A Just Society Sould Never Deliberately Initiate War

Do debaters normally respond this quickly...? Well, that speech was the same style from bsh1 that I saw at NCFLs, and it was effective. This should be a challenge! I'm not sure if I can bold or italicize things on this site, so bear with me on formatting. I think I'll go AC, NC, and see how that works. Here we go... Bsh1: The definitions are generally okay, but I will quarrel with one portion of the definition of a JS. I think that the last line about having "concern for the rights of all peoples and societies" is nebulous. I think that a JS could be non-interventionist or even isolationist as long as it acts generally in a just fashion. Look at Switzerland--it's just, but it pursues a noncommittal foreign policy. So, I agree with everything in the definitions, except that last sentence. Alright, on to the observations. I'm on board with the idea that "disdain" isn't war, and that there actually needs to be conflict, but I don't think it needs to be widespread. Look at the North Koreans idiots. They fire rockets into South Korea periodically, just to remind people that they're all at war. It's not widespread, but it is real, occasional violence. As for "never," I would wager that the most accepted definition is the one I gave, and so that should be preferred. Colloquial speech is not the same as what the term denotes. Your definition is colloquial, and not a denotation. As "never" is being used more formally here, my denotative definition is better. You agree with my value. I was a bit surprised that you did this, but I guess it gave you more time to rebut my contentions. So, this round should be weighed from a pragmatic (cost-benefit-like) view, with the goal of achieve the awesome value of Societal Welfare. Point A (PA): You know, Mutual Assured Destruction has done a TON to prevent violence. Look at the USSR and the US, they have never directly waged war against one another. Arguably, this would have been more devastating then the proxy wars they fought. But, the arms race has really dropped off--look at how many countries have signed on to treaties against WMDs. Look at South Africa who gave up its nuclear technology. And, this reduction in WMDs is happening even as preemption becomes a global legal norm, as with Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc. Also, sanctions and the Geneva Convention seem like, and are, great ways of checking the risk of "total war." That's one of those phrases where if you drop your voice a few octaves and say the phrase, your argument sounds really impressive. But, in reality, we have WMDs, but they are rarely used in actual combat, especially with the advent of UN measure to curb the practice. PB: War is not just about procuring power, man. It can be used for a variety of purposes: humanitarian intervention, proactive self-defense, yada yada yada...So, if your concern is a unilateral drop in the threshold for self-defense, why not have a multilateral agreement. Your argument here doesn't actually affirm, because I can still lower the threshold, and thus defeat the Murdoch evidence, but I just have to do it multilaterally. PC: "Usually" poor intelligence does not mean that poor intelligence will be a problem in all, or even many, cases. This does prove that JS can "never" initiate war, even if you believe that never is very rare. PD: War doesn't always annoy other nations. Look at humanitarian interventions; they can have a wide base of support. Also, just annoying other nations won't lead to more violence. We annoy the Russians all the time with our interventionist antics, but we're not at war with them yet, are we? In fact, we even communicate with them! PE: Okay, so this argument is just a permutation of the negative. I can also have diplomacy, homeland security, and counterterrorism. But, I also keep war as a tool in the tool kit because you never know when war will be the best option. LtCmdrData: OV: A just society is not a perfect society. All societies, just or otherwise, will occasionally have to act pragmatically, even if that means doing something unjust. A just society is just on the whole, meaning that if you subtract its unjust behavior from its just behavior, a JS is still net just. Basically, it's like a JS is net just, not always just. This is borne out in the framework you agreed to. We're talking about pragmatism, not moral absolutes. So, this is a great place to apply my "deontology bad" arguments from earlier (see my criterion paragraph in my NC.) Obs. 1 - I rebutted this fallacy earlier... Obs. 2 - Great! Obs. 3 - We'll see... P1: You say you're endorsing "prudence." Well, it's not prudent to rule out options, is it? Then you're tying your hands. So, if you try all those alternatives and they still don't work, then what? Then, you have to be able to use war as a last resort. P2: Okay, so W&G is old...but the Canterbury evidence is still valid. And, old doesn't mean bad. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's not correct, and you never dispute the card's accuracy. P3: The "unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation" leaves that nation vulnerable to attack. Cross-apply Machiavelli here. Plus, you argue for more homeland security, but then say we should decrease military security? A bit contradictory... Also, you never really rebutted the fact that nonviolent resistance doesn't have a awesome/super amazing/supercalifragilistic record, so this point should be carried across the flow. P4: Again with the alternatives. This is just a permutation of my case. It's so non-unique it's not funny. I can do the alternatives too, I just don't rule out war. So, when the alternatives fail, I have war in my back pocket, so I can try the alternatives first. So, I won't have to tradeoff with war, because I can do all of these things. It's not an either/or situation. P5: I already addressed this... Alright, that's all I've got to say this round. Adios!