Debate suggestion by Blue-Scorpion.

World War III has been a hot topic in recent years, with many people arguing that it is inevitable, and others saying that it could never happen.

I'm looking for 2 people to debate this issue in a 1 vs 1 formal debate. Each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion.

Any questions, PM me.

I will debate that it will happen.

Alrighty.

Walken will be debating that World War III will happen, and we are now looking for someone to debate that it will not happen.

Any questions, PM me.

Still looking for someone who believes that WWIII will NOT happen.

...still looking for someone to oppose Walken. Someone, anyone??

I will debate that WWIII will NOT happen. it will be my first debate here so please be patient and understanding with me if I inadvertantly break protocol

Scotty

If you're looking for information on how the debates work, you can check out this thread which should answer all your questions. How the debates work.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to send me a PM.


So it now looks like we have our two participants, so I'll get this debate started!

Walken will be debating that WWIII will happen;
sane-scotty will be debating that it will not happen.

Again, each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion. No flaming, and remember to state your sources.

Good luck!

Thankyou Disinterested, I would politely like to invite Walken, as the senior member to make his introductory post first.


Scotty

Introduction

When we look back on history we see Wars and revoloutions not just as events, but as timelines, with major events leading towards them. We cannot possibly comprehend these until we are able to look back upon them and recognise the traits that went with them, such as the alliances of World war one, the trible entente and the Trible Alliance, or the League of Nations and the Manchurian Crisis. Though we do not realise it at the time, we stand upon a road with one inevitable end, conflict.

War starts mainly through economey troubles. When countries willingly trade with eachother, dureing periods of economic boost or standstill, in which countries grow wealthier togethor, a friendly international community emerges. However, when the economey takes a turn for the worse, almost certain to happen at least once a decade, countrys begin to put pressure on themselves and eachother, and eventually the flow of international trade is halted. Over time from that point onwards, tension will grow between nations, until finally war will emerge.

As certain that More ecconomically developed countries will have troubles with their economey, World War will happen again.

That concludes my introduction. Good Luck Scotty, this should be fun. And I also bid you a humble welcome to UM

Thankyou Walken for your kind words. I will try my upmost to make this debate as enjoyable as I can.

Ok, my introduction.

World War Three. These three simple words conjure up powerful images in our minds. Armageddon, the end of civilisation, the end of the reign of man on this world. And so it should. In a nuclear war nothing, no-one would survive. The world would be desolate, a dead, barren planet devoid of life. But what about a non nuclear global conflict I hear you ask? A massive build up of conventional arms, soldiers and tanks raging across Europe. Would this ultimately lead to nuclear conflict as one nuclear empowered nation would eventually find itself on the loosing side, its borders compromised and army decimated?

During my next five posts which will constitute the bulk of my debate and my conclusionary post I would put it to you, the reader in clear terms, the reasons why there will never be another World War, the Third World War. I will put forth the premise that no national government (of which there are fewer than you may think) capable of initiating a global `first strike` would ever do so and show to you that today`s modern armies are incapable of conducting a vast, global, prolonged conflict. I will also endeavour to prove to yourselves that todays modern civilised governments neither have the desire, or the ability to drag their nations into another, terrible global war.

And thats my introduction over. I now pass the debate over to my esteemed opponent Walken. Good luck.

Scotty

Maggie 13. I have deleted your message but you were well aware of the message I posted to G. Please do not post on here unless you are a participant!

Thankyou.

This is gonna be painful

Main body post 1



I actually feel that a nuclear was is the one type of conflict we are still capable of avoiding. With modern technologey, and modern weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear war can only end badly. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. So in a sense, we are in aggrement on this subject.



You're right, and that has caused me to rethink my stratergy.

As a last resort, a desperate country might take the final solution to it's enemeys, but in all liklihood, countries will have much better stratergys to avoid this. The cuban missile crisis is a clear example of this. However, we are debateing that a third world war will occur, not that a nuclear war will.



As mentioned earlier, the state of conflict within the international community is entirely dependent on the economey. War is, sadly, good for the economey. This is especially true of super powers. A good example of this is the USA, which has to go to war at least once evrey fifteen years or so, in order to sustain their economey. Here is a breif timeline taken from another of my threads.

USA WAR TIMELINE

USA joins WW1: 1917.

USA joins WW2: 1941.

USA enters Vietnam war: 1969.

USA forces first enter Gulf War: 1990.

USA enters Afghanistan in 9/11 aftermath:2002/3.

USA invades Iraq: 2003.

Some dates have been left out, because they are too close togethor to effect the theory.

This clearly shows a super powers intention to use war is a method to sustian it's economey. This is true, not just of the USA, but of evrey MEDC (more economically developed country).

Also borrowed from the same thread, here is evidence of an economey boost thanks to the most recent major conflict, the war against Saddam Husseins Regeim of Iraq.

As an example, Oil profits.

Sources- War causes huge boost in profits for Oil companys

This information clearly shows a rise in profit and a more powerful economey, influenced and pushed fowards by war.

The following quotes can all be found through that link.





I beleive I have now proved that war can and is used as a means to boost the economey in times of trouble. I have then therefore, proved my theory that war is a direct effect of economic trouble within the international community.

I repeat; As certain that More ecconomically developed countries will have troubles with their economey, World War will happen again.

I hand the torch over to my honourable opponent, the wise Sane-Scotty.

Main Body Post 1

Thankyou again Walken and I must say, your first post has totally thrown my argument off track. I had intended to use my first post to put it to yourself and the readers that a Nuclear world war would be totally avoidable due to the immense destruction wrought by one. However, like you have already said, we seem to agree on this point so, if I may, I would like to put this point aside from the argument and will concentrate my efforts solely on trying to persuade the readers , and maybe yourself why a conventional world war would never happen.

Dear readers, WALKEN has put the point forwards that `the state of conflict within the international community is entirely dependant on the economy. War, is sadly good for the economy`, and then my esteemed opponent posts a simplified list of the recent conflicts that the USA have entered into starting from `the war to end all wars`, the First World War. Well, dear readers, WALKEN, again is correct. Entirely correct except for one small point which is the fly in my opponents ointment.

Whilst relatively small (and I mean no disrepect to the men and women who fought and died in these wars, I use the term `small`, relative to a great World War) conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands War and the first and second Gulf Wars boosted economies, the First World War and especially the Second World War were solely responsible for the near Bankruptcy of many European nations, including my own, Great Britain.

