World Peace

org *steps back and applauds opponent* Quick note before I start: I haven't done a debate in this setting in a while, so forgive me if I seem off. Now, to the debate. Here is the resolution as I see it: A Permanent and Lasting World Peace is possible in the present world. This is how I have interpreted my opponent's argument, and the subsequent comments. So my opponent's burden is quite clear to me. He must prove, beyond any doubt, that a unifying, permanent, and lasting world peace is quite possible in the current world, and the current situation. My burden is equally clear. I must show that such a Utopian ideal is not possible in the present world. So, before the debate truly begins, I'm going to provide some definitions, since my opponent did not. Here's a quick definition of World, provided by Merriam Webster: World: human society Here is what I believe to be the most relevant definition of Peace, provided by Merriam Webster. This shall be the definition used throughout the debate. peace: a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity Here is what should be the definition of Possible, also provided by Merriam Webster. possible: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization Ok, so with definitions out of the way and 1500 characters used, I'm going to move on to my opponent's arguments. So, reading over my opponent's first speech once again, I see a few things: 1. He begins with a lot of questions, some rhetorical, some not so rhetorical. 2. He states a lot of facts regarding problems in the world around us, from the economy to religious wars. 3. He makes some pretty bold statements about why people would be crazy to not want peace. Here is the problem with his opening arguments. 1. They aren't arguments. A basic argument has 3 things. A Claim, which my opponent has made many of. A Warrant, meaning a reason supporting your claim, or evidence showing why your claim is correct. And finally, an Impact of the Resolution. This last part asks of the argument: "Ok, so you've got a point. How does it affect anything? What does it do? " 2. My opponent makes some very nice claims about how peace is needed, and has a ton of facts to prove it. Here's the problem. He is just labeling the opposite of "peace. " He labels the Economic crisis, all the wars, the suffering, hunger, disease, etc. However, this is just what is going on, and is just a statement of what he believes to be the opposite of peace. First off, eradicating disease will not create peace. Eradicating disease will only make people more healthy. It has not direct link to peace. Just thought I'd make that clear. 3. So, without any warrants, my opponent is making broad statements about the world, and why he wants peace in the world. 4. Therefore, I eagerly await my opponents actual argumentation. So, with 5000 characters left, I'm going to prove why a world peace may be nice, but is not possible in the current world. I'll have my arguments in this format: ARG 1: C: Claim W: Warrant I: Impact ARG 2: C: W: I: etc, So here are the reasons as to why a world peace is not possible. ARG 1: C:The current political situation of the world will not allow it. W: A necessary precedent of world peace is a cooperation of all 195 countries within it, or else it cannot be called world peace. If I can show that all 195 countries will not be able to cooperate together to form world peace, I have fulfilled my burden for the debate, and I win. Back to my original point. There are currently 195 countries in the world. That is 195 different political systems, and 195 different countries with different ideals. Like my opponent said, there are more than 32 wars in the world today, all started for some reason or another. My point is, each of those wars were started over a disagreement, and it is because of this disagreement that those 2 countries(sometimes more) went to war in the first place. How do you ask all 64+ countries involved in some conflict or another to just stop and work together? Here is an example. Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries, with nukes pointed at the other. They are separated by religious beliefs, and nothing will be able to change that. In order for my opponent to win this debate, he has to prove how to get India and Pakistan to work together as one unified partnership, along with all 193 countries. You cannot change someone's most basic beliefs, some of which include religion, as in the case of India and Pakistan. To quote some of the people on this site, that would be like asking GodSands or DACTMOTO to suddenly change their ideals and work with all the atheists on this site. Actually, it would be worse, since DACTMOTO is not fighting with the atheists. India and Pakistan actively show their hatred for each other. Here are some more examples: Iran and the US North Korea and the US and its allies Cuba and the US Shiites vs the Sunnis Iran vs Israel (I think) Extreme right wing and extreme left wing If my opponent wants to win, he has to prove how all the countries listed above would just stop fighting over their basic ideals and start working together. I: Since I have shown that there is too much conflict in the world and too many people fighting other people, and too many countries with a deeply rooted hatred for the other country, I have shown that a worldwide lasting and permanent peace is not possible. ARG 2: (running out of characters, so i'm sorry if I'm brief) C: World Peace is so ambiguous that it is impossible to obtain. W: Even though the definition of peace is:a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, it is not possible to attain this because with 195 countries in the world, that equates to 195 different opinions on what is world peace. By mutual concord, does that mean a higher government of the world? Does that mean a communistic society? Does that mean disbanding government altogether? There are so many different possibilities, and each country will have their own idea. How do you choose? How do you change someone's basic beliefs about society? Time and time again throughout history, the answer has been to fight. And that equates to more war. And the opposite of world peace. The second part of the definition is to agree to end hostilities. How do you ask India and Pakistan to stop their hostilities towards each other? Do you tell them to disband their weapons? How do you ask two countries with deeply rooted beliefs against each other to all of a sudden throw down the towel? My opponent might argue that a stronger country should do it, but how do you choose which country? What guarantee is there that this "stronger country" will be able to create peace between these nations? Does it choose sides? Any country forced to make peace between these two groups would be forced to choose sides, due to each countries political agenda. Therefore, it is not possible. You can apply this to all the groups I listed earlier. I: I've shown why a permanent, lasting world peace isn't possible, so I have won. I'm running out of characters, so I leave my opponent with this: If he wants to win this debate, he will have to answer all the above arguments, prove the opposite of them, and show how he can solve all the conflict in the world. He has to provide a way to induce peace between all the groups I listed, and even then, he still has to prove why a permanent world peace is very possible in the current world. I'm going to save the below arguments for later, and I will bring it up later in the debate. I just have it there as a note to myself. C: Utopia. C: Possi