A Just Society Sould Never Deliberately Initiate War

I will go AC, NC, voting issues. PRO/AC So, we now have clarified our definitional framework and are in agreement. How will the definition impact the round? As Con says: "the resolution is not saying that a society must always be interventionist. " This actually hurts Con because it means that a just society can pursue a pacifist approach. Obs. 1 - I would argue that the current state of affairs in Korea is a tense peace, not a state of war, despite technical claims otherwise. Violence occurs rarely, sometimes less than once a year. We have more violence than that in some of our cities. That's not war. Moreover, Con is employing an ad hominem fallacy when he relies on what "most people" think. Con never directly rebuts my Congo example--extend it. Con tries to downplay my example's importance by noting geopolitical differences in the locations, yet, war is war wherever it is. And, in both of these cases, it's not war. Stanford is a credible source, and should be believed. Obs. 2 - Con is again trying to downplay my sources. Don't let him do this. Black's Law is incredibly reliable, and formal. It is not a dictionary prone to giving "colloquial" definitions. And again, simply because most sources do something, doesn't make them rights, as my examples illustrated. It's an ad hominem fallacy. Extend never as "very rare. " But, even if you don't accept my definition, I can still win, as I shall show. PA: Con concedes MAD is an insufficient protection. Con also DROPs the fact that MAD fails even when we attack nations with WMDs, as was the case with Saddam and his chemical stockpiles. Con also drops the successes of alternatives over war. Con claims that it was U. S. threats of action that caused Assad to cave, but there are alternate explanations of this. Russia and China were likely pressuring Assad to stop, as the crises in Syria and the diplomatic fallout were giving them headaches. So, we can't really attribute Syria's concessions to U. S. military threats. PB: Schuman uses the word "power," but his analysis has broader implications. The fact that initiating war creates push back is true, as can be seen in my un-rebutted examples. Moreover, in Libya, cycles of violence were triggered by our intervention. There has been a upsurge in terrorist activities there, and weapons from Libya that were lost during the war made there way into Mali, and helped to fun insurgent rebels. So yes, our involvement in Libya did lead to more violence. Turn that example back on Con. PC: Sure, sub-point c doesn't affirm on it's own, but it is important un-rebutted offense for me, that, when coupled with other pieces of offense, will affirm. Con never contests my argument that intelligence is usually wrong; extend it. PD: Here again, Con skirts the issue. Con never contests the fact that war does have detrimental economic, diplomatic, and security-relations impacts. He just says it's better to deal with some of those problems then give up war altogether. No, it's not. PE: Con never rebuts my argument here that: "These alternatives, in my world, are the only options that should be used. My argument here was meant to show that these alternatives are effective enough that we don't actually need to keep war in our back pocket to use. Con never disputes the efficacy of any of these alternatives--extend my arguments. " I will dispute Con's analysis of the offense. Here is my interpretation. I am winning several key points: (1) never = very rare, and even if it doesn't, I can still win; (2) MAD fails; (3) war leads to cycles of violence; (4) war harms our ability to communicate well, which has a multiplicity of negative consequences; (5) the alternatives are effective enough that we can safely do away with war as a tool in the toolbox. CON/NC I've gone over much of the observational and overview framework, so I won't touch on that here. P1: But, you have to ask, are the risks worth the benefits. The risks of cesium are so high, that almost no sane person would use it. In effect, they would NEVER use cesium because it is so volatile. This is the same with war. If initiating war is that dangerous and perilous then a JS would NEVER employ it as a tool. P2: Con drops all of my arguments against W&G. Disregard that evidence. Without a link or a way to view the Canterbury evidence, we cannot ascertain its validity, and so we should not evaluate it. This takes out the entirety of Con's point two. He has no offense here. P3: Con agrees that I'm not contradicting myself, which strengthens my case. Con then offers the bomber example--but, if intelligence is usually wrong, as I have shown, then it is unlikely that you will have good intelligence on the bombers. How do you know where they are being kept before take off. ? How do you know if they're even going to attack? By striking preemptively, you could be setting off a war that never needed to happen. If the bomber were never going to bomb you, then by destroying them preemptively, you are initiating a pointless war that will cost many lives. that's not pragmatic. P4: Tradeoffs are harmful in that they waste millions of dollars and entail unnecessary risks. Again, that is not pragmatic. P5: Never = very rare, but even if it didn't, I can still win. Offense counter-analysis: (1) Con's point two has been completely taken out; (2) Con could get us into pointless wars; and (3) tradeoffs are bad. VOTING ISSUES/ROUND ANALYSIS So, the value in this round is Societal Welfare, which I plan to uphold through a criterion of pragmatism. It is my job to show you that, from a pragmatic standpoint, a just society should never initiate war. Let's assume that never mean "at not point," which is the strict interpretation Con offers. I can still show, under this, that war should be rule out. Here is why: 1 - War leads to cycles of violence 2 - War harms our relations with other nations, which has many harmful consequences 3 - There are very effective alternatives which obviate the need to use war 4 - Intelligence is usually bad, so preemption fails 5 - Con, in his point two, is unable to show that war is statistically effective 6 - Con could get us into pointless wars In light of these truly dangerous and terrible consequences, war is just too risky a tool to keep in our toolkit. It's like cesium, it's just too much of a risk to carry around, let alone use. Therefore, it is wisest and most PRAGMATIC, just to rule it out altogether. At no point should war be used. The perils are just too great. War is not pragmatic, it does boost societal welfare, and it is not something a just society should initiate. With that, I urge a vote in affirmation of the resolution. Please, VOTE PRO! Thank you!