After the second world war Great Britain was finished as a world superpower. We could not, and still cannot afford to boast the worlds most powerful Navy. The size and power of a nations navy is historically a sign of a nations wealth. Only the more affluent countries could boast massive, powerful battleships such as HMS Hood or the Bismark. Similarly, in modern times, only the worlds single Superpower, the United States, can boast fleets of nuclear powered Supercarriers. Yet before the first world war, the mighty Royal Navy had ruled the world oceans unopposed since the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. The second world war ended this and near bankrupted a once great superpower and now Great Britain, Japan and Germany have never regained the prestige and power they boasted pre world
war 1 an 2.

So, dear reader, whilst smaller conflicts can boost national economies, World Wars don`t. They have a terrible appetite which can consume millions of men, women and children and destroy entire national economies and bring poverty and hardship to all countries involved. I would like to quote from the bbc.co.uk website on the economy between the wars, titled the Depression 1918-1939

"Following the conclusion of the First World War, the war-time coalition government, led by Prime Minister David Lloyd George, was returned to power, promising to build 'a land fit for heroes to live in'. However, after a brief spell of post-war prosperity, industrial profits and wages began to fall and demobilized soldiers found it difficult or impossible to find jobs. By the summer of 1921
there were over 2,000,000 people unemployed and strikes were on the increase. There was widespread suffering and deprivation. The Lloyd George coalition government collapsed after a series of scandals in 1922 and the country's economic crisis continued to worsen."

please visit here for the full report and I believe that you would agree, the First world war did NOT boost the British Economy as my honourable opponent WALKEN would have you believe. It did, in effect, have the opposite effect.

Also, on the same page there is a link on the left side to `post WWII` which I would like to draw your attention to. In this piece it clearly shows the economic diaster which happened after the second world war had ended. Here is an small excerpt.

"In spite of the reforming enthusiasm and experience of many members of prime minister Clement Attlee's cabinet, however, this was still an era of austerity, as the devastating economic impact of the war became evident."

Economic boost? Again no. Please remember dear readers, that Britain WON both wars yet her economy was left in ruins after each one. We must then ask ourselves what the effects were on the losers?

May I also quote from a piece in the Sunday Times?

"....that new political imperative is, in turn, driving China’s trade and foreign policy in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. Stability and international co-operation, not confrontation, are now the watchwords, and its relations with America have in particular been transformed. Angus Maddison, the distinguished economic historian, predicts that China could become the world’s largest economy by 2015, thus regaining the position it held for most of human history until the
19th century. "


I must now apologise for the long post, however I have had to work very hard in response to WALKENS` excellent first post and to put it to yourselves why I believe WALKEN is correct, yet also incorrect in his surmise of the effects war has on the economy.

I hope today to have proved to yourselves beyond doubt that yes, small conflicts will continue to be fought for political/economical means, but these will be just that, small, well defined conflicts with clear (at least to our government) aims and objectives. However, another devastating world war would destroy not only men and women but the vast financial wealth enjoyed by all the worlds most affluent nations and this is why every nation in the civilised world would never enter into another one again.

In my next post I hope to persuade you all that modern day society will prevent any third world war from happening, that is of course, assuming my honourable opponent doesnt throw another spanner in my works

Thankyou for taking the time to read this and now I respectably hand over the debate to my worthy opponent WALKEN.

regards Scotty

Excellent arguements, Scotty.

Main Body Post 2



Good arguement, however MEDC's have never entered a war if they beleived before hand that it would be harmful for their economey. The objective of a war, however large, is to benefit ones county. Germany entered the first world war with hopes of acheiveing an empire, like that of Britains and France's, where as France and Britain both intended to tax Germany at the end of the war, makeing a profit upon the cost of the war and crippleing Germany economiccally to avoid any future wars.

In reality, we know that the ideology could not be acheived, and that the USA prevented France from taxing Germany as much as they would have liked dureing the negotiations of the treaty of versailles. The treaty of versailles did, however, cost Germany billions. It crippled the economey, which was one of France's goals dureing the negotiations. I beleive this proves that ultimatley, the objectives of the first world war remained economic.



True, however it did benefit britain in the other department, Influence. The end of World War one was the green light for the league of nations, comparrable to todays 'United Nations'. The league of nations was headed by France and Germany, however it's creator, the United States, chose not to join, and became Isolated from Europe, in an attempt to defend it's own economey, and to stay out of any future wars in Europe. Britain, however, still got what they wished for, and became argueably the head figure of the 'world council'. They received more power, and as a result, more influence.



True, but only because modern regulations in forigen affairs meant that Germany could not be taxed as much as at the end of the Great war. On top of this, at the time Britain did not expect the conflict to be so costly; they expected to profit on it.



However the world leaders beleive they can, and it is this beleif that fuels the conflict.



True, but I withdraw to my last point, if the countries beleive they can benefit the economey, they will still participate. Further more, at the time when a country first enters a war, in all liklihood they would not know that it will evolve into a world war. For example, the first conflict that led to World War one was the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. The attack was blamed on the Serbian independence group, the Black Hand. Austria Hungary then decleared War on the small and nationalistic Serbia, and began to attack their citys. At the time, neither party could have known what the conflict would evolve into.

Nationalism is also a cause of War. Nationalism, meaning a love of ones country, a pride in that country. Many nationalistic countries will long for independance, if they do not already have it. This once again brings me back to the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, which was attributed to a Serbian terrorist group, the Black Hand, whose main objective was the independance of Serbia. This proves that as long as countries are nationalistic and proud, conflict is possible/probable.



It is quality, not quantity, however your post had both

That concludes my second main body post. In my next post I hope to establish more examples of conflict stemed through economic intrests, as well as nationalism and the alliance system.

Over to you, Scotty

Main body post 2


In my last post I endeavored to put the point forwards that no nation would enter into a world war to boost their economy and I hopefully clearly showed the disastrous effect that both world wars had on the british economy, a nation which, ironically, had been victorious in both wars. However, my opponent WALKEN cleverly tried to suppose that Britain and France actually entered World War One for solely economical reasons. This supposition is incorrect. The `reparations` imposed on Germany after the war were the RESULT of the war, not the CAUSE.

May I quote from the www.historylearningsite.co.uk "The causes of World War One are complicated and unlike the causes of World War Two, where the guilty party was plain to all, there is no such clarity. Germany has been blamed because she invaded Belgium in August 1914 when Britain had promised to protect Belgium"

For the full complicated causes of World War One please goto here and I am sure you will not see the word economy anywhere in there.

