War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing.

When Tommy took on the Gatlin boys, it is true that he could not undo the rape, nor could he instill guilt in people of such a brutish nature. However, he did show much more than the fact that he has the ability to punch people. He showed that he would no longer allow himself to be pushed around. That one act and the statement made by it could've quite possibly turned Tommy's life around for the better. In this case and many others, the saying "Action speaks louder than words" is applicable. In my previous arguments, I have possibly been misconstrued. The fact that most wars were unnecessary does not indicate a concession on my part. I clearly stated in Round 1 "Many wars probably are rather pointless. But not all of them." My stance is not "that all war is good for something." Rather, my stance is that war is good for MORE than absolutely nothing. There is a difference between these two views. Now when it comes to my examples of people fighting for their own self-defense, their dignity, and their honor, you ask "What real good is honor? Honor cannot feed you. Honor will not help you walk. Honor will not keep you alive." But cannot the same things be said of the morals and compassion you mention? These too can be viewed as "made up human concepts." If concepts such as these render an argument invalid, then your arguments stand to lose just as much validity as mine. You also claim that "Neither honor nor revenge will help humanity, only yourself." But when that self is multiplied by a large number, as was the case in Scotland, then a large section of humanity has been helped. In the section on intelligence, you say that people can still see that life is better than death. Even this may be debatable given some of the stupidity I've witnessed. Nevertheless, this is not what needs to be understood. The issue is whether or not the majority of people have the ability to see someone else's perspective on a situation. Many people do not have this ability, and I do not believe that an unintelligent leader would either. George W. Bush is a leader that barely has the intelligence to comprehend a coloring book. Does it seem like he can understand the viewpoints of others? Mentioning the budget for the War on Terror can only speak against that war and others similar to it. It cannot serve to counter the rationale behind the wars I mentioned, which took place long before such budgets were associated with the act of war. (Note: I did check off that I'm in favor of The War on Terror in my profile, but this does not mean I agree with any of the budgets, policies, or methods used.) When it comes to the points on ignorance, you seem to think education can enlighten everyone. This is sadly not the case. I have been in countless classes where people would simply not understand a concept no matter how often it was repeated or how many times it was explained. Teaching acceptance of others also would not work. Oftentimes two opposing viewpoints are irreconcilable. If this were not the case, a site such as this could not exist. On your other point, I do realize that if both sides stop violence, then my self-defense reasoning does not apply. The problem is that even this is not as simple as it seems. You state "Starting a war mainly falls upon 1 side, but it ends up being both in the end." But the dynamics involved in the beginnings of a war are rarely so cut and dry. What Riley from the Boondocks needs to understand is that there are situations in which neither side realizes that anything is starting until it is too late. Look at the current situation in the U.S. Rights are being taken away, but both the government and the majority of the citizens feel that it is justified. If and when the situation turns ugly, which side will it be that "started" something? The chain of events that can lead to war is highly complex, dependent upon many factors, and very dynamic. It is not one side slapping and the other defending. That is just a gross simplification. I have shown examples where war can be used as self-defense. But it may have another use. Namely, keeping the human population in check. For every species, there is a population limit. In biology this is known as the carrying capacity and is symbolized by the letter "k." The current population is roughly 6.5 billion! What would it be without wars? It is possible that we would've reached the carrying capacity, and at that point mass deaths would've occurred. These totals would've been higher than the amount seen in war. Theoretically, most of the population is wiped out. So wars are good for both population control and self-defense. Having both of these uses, they can definitely been seen as good for more than absolutely nothing. To Darth_Grievous_42: I too thought this was a good debate. You presented some excellent arguments that kept me on my toes. And to satisfy your curiosity, my picture is the cover of the Pink Floyd album Meddle.