fighting does not solve anything

I will go over my case, then proceed to arguing my opponents. First my opponent says the incident at the weigh-ins between Chuck Liddel, and Wanderlei Silva was not a fight. I don't recall ever saying that was a fight though. That was merely an example of the dis-like the two already had for each. The purpose of me writing that, was to show that after the fight, all this ended, thus solving there situation of hate and dislike for each other, and istead transforming it into respect. By the way, this wasn't a seperate point from the fight. So saying the incident at the weigh-ins, is innacurate. This tied into the point I was making about how after the fight, these idividuals had no more loathing towards one another. Now my opponet says there is a vast difference between the words "something" and "anything". This argument is in-valid for the following reasons. 1. Whether the issue is classified as something, or anything, that still doesn't hit the action of how fighting actually SOLVES nothing, which is my opponents burden in this debate. 2. Something is referring to one individual thing. Anything is referring to to ALL things. So would "something" not go into "Anything" in this case? If "Anything" is just made up of a whole lot of "something's" then technically there is no difference at all. 3. "Anything" is talking about the problem. The word "Something" is talking about the problem. My opponent simply resorted to saying that 'something' is a more proper word to use than 'anything'. So if I say, "Fine, I agree, I should have used the word something in the resolution.", what has my opponent actually proven? By dis-proving one word and replacing it with another, you are not actually solving the resolution, but the word play of it. The resolution in itself has not been argued. Onto my war example. There is one thing my opponent has clearly missed from this argument. Have we not been in other wars before? Have all of them not ended? After all of these wars we have been in, are we still in hot air about them? The answer to all these questions is no. My opponent brings our current war as an example and talks about escalated tensions. Again, have we not been in wars before in which we had "Escalted tensions"? The point is that all these wars have ended, and truces have been made in all of them, resulting in peace. Those we do not feel comfortable with, we simply refuse to trade with. My two main points are that after a fights conclusion, respect is formed for one another, or the simply ignore each other. Both of these result in peace, which mean the said fight is "solved". My opponent seems to think the current war we are involved in will never cease and continue on for eternity. But what evidence would lead her to believe such a thing, I must ask? This was is small in comparison to, lets say the civil war. The Civil War is said to be the most bloody American wars. More Americans died in that war than any other american war. Yes there was strong tensions brought up from that war, but it eventually ended, and the confederates became part of the union. This is only one war example however. Find me one war, or fight for that matter, that has not been resolved after a physical bout has occured. Now on to the Lwerd/Mongeese example. I have not been significantly proven anything. Since my opponent uses Freud as an example, but goes on to explain absolutely nothing about his "Unconcious mind" theory. Basic knowledge of Sigmund Freud, would show that this has nothing of tangibility to do with this debate. "One key factor in the operation of the unconscious is "repression". Freud believed that many people "repress" painful memories deep into their unconscious mind. Although Freud later attempted to find patterns of repression among his patients in order to derive a general model of the mind, he also observed that repression varies among individual patients. Freud also argued that the act of repression did not take place within a person's consciousness. Thus, people are unaware of the fact that they have buried memories or traumatic experiences." http://en.wikipedia.org... I fail to see how any of this ties into how fighting solves anything. In fact I could actually use "The unconcious mind" to argue my side. And I will do so. This theory shows how people may have thoughts or feelings towards themselves and other, that may be negative, and they can be completely un-aware of them. When tensions before a fight arise, all these are brung forth, and enter into the concious mind. Now when the fight actually takes place, people tend to see more through the others eyes, by viewing their opponents physical difficulties and comparing them to their own. They find that they are not so different from the other after all, and when the fight concludes, they can see more eye to eye. This is not always the scenario as with theLwerd, and Mongeese situation. We all know that they personally are not fond of each other. But no matter what, when a fight ends, both parties gain respect towards one another. Does theLwerd like Mongeese? Does Mongeese like theLwerd? No. But while they dis-agree with each other, and don't hold the same values, I believe that both have gained a respect for each other. Not a respect for each others actions, but a more peaceful respect. They respect each other enough not to carry this issue til' the death, and they both know that they have different opinions. They understand this, and have accepted it, and moved on. This is the same with any other fight scenario. You could use the quote from ghandi here: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Seeing as my opponent has failed to hold up her claim to providing arguments of her own, I shall end this case. thankyou wonderwoman for the acceptance of this debate. -philosophical