Now I would like to proceed with the main topic of this post. Why Modern Society would not permit another world war.

Todays modern society is a more informed, more free thinking `intelligent` society than ever before. Human kind is always evolving and not only are we on the brink of a new era of technological breakthroughs, we have already past that brink and have took our first steps. Gone are the dark days when we had very limited avenues of information and even less limited resources of knowledge. We dont have to go to the cinema to watch the news or read politically motivated national news papers to be informed on world events. Satellite technology and modern day computing along with this amazing thing called the internet allows even the most commom person (like myself) access to nearly unlimited amounts of information and facilitates the possibility of people from vastly different nations to openly and freely exchange information and ideas without censorship. This also provides us with more than enough information for us to form our own ideas and beliefs about `life, the universe and everything`. Even now, on this very forum, people from many different nations openly express their opinions without fear of retribution or ridicule. This very debate is a great example of that. WALKEN and myself are doing something which, even twenty years ago was impossible.

As a result, modern society is less receptive to government propaganda. We are more curious and don`t hesitate to question our leaders decisions and we have at our disposal, near unlimited amounts of information with which to form our own ideas, our own beliefs. We also have at our disposal, 24 hour news channels which provide us with unprecedented in depth news on what is happening in wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. We can see first hand, the horrors of war. We know now that its not glorious, and that yes, small, innocent, sweet children get killed by British and American bombs. And this makes us stop for a second, and think.

Was the war in Iraq justified?

Just look at how much work, how much cajoling and persuasion (lies?) President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had to do to get us, the public, to back the war in Iraq. Also look at how much work was done at the United Nations. Gone are the days, believe me, that an American President, or a British Prime Minister can just declare war `willy nilly` on any backwater country they feel like. Gone , thankfully, are the days of `gunboat diplomacy`.

Wether you thought the war in Iraq was justified or not, it did happen, but even now Bush and Blair have to defend their actions. Every time another British or American soldier dies out there in Iraq, more questions are asked about legality of the war. Was the war legal? There is an international law which can bring a nations leader to justice for going to war illegally. Look at the mass demonstrations around the world AGAINST the war. And, like I have said before dear reader. The war in Iraq was a relatively small one, a very small one conducted by two powerful nations against a very weak one were the outcome was never in doubt. Both leaders didn't even try to pretend to us that the Iraqi people were our enemy, no, instead the war wasn`t against Iraq, it was FOR Iraq, to get rid of a Tyrant. Yet the politicians didn't persuade everyone. Millions were gainst the war and they made their voices heard around the world.

Now to my conclusion. If there was such an outcry against the relatively small war in Iraq, a war which we were certain to win, imagine the protests against a larger war. If we were told today that China was now our enemy and we had to go to war with them and the Russians would we sit quietly and let it happen? Or would we form our own opinion and refuse to back it. Britain and America are now multi racial countries. We have Muslims and Christians living side by side. We have Pakistanis and Indians living in our country without strife. We have a huge Chinese population and we eat their food and play with the toys they make. I know, and you know that a Chinese man isn't my enemy and that a Russian doesn't want to kill me just because I am an `imperialist`.

I was very proud of humanity when I saw the mass demonstrations against the war in Iraq all across the world. People from different countries uniting in one voice. It was amazing. Wether they were right or wrong, it didn't matter, they all formed their own opinion and were not scared to come out and demonstrate against what they believed was an unjust war.

We are not the same people who fought the two world wars. Modern technology has freed our minds in ways we could never have imagined 60 years ago. It has helped us learn more and understand concepts which once, were alien to us. We have soared to the moon and we build space stations in space to try to understand ourselves. Together we dive deeper in the darkest oceans, exploring the mysteries of our world. Together we weep when jet planes are flown into sky scrapers and we mourn in unity when giant waves devastate hundreds of thousands of lives in countries many of us have never seen.

In short dear friends, as a species, we are better than we used to be. And I believe we are not as ready to make war on ourselves as easily either.

I now pass you on to my friend WALKEN.

regards Scotty.

Main Body Post 3

In this post I hope to explain how the alliance system can result in war, a system still rife in the international community today, and will then tackle the arms race. Firstly, I shall respond to my opponents comments in the last post.



To be more precise, the war was blamed on Germany because of the schlieffen plan; which I will get back to later in this post as I explain the alliance system and how it can lead to war.



Good thoughts and very well put, but can it possibly be denied that this technology can and will be used for war? Look at the nuclear arms race and the cold war, for example.



Really? Because as I understood the USA and UK, along with many other MEDC's, just entered an unwarranted war which you've already admitted was for economic gain; to refresh your memory....





You said it yourself; Lies. As already said, the USA must enter a war at least once every fifteen years or so to sustain its economy. The Iraq war fits perfectly into this timeline.



Of course. We still let the Iraq war happen, did we not?



Thats right; Our technology is a lot deadlier now.



...like nuclear warfare, like Biological weapons...



...and then bombard a country that had little if not nothing to do with the attacks?



War has completely changed. Now it is not the country with the best soldiers that wins, but the best scientist. We are better, but only in the noble and long-lived art of killing eachother.

The alliance system

The alliance system means that a small conflict between two insignificant countries can today evolve into a nuclear war between hundreds of MEDC's and super powers. I will use one example.

World War one.

As already stated, World War one was sparked by the assassination of arch duke Franz Ferdinand. This resulted in a war between the nationalistic serbia and the strong Austria-Hungary. Serbia appealed to it's allie, Russia for help. Russia consequently prepared to help defend Serbia from the Austria-Hungarian army. In the face of the mighty Russia, Austria-Hungary requested help from it's allie, Germany, who agreed to attack Russia if Russia stood in the way of Serbia.

Russia was part of the trible entente, so consequently appealed to France and Britain for aid against the new threat from Germany.

Germany was part of the treble alliance, so then requested aid from the rest of it's allies. It then formed a front against the trible entente with Austria-Hungary and Italy.

Germanys fear of being sorrounded resulted in the scleffein plan, which involved marching through the defencelss belgium and attacking France where they were weakest.

This string of events certainley proves beyond a doubt that the alliance system causes global conflicts; a small dispute between Serbia and Austria Hungary ultimatley resulted in a war that killed millions upon millions.

Now, does the alliance system not still exsist? Didn't the UK and many other European countries get dragged into a middle eastern war only recently? And was the reasoning for this not purely in the intrest of defending relations with an allie (and world super power), the USA?

