alright i am doing a debate tomorrow (for school) and i want to set this up on this website...
and i ask could you guys please help?
the debate is about..
War is a type of social control? true or false...
this is going to be an intelligent discussion and i need people to choose sides...
in my debate i am siding with true... im goin to say one reason and i want you to tell me all the reasons why im wrong... (just let your mind out)
reason: War is a perfect way of getting a lot of peoples attention and support.... through war we experience different kind of emotions as in anger, and patriotism... War can be used for advantages in many ways... one being population control, one being a good base idea for a presidential election..... but most of the time the government makes things sound worse to stir up emotions... making people work harder, sign up to join the army, and basically do what the govt. wants them to do.........
now this is my starting reason... i made it up as i went along... now could youtell me why war isnt a social control?
War doesn't garner everyone's support. What it does is splits the public's support, just like any other outcome. There will never be a situation that has everyone's support.
This isn't an argument against your opinion, but an attempt at helping you plug one of your holes.
we experience different kind of emotions as in anger, and patriotism...
Patriotism isn't an emotion
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
alright alright.... lol when i meant being argued against i meant on the subject...
though i did say "tell me reasons why i was wrong".... well anyways i couldnt find another word for expressing patriotism into an emotion.....
but could we please focus on the subject:)
i mean i see everyone argue on this site all the time... over the same things... and then a thread appears thats different and calls out for them to argue... they dont...
Rewrite that. (i know it's just a dot point, but the concept isn't really that great). Try something more like "Despite war doing (or not doing) *insert their shitty line here*(now rebut that shitty line to hell :D), certain members of society can use war, and its consequences to manipulate individuals and society as a whole."
Never really did debating, but i think it flows better than war being used for advantages.
EDIT: Manipulation is your entire argument (Scoial Control). Focus on it! Maybe spend 2 minutes typing "manipulation in war" (especially focus on Hitler) and grab some examples of how, when, and why it was done.
alright alright.... lol when i meant being argued against i meant on the subject...
though i did say "tell me reasons why i was wrong".... well anyways i couldnt find another word for expressing patriotism into an emotion.....
but could we please focus on the subject:)
lol i HAD to point it out, sorry
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
War is more a battle for global resources and geopolitical foothold than anything, if you are looking for social control just turn on CNN. Threats can be used to provoke fear and fear can be used to gain support for a war against that threat. But rarely does the war precede the threat. Of course a war will result in social implications but it is not necessarily bred to do so. There will always be those who seek to take advantage of the current status quot but its not the wars fault, its just human nature. So in a sense yes and no... Sorry I don't think that helps very much but that's just my opinion. I think the real answer is that there is no true and false, the world isn't as black and white as we wish to believe. There are to many motives in play to truly gain a sense of what a war really is. The question is flawed IMO.
Rewrite that. (i know it's just a dot point, but the concept isn't really that great). Try something more like "Despite war doing (or not doing) *insert their shitty line here*(now rebut that shitty line to hell :D), certain members of society can use war, and its consequences to manipulate individuals and society as a whole."
Never really did debating, but i think it flows better than war being used for advantages.
EDIT: Manipulation is your entire argument (Scoial Control). Focus on it! Maybe spend 2 minutes typing "manipulation in war" (especially focus on Hitler) and grab some examples of how, when, and why it was done.
lol its like my english class all over again...
alright from now on just use woops revision of my *rough draft*...
lol hey you know you dont all have to side against me.... i mean this is supposed to be a general debate with people choosing sides.... but now that murderface has me in check im sure theres not going to be many willing people to join me...
yes, but in the end we are still using war for social control... as youve just pointed out woop...
The question is flawed, it's not specific enough for me to form a correct opinion. If the question was: Do people use war as a means of social control? I would say yes, but the question is too vague for a subject as broad as "war" , and in my opinion, unworthy of debate.
Now if I had to pick one I would say false. War is bred for the purpose of geostrategy, and not for something as meager as social control. Social control is what is used to bring about and maintain support for a war, more than being the result of war. People are inherently greedy and will absorb social control where they can find it, this is not the fault of the war it's the fault of those who wish to manipulate it.
You also have to consider that 10% of the population in the US owns 90% of the wealth. That greedy 10% is what is manipulating the war. The government doesn't run the show, government contractors do. If you are in the mood for a 2 hour documentary on the economics of war I will refer you to this movie, don't let the title scare you.It may help you with your argument.
War is the best way for those in power (By this I mean the government and the small groups of men and bankers who are behind most major governments, who arguably have near-total control) to:
1. Make loads of money by adding to the country's debt/interest.
2. Gain more influence over foreign lands.
3. Create fear and a sense of dependence on government for the population.
4. Give merit to take away civil liberties of the people.
5. Use as a distraction/excuse/scapegoat for problems within country.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---- And the evil that was once vanquished shall rise anew! ----
The world spins on money.. Money is everything. get money and your a CHAMP!
