponent. Nothing I stated was meant as an insult. I am sorry he read it that way. I believe anger at the fact my that my round “trashed” his entire viewpoint caused his sensitivity. I believe that my opponent had a genuine belief that was fundamental to his existence. He came with his gameface on to win the debate and with just a few short snippets I was able to win the debate. My first statement: “My opponent is hopelessly lost within a quagmire of semantics on this over arching “philosophy” of why nations go to war. I will side step the absurd semantics debate he was engaging in with his first round. ” This is not an insult but a factual reading of my opponent’s first post. He had set up the debate that at any point he could redefine the following words, based on any example I had given: - Political entity - Politics - War - Means My opponent proceeded to start to give personal definitions for these words in his post. This is an invalid approach to a debate on the veracity of a given viewpoint. Let me give a convoluted example of how he set this up in his second round (I will summarize): -The pope is no longer a religious entity but is now more broadly defined as a political entity. Anything Christianity has done has been political. - It has been a recent development that the pope has his own sovereign nation (1929), you cannot overlay this over all of the history of the office of the Pope. -Politics are anything a political entity can do- (circular) Means can be more than means and actually be other motivations! No person would define ‘means, the way in which you do something’ = ‘other motivations, the why you do something’ This is just a waste of time to argue with my opponent about semantic definitions. I have met my burden of proof as specified by my opponent: “Con: will attempt to prove that wars have been waged over differing circumstances; and not solely a political agenda. ” Second perceived insult: Additionally, the last statement from my round was merely a closing statement whereby I hoped my opponent would come to see that my argument is superior. Here are some of my example debates where this has happened. This was my hope. I was not insulting him: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... I am still hoping that my opponent realizes that Truth is found through debate. Rebuttal on Clausewitz knows more than Gileandos: We are in fact debating whether Clausewitz’s philosophy, was accurate. It is invalid to attack your opponent by saying “how dare you peasant to state Clausewitz was wrong! ”. It is like stating the William Lane Craig has no right to discuss scientific evidence in his debates. There are several fallacies here: Fallacy 1: “As a soldier in the Canadian Forces; I am more than aw[ar]e of why nations go to war; but my opponent's argument is invalid anyways. ” This would be a fallacy of composition: “Soldiers fight wars therefore they know why all nations fight all wars everywhere…” Historians and philosophers are more able to make such assertions. A soldier holds no special authority and credibility to assert what is or is not political and the political reasoning for historical wars. Fallacy 2: “His statement that Clausewitz was wrong is more than damning to his argument; as Clausewitz was a General in the Prussian army who rose through the ranks from a Private; where he saw his first action in war at the age of thirteen. Clausewitz knew more about war than any person today could dream of learning in their lifetime; and Clausewitz knew more about politics than many could achieve today” Clausewitz’s military record is not suspect. Nor is his ability as a politician. His ability as a historian and philospher is being discussed. Additionally, we are discussing that we today have scientific information that was never available to Clausewitz. My opponent gives the military record of Clausewitz and while pointing to my “assumed” lack of military record. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. We are not discussing command strategy or tactics. We are discussing a historical view of political entities and the reasons they go to war. Historians and philosophers are more apt to make assertions in this arena, not a war general who had limited access to resources and historical viewpoints, compared to what is available even today. Fallacy 3: “While I do applaud my opponent for keeping the rounds even in my absence from posting last round. I was busy on training exercises, and unable to make it to my computer. .. however debates are won on facts; not personal mockery like the last line of his previous round. ” A clear Ad Hominem abusive. I merely extended and never took advantage by adding more information than my opponent could handle. I could have continued on to Hitler as another proof of zero political agenda and pure “end game” war machinations etc…. My opponent also puts himself in a positive “cheap shot” as he was busy with a noble pursuit of military actions. If you do not have time to debate in this format then you can choose another. You can set timeframes for response shorter than 3 days to be within your timeframes. I did not cause my opponents round forfeit and I treated him with respect by not dumping on more information than he could handle in one round. My qualifications to discuss Clausewitz: Despite my opponents claim that I have no military service, I have been a chaplain and worked with many soldiers with “end of life” issues. I am a civilian chaplain but worked with soldiers in that capacity. I assure you that I have come to be far more intimate with the inner workings of soldiers than what can be garnered from hanging out with soldiers, drinking a beer and cigarette discussing how to best use our “guns” that night. I am also a historian, mathematician, teacher, businessman running multi-million dollar companies, philosopher, a theologian and a pastor. I have managed hundreds of people directly reporting to me and hundreds more through auxiliary means. People fascinate me, as does history, God, math and conquest. My education has been and continues to be in that direction. Summary: I have clearly shown that “love of war” is a major factor in the very daily lives of ordinary citizens. I have shown that indeed it has held a place as a driving factor in the life of Alexander the Great. I have met the burden of proof as laid out by my opponent in his first round. “Con: will attempt to prove that wars have been waged over differing circumstances; and not solely a political agenda. ” Indeed the resolution is false. Though I do feel that my opponent could have done a better job for a more interesting debate, I do thank him for his service to the protection of the Canadian government. I would love to have given more detail and flushed out my point had the last two rounds been a part of the debate on topic.