The Arms Race

I will now demonstrate how failure to disarm will ultimatley result in a World war.

I have collected these statistics of the World War one arms race.

Source- All of the following Statistics came from the book 'Modern World History, Editon 2' by Ben Walsh.

World War one

Dreadnought: The first of a new class of warships. Large, powerful, deadly, expensive.

Between 1906 & 1914 Britain built 29.
Between 1906 & 1914 germany built 17.

The ships were VERY expensive to build and maintain. They costed MILLIONS anually, to mantain a single ship.

Especially worthy of note is 1913, in which Britain Built 7 Dreadnoughts.

This all occured in the lead up to World War one. The ships obviously would not have been built if they were not intended for use.

Below is another example, the build up of Military personnel in the lead up to World War one (in millions and excludeing reserves).

1900 1910 1914

France 0.7m 0.8m 0.9m
Russia 1.1m 1.3m 1.3m
Austria-Hungary 0.25m 0.3m 0.35m
Germany 0.5m 0.7m 1.5m
Italy 0.25m 0.3m 0.35m
Britain 0.5m 0.55m 0.6m

Germanys rearment

After Germany left the league of nations, which will be strongly reffered to in my next post, it began to openly ignore the demands of the treaty of versailles, and began to rearm itself.

Germany, 1932:

Warships- 30.
Aircrafts - 36.
Soldiers -100,000.

Germany, 1939:

Warships- 95.
Aircrafts - 8,250.
Soldiers - 950,000.

These figures are shocking, however prove that the arms race leads to war. It is hardly a coincidence that both of the statistics I have shown were dureing the lead up to a World War.

So how are these figures relevent, you ask? Unless all countries disarm, which, in my oppinion, will never happen, war is unavoidable. Look at nuclear arms race. Or the chemical and biological arms race that is still ongoing today. No country trusts it's enemeys (or friends) enougth to disarm, and it's enemeys and friends feel the same. How then, do you suppose, that a global conflict, a world war, will never come about, when you understand the huge armys we are sitting on. Billions are spent annually on these weapons; why, if countries never had the beleif that they'd be used?

That concludes this post. In my next post I will explain international law and intrest and why it cannot prevent war from occuring.

Over to you, Scotty

Main Body Post 3

We are now half-way through this debate so I would like to just summarize what we have achieved so far. From the outset both WALKEN and I agreed that a Nuclear War was impropable due to the self destructive nature of it. WALKEN then put forward the premise that World War One and Two were brought about by economic interests. This I proved to be incorrect and in turn showed that the fundamental causes of the First World War were complicated and numerous.

WALKEN has spent much of his third post in putting forward that Alliegances played a big part in the First World War, something which I first pointed out in my original post and so, of course I totally agree with him. It seems my honorable opponent is doing my job for me

In my second post I hope that I showed you all that we as a species, the human race , have evolved and `grown up` since the first two World Wars and have learnt from our mistakes and are not as easily fooled into entering another. At the start of the First World War, for instance, multitudes of people celebrated in the streets, this shows that the populace SUPPORTED the war. We have to ask ourselves, if they only knew then, of the consequences of the war would they have so readily entered into it?

Humans learn by our mistakes.


However, the comparison between then and now doesn't match. We now have nuclear weapons. Both WALKEN and myself agreed that a nuclear world war wouldn't happen so, imagine if in 1914, Britain and Germany both boasted nuclear weapons. We have already agreed that a nuclear war is avoidable so ask yourself this. Would Britain have declared war on Germany if the Germans were nuclear capable?

The only answer would be no.

Similarly, at the start of World War Two, if France had built nuclear weapons then, would Germany have invaded her.

Again, the only only answer would be no.

The idea behind nuclear weapons is M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction). And it still holds true today!

However, this debate is NOT about the First or indeed the Second World Wars but the possibility of the third.


Also, WALKEN puts forward the idea that modern society is receptive to government propaganda and that we entered an unwarranted war in Iraq. The truth is that whilst many millions did indeed oppose the war in iraq, millions more supported it and still do. The very fact that George Bush was re-elected as the US president proves that may Americans at least, support him and his policies. We will see shortly wether or not Tony Blair suffers a different fate.

My esteemed opponent also poses that `the arms race` will ultimately result in another world war. Again, wrong. The nuclear arms race is over and THAT didn't lead to war. In fact and eventuality, the USSR Bankrupted itself in the arms race,and countless nuclear powered ships and subs lay rusting in Russian ports to prove this.

I also, in my original post showed you than China now see America as a potential economic trade partner, not a potential enemy. You are hardly likely to wage war on the very same nation which buys your products and fuels your own national economic growth.

So now we have proved a few things.

1. A Nuclear Third World War is most improbably due to Mutual Assured Destruction of both sides.
2. World wars are NOT started for economic gain as historically they destroy the economies of the nations fighting them.
3. We are now a more intelligent/aware species than we used to be and have learnt the full horrors of war and are nor so ready to enter into one.
4. An arms race like the nuclear one will NOT eventually lead to world war. In fact, the nuclear arms race KEPT us out of a world war.
5. The world most powerful nations are now bound together by economic growth and trade. Not divided by fear and suspicion.

So, these four points we have proved so far, whilst by themselves would not solely prevent a third world war from happening. Together, dear reader, you must agree, they pose a VERY strong case why the world would not enter into one.

In my next post I will continue to put forwards to yourselves other reasons why a Third World War is most unlikely to happen. So until then, I leave you in the capable hands WALKEN.

regards.

Scotty

Main body post 4

Thank you Scotty. In this post I will identify why international law and intrest is incappable of preventing war, as well as issueing my counter-arguements to oppinions my opponent has put fowards and giveing a clear example of how economey crash is party responsable for world war. I will firstly issue my counter-arguements.



Actually you are doing my job, as it is me who is debateing that a third world war is inevitable. That alliance system still exsists today, so haveing admitted that it is a cause of war, is a third world war really impossible? Can it even be considored improbable?



No, they wouldn't have; but they did not know the consequences of the war. At the time they surpported the war, for they had no idea of the horrific outcome. Likewise, world leaders could enter a war for economic gain, without knowing of it's future cost.



Let us not forget that this is not about nuclear warfare specifically, it is about a global conflict. To awnser your question, possibly. Probably even. If the UK launched a non-nuclear assult on Germany, Germany could respond through non-nuclear means. They wouldn't dare launch a nuclear attack if the opponent also had nuclear capabilaties; they would be full aware of the consequences of this.



