World Peace

Now, to begin. To start with, my opponent has not answered my arguments in any way that could negate them. ARG1: My opponent does nothing to refute my warrants for this argument, so we can assume that they stand. He only says that it is necessary that there be world peace, but offers no argument against mine. So this can be extended. Also, note to my opponent: When you refute my points, do me a favor and quote my arguments. I'll do the same. It just streamlines everything. ARG 2: My opponent also does not comment at all on this argument, not even making mention of it throughout his entire speech. So we can assume it still stands, and so this argument wins. So, at this point in the debate, my opponent has offered no rebuttal to my arguments. In addition, as I will show later, he offers no warrant for his arguments. Therefore, at this point in the debate, I am currently winning this debate by a landslide. Also, I would like to point out that I can win off of any of these arguments. I can lose ARGS 1 and 2, but I can win off of ARG 3. And since I can, I'm going to add 1 more argument, in the same format as before. ARG 3: C: Such a utopian ideal that my opponent advocates is not possible by definitions. W: The world my opponent suggests can be described by one word: Utopia. He wants there to be world peace, everyone to stop fighting, and everything to be right in the world. Here's why it doesn't work. definition of utopia: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place. Imaginary and indefinitely remote. In orther words, not possible by definition. Thank you. I: I've proven my burden, and I win. Now, I'm going to move onto my opponent's case. Ok, but this entire first paragraph has no warrant. He is just stating a necessary precedent to world peace. And even then, his precedent is not possible attain. Cross apply args 1 and 3. That's actually not true. The Romans just took over the Greeks. They didn't work together. But to your argument. You try to pull out history, and how throughout history, peace has been made. here's what do you didn't consider: 1. The Roman empire is considerably smaller than the world. There are so many more variables to consider, which my opponent just brushes aside. 2. The Roman empire did not have the problem of religion. I'd like my opponent to prove how to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to work together. How do you plan to have India and Pakistan work together? So, my opponent still has no argument at this point. You're right, this is not relevant. My opponent is trying to show how to resolve the conflict between India and Pakistan, but he is failing. He wants another third party country to just move in and take over both of them, and he thinks that this will solve the problem. Here's why that's not true. 1. The conflict is not a political question as much as it is a religious one. Their conflict is at the very core of their beliefs, and for that reason, we can't stop them. 2. Which third country do you suggest? The US? We're on India's side. The UK? Same. China? USA would object. Russia? They're on Pakistan's side. Who do you think? 3. You suggest a revolution. But again, the conflict is not political. It is religious. It is like the current conflict between the atheists of the site and DACTMOTO and GodSands. You can't change DACT's beliefs, nor will you change Kleptin's. 4. You still offer no warrant as to why that will happen. And even if you can justify this third party, I can justify the US nuking both India and Pakistan. If you can justify something in the future, so can I. 5. Also, you have to answer all the other groups too. 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 Unless my opponent is able to prove how to solve the fundamental conflicts between all the groups listed above, my opponent loses. That's great. You want to instigate a huge world war III and unify everyone through one government, and that will create world peace? Also, you fail to provide a warrant as to how we are going to get world peace. You only say that a huge world war will generate peace, but here's why you are wrong in the argumentation: 1. History has shown us otherwise. We've seen 2 World Wars, each one incredibly bloody, and we have no world peace. So immediately, we can see that another world war won't solve anything. If you can show otherwise, then I'll back down. But until then, you have lost the argument. 2. You provide no warrant as to how another world war will bring world peace. There's the problem of historical facts, and there is also the problem of you trying to fiat something, something that should not, and cannot be fiated. If you can fiat a world war generating world peace, I can fiat a world war destroying the earth. FYI, a fiat is just a form of argumentation (if it can be called that) where you justify something for the sake of the argument, but there is no real justification. A fiat would be like, There are unicorns in the world, and for that reason we have to stop deforestation. I haven't proven unicorns to exist, but for the sake of the argument, we can accept it. Maybe. In this case, a world war cannot be fiated. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, we've reached the end of my opponents argumentation, and I have 1800 characters left. I'm going to lay out the ground that this debate has to be fought on. Like I said earlier, the burdens in this round are incredibly clear. My opponent has to prove that world peace is possible in today's world, and I have to prove the opposite. My opponent has written two incredibly well written speeches, and I applaud him for that, but he lacks one important part of his argumentation. My opponent forgets the last 2 parts of an argument, out of the three that I stated in my first speech. To recap: There is a Claim, where you state what you want to prove. My opponent has made a great many of these, and his claims are very well written. However, his entire speech is claim, claim, claim, and none of the next two things. My opponent lacks a Warrant for every single argument he makes. A warrant is a justification. For instance: I Claim that Global Warming Exists, and therefore, we have to cut back on car emission. I Warrant my claim with evidence from the scientific community that GW exists, and that Car Emissions is a part of it. My opponent also lacks an Impact, which should lead off of his Warrant. An Impact is showing why your warrant for your claim, links back to the resolution. SO to use the previous example: The impact of reducing car emissions is that we stop global warming, and since I have proven that global warming exists with my evidence, I have shown why we must reduce car emissions (if the resolution was: We should reduce car emissions) So, because all my arguments have a clearly stated Claim, Warrant, and Impact, and because none of those arguments were even touched on by my opponent, we can accept them for the round, and therefore I have won this debate. Thank you.