Yes it does, and that is enougth to prevent a nuclear war; a non-nuclear conflict could still occur.



Obviously you have not seen the statistics. I have attached the results of a poll taken on ABC7 Listens to this post. Obviously the results speak for themself.



Thats untrue. Firstly, despite Tony Blairs stand in Iraq, he will be elected again. Why? Because the oppositon is so weak. The conservative party of Britain are at an all time low; the election results will reflect this, not the publics beleif that the war in iraq was just. The same applies for President Bush. The people of the USA and UK are more intrested in what the labour party/republicans can do for them, not iraq.



Actually it is a lack of disarment that will cause war. We have seen this before to; it's what finished off the league of nations and led to World War two.

Germany left the league of nations because it felt it was being abused; it had agreed to disarm (forced to agree, that is) on the beleif that evrey other country would soon be doing the same. This never happened, so Germany left the league and began the staggering rate of rearment that I enclosed statistics of in my last post. In response to this, rather than resort to disarment and to enforce the leagues intentions, complete disarment, the leagues chairmen, France and Britain, began to build up arms too.



You are, if you thought you could invade and sucsessfully destroy the country, takeing evreything for your own.

So lets look at what we have 'learnt':



Yes, a nuclear third world war is improbable, but I have already stated why M.A.D cannot prevent a non-nuclear conflict.



Ah, such blatant disregard for evreything I've put fowards related to this.

Firstly; If the countrys goverment did not think it benefitcial for a countries economey and influence to enter these wars, they would not. Secondly, at the start of a world war we cannot see the consequences we are yet to face. In most cases we will not even be able to see that it is a 'World war'.



You seem to have forgotten once again that we only just did enter one, And not long before that we were part of another.



The WMD arms race is not yet over, not nuclear, biological or chemical. Nuclear weapons have been used before and could be used again. The challenge of the race is to build something no one else has got.

For example; Why did the USA nuke Japan?

Because Japan had not yet aqquired the capabilaties to stop them or launch an effective counter attack.

Who can imagine what the next super weapon will be? An army immune to the effects of WMD's, perhaps? Weather controll? Whatever comes next, the first person to aqquire it will havce an advantage unmatched and unstoppable. M.A.D? Not if only one person has them.



Such was the case until the Wall street crash. It is an old saying; When the USA sneezes, the world catches a cold.



Five points actually, and none remain proven. They have in fact been disproven.

Case Study- The Wall Street crash

The Wall Street crash, followed by the depression, led to huge problems all around the world.

Britain suffered a high unemployment. It was not willing to get involved sorting out international disputes why its economey was suffering. This lead to the breakdown of the league of nations, which in turn is partly responsable for WW2.

The USA was unwilling to support economic sanctions why it's own economey was such a mess. This led to the failure of economic sanctions, which in turn linked to the failure of the league of nations. This lead to WW2.

France began to build a series of it's fronteir defences on it's borders with germany. This shows a rise in tension due to a lack of international trade, caused by economic problems. This tension eventually helped lead to WW2.

Germany's unexployment and poverty led to the people electing Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's. I think we all know what happened then.

In Japan, the depression threatened a complete callopse of the economey and the countrys industry. This led to Japan takeing over Manchuria, part of China. The manchurian crisis is commonly thought of as the turning point of the league of nations; the beggening of it's end.

Globally tarrifs were placed on imported goods to encourage home-made goods sales. This led to a decrease in international trade, which I have already stated leads to tension and war.

I beleive I have now proved how economic problems effect international relationships and how they can lead to war.

International law

International law can do very little to prevent the outbreak of war and world wars. To demonstrate this, I will use an all to familiar setting, the age of the league of nations, and an example; The Manchuria crisis.

Since 1900's japans economey grew rapidly, along with it's population. By the 1920's japan had become a major world power. It had a very powerful army and navy, a strong industry, importing goods mainly to the USA and china, and a quickly expanding empire.

The depression was very harmful to Japans economey. The USA and chine put up trade barriers (tarrifs) against Japanese goods. The Wall Street crash put all of Japan in crisis.

In 1931 they forcibly invaded Manchuria, part of china, in an attempt to expand their empire. China appealed to the league. For the league of nations this was a huge problem and a very seriouse matter; after all, Japan was a leading member of the league.

After a long delay, in 1932, a full YEAR after the invasion, a balanced report was issued. The judgement was clear; Japan was in the wrong and Manchuria was to be returned to China.

In 1933, instead of withdrawing from Manchuria, however, Japan commenced further invasions of parts of china. The league was powerless. It was clear at this point that it's reign was over.

Not long afterwards, it was disbanded.

So how is that relevent, you ask? It consistently proves that if an aggresive major world power is willing to go to war in the first place, international laws do not matter to it, and very rarely will the institution put in place to uphold these laws want to risk interveneing. A great and recent example of this is the Iraq war.

International law and agreements, even contracts, have always relyed on the goodwill within the international community. If that good will is not there, they rarely work.

That concludes my fourth post. I hand the debate to my honourable opponent, Scotty

Main body post 4

Dear readers. WALKEN has tried to show that Alliancess CAN cause war. However,they can just as much PREVENT them. NATO still stands as the worlds most sucessful alliance and had been attributed with being a key force in world stabilization in recent history. So I am afraid his point is mute.

WALKEN also uses the results of a ABC7 poll to try to backup his premise that the war in Iraq was largely unpopular. Again, the point is mute as 90 percent of all polls are made up on the spot! including this one

Also, once again, my dear opponent WALKEN tries to make comparisons between World War One and modern day. Once again, this point is irrelevant. We are discussing the possibility of World War 3, NOT the history of World War One, and whilst, yes, we can learn from history, we cannot make direct comparisons. Its a VERY different world we live in now and we have to use arguments that have relevance to modern day.

I don't like quoting from my opponent but here I just have to.

"if you thought you could invade a sucessfully destroy a country, takeing everything for your own."...

How can you take EVERYTHING for your own of you have just sucessfully destroyed it? What is left? Americans are hardly going to buy Chinese toys when they are dead or homeless and have no jobs and are living in destitution, which is what happens when a country is devastated by war and conquered. Instead, the conquering nation has to PAY to feed and clothe and house its defeated enemy. Which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq, and look how much it is costing.

Also, my friend WALKEN insists on comparing the small war in Iraq with that of a world war. Do NOT let him deceive you! They have NOTHING in common except that they are called wars. It is like comparing a small seaside wave to a Tsunami. One gets you wet, whilst the other kills Hundreds of thousands. Yes, they are both `waves` however one is far more destructive than the other, as we have so unfortunately seen in recent times. And I make no apology for this analogy! The recent Tsunami was horrendous in its destructiveness. And so would a world war be.

NO-one wants another Tsunami to re-occur and similarly NO-ONE wants another world war to re-ocurr. . The former, like the latter is a terrible destructive force, unstoppable which can wreck millions of lives. And THAT, is the most important reason why mankind will endeavor to prevent a third world war

Do NOt let my opponent try to compare a small,well confined war in Iraq with one which would ravage the whole of Europe and other continents. We are debating remember, wether a WORLD WAR will re-ocurr, not a localised one.

Also, my opponent says

`I believe I have now proved how economic problems effect international relationships and how they can lead to war`

Unfortunately, whilst my opponent may `believe` he has proved this I cannot honestly see how. Again, he has proved `my` point for `me`. The trade between east and west is at its highest point ever with the eastern consumer only to eager to buy western goods. Do I have to quote Angus Maddison again?

"That new political imperative is, in turn, driving China’s trade and foreign policy in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. Stability and international co-operation, not confrontation, are now the watchwords, and its relations with America have in particular been transformed."

also he goes on to say

"Chinese workers, a cheap and seemingly limitless resource, now make almost 90 per cent of toys available in Western shops. China makes twice as much steel as the US, a quarter of the world’s entire production, and more laptops than any other nation."

This single statement in itself totally makes WALKENS `war is caused by economic problems` totally irrelevant. He also goes to great length to provide a Case Study about the Wall Street crash and goes to great lengths to try to convince us that it did, in some way, lead to war. In no way what-so-ever did the WALL STREET CRASH cause a world war. This is hoodwinking at its best and I congratulate my fellow debater on trying to pull this off but I am afraid I am `onto him` as they say . He has wasted his time in providing this so called `case study` as it is totally incorrect.

Instead of providing solid reasoning in proving why World War Three is unpreventable, my dear opponent has, instead provided very tenuous theories in their place. For my last example of this, may I point you towards WALKENs attempt to show to us that international law would not prevent another world war. Unfortunately he uses 1931 and Mancuria as an example. Fortunately for us, however, international law has come on leaps and bound since then along with the United Nations. I can easily give you one example of how international law can hold a national leader to account for his actions.

Slobodan Milosovich.

And what will eventually happen to Saddam Hussein?

Now, I must apologize to my honorable opponent WALKEN. In Reading this post back I have spent much of it denouncing the `points` he has tried to make and I mean him no disrespect. Quite the opposite. This has been a hard fought debate so far But he is STILL no nearer to providing a solid foundation for the start of World War 3. All WALKEN has provided is sheer speculation that economic woes MAY lead a nation to war or that alliances between different countries MAY lead to conflict or even that an arms race between two powers MAY lead to them using them arms.

Make no mistake dear readers. My esteemed counterpart in this debate has provided NO concrete proof, only flimsy speculation and tenuous points at the BEST that we are all heading for ARMAGEDDON. Rest assured, you can safely sleep in your warm comfy beds tonight safe in the knowledge that due to

1. Strong Economic ties with the East
2. Nuclear deterrent and MAD
3. strong alliances such as NATO
4. Social awareness are freedom of speech and free thinking
5. Well implemented international treaties and laws

we will continue living in a relatively peaceful world were the only wars fought are those like Iraq were the international community come together to oust a Tyrant such as Slobodam Milosovich and Sadamm hussein.

In my next post, time permitting I will put one more and final reason why a large scale conventional world war will NOT be waged by the nations of the earth.

until then I leave the floor of the debate over to WALKEN

regards

Scotty

Main Body Post 5

This is my final main body post, in which I will judge and respond to evrey thing my opponent has put fourth, as well as adding new information to the table



True, but that does not change my point; that the alliance system means that a small dispute can lead to a global conflict, through chains of allies requesting help and assistance. So therefore, my point remains loud and clear.



My opponents reliabilaty is now under question. He claims that the poll is made up. Clearly he paid little attention to the poll or the information it gave, and chose instead to declear it fake on the grounds that he could think of no other arguement. To completley irradicate this possibilaty, the full poll and all of its results can be found here: Iraq War poll- ABC7.

And to remove any further 'doubt' of this poll and it's reliabilaty, a huge list of comments left by people who took the poll can be found here.




True, but World War one and Two are the only major global conflicts, world wars, in modern history. It is true that we live in a differnt world, but the concept of war remains the same as it did one thousand years ago. It is the most relevent comparison I have, which is why I will constantly refer to it. All of my points related to world war one have been examples, and after posting them I have commented on their relevencey to modern day warfare. Perhaps my opponent wasn't listening then?



What I said was not meant to be taken literally. It was an implication of how it is more profitable for countries to 'do the bad thing', and very little is holding them back from doing so. And for the record, the quotes taken from my last post my opponent is useing are not directly taken from my post, therefore any spelling errors or grammar mistakes within them are the fault of my opponent, not me.



Ah, another example of the manipulation of my words. To clarify...

- Taken from Sane-Scottys last post.

My response, taken directly from my last post, is as follows:



As you can plainly see, it was him who mentioned 'the full horrors of war' in his post. If he was talking specifically about World War in that quote then he should have been more specific.



As already mentioned above, it was you who said 'War', not 'World War'.



Such was the case between World War one and two. Then look what happened after the wall street crash. Clearly you ignored my entire case study if you honestly denounce the fact that economic problems affect international relationships.

With regards to your Angus Maddison quotes, they are true and well-applied, but I have been argueing that economic problems can lead to the break down of international relations and war. The quotes in themselves are irrelevent. My case study of the wall street crash clearly shows that Japan were in a similar positon before the Wall Street Crash; that one economic crisis changed evreything.



YET ANOTHER manipulation of my words. I have always said that their were a number of causes of war, and have stood by the fact that economic problems DO harm international relations and CAN lead to war. My opponents reliabilaty is under the question once more, I see.



Did you even read the case study, Scotty?



Clearly not, I see.

Give me a moment to explain what you have done in this post:

*You have twisted my words and manipulated my quotes to suit your purpose.
*You have announced statistics to be false for no reason, other than the fact that you cannot think of a suitable counter arguement.
*You have made ambitous announcements, yet provided no evidence, proof or statistics to back yourself up. At least no relevent statistics, anyway.

Quite intresting, hmmm? And now you go on to question my reliabilaty.



Really? Would you care to explain how? The number one rule of a debate is to explain, you see. Anyone could say 'Thats false' or 'Yea right'. You must prove these statements, and back them up with FACTS. MY casestudy is accurate in that which it identifys one simple fact; 'Economic problems can lead to the breakdown of international relations'. Did you know that many historians agree with this statement? Now you do.

So what was wrong with my examples, that I have failed to convince you of this one simple fact. Was my explanation of tariffs unsatisfactory to you? Or how the wall street crash led to the disbanding of the league of nations? The only one who is wasteing time is you, by questioning these FACTS.



Once again, it would appear you missed the best part; the part where I explained the relevencey of the case study in modern times. I suggest you read over it again, as it clearly explains it's relevencey in modern times. If you fail to understand that then it is a fault you must deal with, not me.



Agreed, but looking back upon your posts, you remain to provide anything to back up your arguement that I have not already confronted. Likewise, you seem to have chosen not to confront half of the information I have presented and to have confronted the rest with half-truths, lies, irrelevencey and manipulation.



How am I supposed to provide concrete proof that something that has not yet happened will? Besides, you haven't provided anything more than I have; you've simply mixed half-truths and lies with manipulation of my own words and irrelevent information. That is the concrete of your arguement, and it's foundation is growing weak...



Did I not confront all of those points in my last post? All of those points, you ignored, might I add? My opponent has once again put togethor a list in an attempt to sway you; all well and good, if the contents of that list are true.



"And we'll make some money while we are there."

Twas an intresting debate, Sane-Scotty, and I can only hope that you remain consistent with your final post. Good luck

Main Body Post 5

Dear, dear readers. I confess that I had to laugh when I read my fellow debaters latest post. This was his last opportunity to come up with some facts to support his theory that World War 3 in inevitable. In his first lines he promises

" .....as well as adding new information to the table"

Where is the new information he promised? Call me Mr Thicko if you will but I couldn't find any

Far from doing extensive research and putting facts forward, WALKEN has WASTED his ENTIRE post by denouncing me as an unreliable, illiterate liar

quote

"My opponents reliability is now under question"

"therefore any spelling errors or grammar mistakes within them are the fault of my opponent, not me"

"...and to have confronted the rest with half-truths, lies, irrelevance and manipulation."

unquote.

Show me and man who resorts to name calling and I will show you a man who has lost his argument, as the saying goes.

I am sure however, that my dear, worthy opponent WALKEN does not intend any insult and I will take this critisism in the same manner in which it was given, with humour and respect. I will not, however, stoop to the same levels and bombard my opponent with a tirade of well humoured abuse He has given a good fight so far, entirely INACCURATE, but good and I commend him for it. And in this spirit I would like to go onto the main topic of my final post before my conclusion.

Modern day armed forces around the world have evolved, grown stronger in their power, but dwindled in numbers. The main objectives , of say for instance, the American armed forces are rapid deployment of self contained battle units to anywhere in the world.

Why is this?

Please look at this quote form the US Department of Defense website.

"...the challenge of having to move forces rapidly across the globe;

the need to adjust to a world in which the threat is not from one superpower but from rogue regimes and extremist cells than can work together and share information."

What does this mean?

Well, it means basically, that China and Russia are no longer seen as enemies of the West. Instead, our enemies are now terrorists and rogue states and their leaders, like Sadamm Hussein and Bin Laden. These men and rogue states hardly have the means to wage a conventional Third World War, especially when `most` of the world support the American war on terror in one way or another.

Don`t believe me?

Unlike WALKEN I will provide facts to back up my theories

Again, taken from the Department of Defense website, and ALSO, crossed referenced from the BBC online news archives.

"...al Qaeda, the global terrorist network responsible for the September 11 attacks, is under severe pressure- its assets seized in more than 160 countries around the world.."

also

"With the co-operation of some 90 countries, terrorists and terrorists cells continue to be disrupted or destroyed on a daily basis."

This is just not the US battling international terrorism, although they are the leaders Many other nations, including my own, Britain, fight it at some level or another. Yes, even our so called `enemies` Russia and China fight global terrorism because it effects them too.

So, what does all this mean Scotty, I hear you asking. What has it got to do with the prevention of World War 3?

Well, its shows clearly, dear reader that the mightiest nations on the earth are far from each others throats and instead are co-operating against the commom enemy, global terrorism. In May 2003, President Bush announced the signing of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a GLOBAL effort to interdict shipments of WMD, their delivery systems and related materials on the ground, in the air, and at sea to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. More than 60 states (Including Russia and China) actively support PSI efforts.

Todays modern armies are geared towards rapid deployment and conducting small sized conflicts against rogue states instead of waging a vast rampant war across the whole of Europe.

Again I quote from the Department of Defense

"similarly, cold war programs and weapons systems have been cancelled or significantly modified...."

To put it simply. No matter what WALKEN tries to put forward to you the reader, there is one simple fact you must take into account. To wage a world war you need many vast armies capable of doing so and two fundamentally opposed powerblocks. We simply do NOT have this in our world any more. The four most powerful nations, US, Great Britain, Russia and China have NO INTENTION of waging war on each other, regardless of what weak and transparent premises WALKEN unsuccessfully attempts to show us.
There is
no massive build-up of conventional armed forces, there is
no wolf at the door,
no armageddon looming.

Yes WARS will continue to be fought. But not WORLD WARS.

All the above was my final point and I have saved it for last. In each of my posts, except the third which I used to sum up I have given you FACTS and excerpts from published works NOT supposition and weak premises like my opponent WALKEN has done. I have not said to you, such a thing MAY lead to this, or another thing MAY lead to that.

I MAY, one day walk on the moon.
But is it likely?

MAY, is such a vague word and my fellow debater WALKEN uses it much too often to try and prove a point. This concludes my main body posts. You will next see WALKENS and myselfs conclusionary posts in which, no doubt, my opponent will try to pull the wool over your eyes by using his well rehearsed `economy and allegiances MAY lead to war` triade and may again use it to good humourdly mock me

Do not listen to his drivel, dear reader I implore you Instead, look to my conclusionary post which I will sum up the FACTS I have given you, the TRUTH I have humbly laid before you.

Until then my friends.


regards

Scotty

Conclusion

Yes, the end is here of an excellent debate. My wise and honourable opponent has done exceedingly well and has been a huge challenge

In this, my conclusion, I will summerise evreything I've said, add the finishing touches, and provide the cemment to my concrete, that World War 3 is inevitable. But first, as this is my last chance, I shall issue my final responses to Scotty. I also politeley request that Scotty does not respond to anything below the line of dashes, as I will not be able to reply to his conclusion anyway. Thank you in advance Scotty.



You did not do much more with this post. Or your last post for that matter.



True. However, show me a man who will call statistics fake if they work against him, and I'll show you my opponent, Sane Scotty.



And this cannot be a good thing, correct? Why would America invest so heavily in it's armed forces if it did not think they'd be used?



I'm afraid this quote may work against you. After all, isn't he saying that he'll respond to this threat?



...until an economic crash. Must I repeat myself? The same situation emerged before World War two. The market crashed, and evreything changed. As was the case for the bellow quote:





And where do you draw the line, Scotty, where do you draw the line? Wars are only given the titles of World Wars after they have ended, and I have already demonstrated how a WAR can quickly escalate into a global conflict.



Oh, my. And if it's published, it MUST be true! The authors can CLEARLY see the FUTURE!



I'm not trying to pull the wall over anyones eyes. The only thing I'm pulling into this debate is FACTS, CASE STUDYS, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have demonstrated in all of my posts to this point how 'MAY' is not an option; World War 3 is inevitable. It is a FACT, recognised by historians world wide, that economic troubles DO lead to the breakdown of international relations and HAVE led to war. Man kind has millions of years ahead of it, and yet you denounce a third world war as impossible?

I will now finally summerise the main causes of war and how they are still relevent in modern times.

Economy - World War two was partly caused by the wall street crash, which led to the complete breakdown of forigen relations all over the world, as demonstrated in Main Body post 4. Also demonstrated in Main Body post 1, how countries can and do go to war to defend their own economey. Both are etternally relevent, as my timeline demonstrated. Further more, it is a beleif that countries can beneffit from war that causes it, not a FACT that it cannot.

Alliances - As demonstrated through out, mainly in main body post 2, alliances mean that a small conflict irrelevent to all major powers, can escalate into a global conflict wounding the entire world.

Arms - If countries really did not beleive World War 3 would occur, why do they continue to invest so heavily in arms? Why do they not simply destroy all the nuclear missiles stock piled around their countries? The arms race was a huge contributer to the start of Both World Wars, and my statistics in Main Body post 3 prove this.

Nationalism - Pride in ones country, a love of ones country. Nationalism is the main cause of the spark of World War one, the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, and the war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

So, finally, with all things considored, the statistics, facts, historical evidence, that I have provided, can it really be said that a third world war is impossible? Or even improbable? No. War is inevitable, a certain outcome. The light at the end of the tunnel is a fire. It is Not a good future, but one of gunshots and explosions, death and pain, and nothing can prevent that.

This draws the end of the debate, with only Scottys conclusion remaining to be said, which I look foward to immensley. He has been an excellent opponent, and of all the people I could face, I'm glad it was him.

Good luck Scotty.

CONCLUSIONARY POST

So, this is it, endgame.

I will try to keep this short

WALKEN believes we `stand upon a road with one inevitable end, conflict`.
He is, of course right. It`s in mans nature to make war upon himself.
But what kind of war? A mutually destructive world war which ruins economies, and millions of lives? Or just smaller ones like Vietnam, The Falklands or Iraq?

WALKEN believes economic strife will no doubt lead us down the path to ARMAGEDDON. I believe I have proved otherwise. I believe that I have showed that whilst YES, economic woes can lead to WAR, they would NOT lead to another WORLD WAR.

WALKEN believes alliances can lead to another WORLD WAR. I proved that NATO never did, it prevented one.

WALKEN believes an Arms Race will lead to another world war. I proved to you that the nuclear Arms race DIDN`T. Again, it most probably prevented one.

I also believe I have proved to you that the major powers in the world are concentrated on TRADING, not WARRING with each other.

And I also showed you that modern day armies like the US Armed Forces have adjusted their global strategies and are now focused NOT on waging a WORLD WAR with another superpower, but in deploying small, compact forces to fight rogue states and dictators.


Both WALKEN and myself have endeavoured to prove to all reading this that either a third world war is inevitable, or it isn`t. We have each attempted to accomplish this, I hope, in a good natured and well humoured, enjoyable manner. I have personally enjoyed the debate that I have had with WALKEN, and although I believe he is a few years my junior, this hasn't prevented him from proving to be a formidable opponent.

But for my final point I leave up to you to prove, or disprove for me. I believe we are `better` than we were many years ago. We are an amazing species. I heard in a film last night the words "...we are capable of such beautiful dreams, and such terrible nightmares."
We have grown as a race and what I want you to do is go to your son or daughter and look deep into their eyes.

Do you see a mindless animal, bent on self destruction, an evil creature who will eventually destroy itself and this planet. Or do you see something else, something more.

Do you, like me, see a small twinkle in their eyes. So small yet so bright. A small glimmer that gives you hope that we are an intelligent species, fascinated by the unknown and destined for more than self destruction.

Destined to walk amongst the stars and explore the mysteries of our universe.

Destined to reach a higher level of understanding of ourselves and of the universe around us.

If you believe the former, then you agree with WALKEN and indeed we are doomed to self destruction.

If you hold to the latter however, then you know now why a Third World War, a war which would spell the end of mankind, would NEVER be allowed to happen.

YOU decide.

I have nothing more to say.

Scotty

Okay! Thanks guys for a really interesting, well written and informative debate which has been a pleasure to read. You have both been fabulous!

And now its over to our wonderful judges... This is going to be another tough one!

Well, this is a hard one to judge, so very well debated on both sides....

Debator 1:Walken
Relevancy:9
Countering:9
Style:9
Persuasiveness:8
Total:35

Debator 2: Sane-Scotty
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 9
Style:9
Persuasiveness:7
Total:34

Debator 1:Walken
Relevancy:9
Countering:9
Style:8
Persuasiveness:8
Total:34

Debator 2: Sane-Scotty
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 9
Style:8
Persuasiveness:7
Total:33

Debator 1:Walken
Relevancy:8
Countering:9
Style:8
Persuasiveness:8
Total:33

Debator 2: Sane-Scotty
Relevancy: 8
Countering: 9
Style:7
Persuasiveness:7
Total:31

Very well done guys I'm gonna load up my bunker with lots of guinness!

The results are in!!!

sane-scotty finishes the debate with a score of 32.6;
Walken wins the debate with a score of 34.

This was an excellent debate, you both did a great job.