Nah! Get the women and your a champ. Then worry about the money =:P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
www.myspace.com/mpotatoes for all your Trans Siberian Orchestra listening pleasure
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Nah! Get the women and your a champ. Then worry about the money =:P
"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---- And the evil that was once vanquished shall rise anew! ----
I haven't had a reason to post on these forums in a long time, thank you for the opportunity.
Things get progressively more complex as time goes on through out history. While it can be argued that wars involve social control, war is not a definitive result of the desire for social control. Social control can easily be accomplished on some people without ever raising a fist. Look, for example, at fashion. I'm unsure of your vision of "control" in this instance, as no single variable in our reality will ever dominate every human.
While going over the points you stated to support your opinion in the first post, there are too many flexible arguments. See, the government doesn't make things sound worse than they are, the media does. The media is not owned by the government, although at times it can be influenced by it. War does not in itself make people join the army either (I recommend rephrasing that if you intend to use that in your paper).
The biggest flaw you have here is that you are trying to define war to an extent, and give it a spectrum of reason. War is hell, and don't forget it. Hell, whatever your definition, is beyond us.
I alienated the veteran side of me when I wrote this, so don't think I'm spewing any sort of bias.
and i ask could you guys please help?
the debate is about..
War is a type of social control? true or false...
this is going to be an intelligent discussion and i need people to choose sides...
in my debate i am siding with true... im goin to say one reason and i want you to tell me all the reasons why im wrong... (just let your mind out)
reason: War is a perfect way of getting a lot of peoples attention and support.... through war we experience different kind of emotions as in anger, and patriotism... War can be used for advantages in many ways... one being population control, one being a good base idea for a presidential election..... but most of the time the government makes things sound worse to stir up emotions... making people work harder, sign up to join the army, and basically do what the govt. wants them to do.........
now this is my starting reason... i made it up as i went along... now could youtell me why war isnt a social control?
This isn't an argument against your opinion, but an attempt at helping you plug one of your holes.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Patriotism isn't an emotion
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
alright alright.... lol when i meant being argued against i meant on the subject...
though i did say "tell me reasons why i was wrong".... well anyways i couldnt find another word for expressing patriotism into an emotion.....
but could we please focus on the subject:)
i mean i see everyone argue on this site all the time... over the same things... and then a thread appears thats different and calls out for them to argue... they dont...
Rewrite that. (i know it's just a dot point, but the concept isn't really that great). Try something more like "Despite war doing (or not doing) *insert their shitty line here*(now rebut that shitty line to hell :D), certain members of society can use war, and its consequences to manipulate individuals and society as a whole."
Never really did debating, but i think it flows better than war being used for advantages.
EDIT: Manipulation is your entire argument (Scoial Control). Focus on it! Maybe spend 2 minutes typing "manipulation in war" (especially focus on Hitler) and grab some examples of how, when, and why it was done.
lol i HAD to point it out, sorry
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
lol its like my english class all over again...
alright from now on just use woops revision of my *rough draft*...
Their argument will be war itself is not the social control, it is how war is used by others that is the social control.
Find a counter for that, and you win!
yes, but in the end we are still using war for social control... as youve just pointed out woop...
ignore this message (accidental duplicate)
Now if I had to pick one I would say false. War is bred for the purpose of geostrategy, and not for something as meager as social control. Social control is what is used to bring about and maintain support for a war, more than being the result of war. People are inherently greedy and will absorb social control where they can find it, this is not the fault of the war it's the fault of those who wish to manipulate it.
You also have to consider that 10% of the population in the US owns 90% of the wealth. That greedy 10% is what is manipulating the war. The government doesn't run the show, government contractors do.
If you are in the mood for a 2 hour documentary on the economics of war I will refer you to this movie, don't let the title scare you. It may help you with your argument.
The Truth & Lies of 9/11
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Religions are the biggest conspiracies... there you go.
1. Make loads of money by adding to the country's debt/interest.
2. Gain more influence over foreign lands.
3. Create fear and a sense of dependence on government for the population.
4. Give merit to take away civil liberties of the people.
5. Use as a distraction/excuse/scapegoat for problems within country.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Nah! Get the women and your a champ. Then worry about the money =:P
If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last
By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask
Things get progressively more complex as time goes on through out history. While it can be argued that wars involve social control, war is not a definitive result of the desire for social control. Social control can easily be accomplished on some people without ever raising a fist. Look, for example, at fashion. I'm unsure of your vision of "control" in this instance, as no single variable in our reality will ever dominate every human.
While going over the points you stated to support your opinion in the first post, there are too many flexible arguments. See, the government doesn't make things sound worse than they are, the media does. The media is not owned by the government, although at times it can be influenced by it. War does not in itself make people join the army either (I recommend rephrasing that if you intend to use that in your paper).
The biggest flaw you have here is that you are trying to define war to an extent, and give it a spectrum of reason. War is hell, and don't forget it. Hell, whatever your definition, is beyond us.
I alienated the veteran side of me when I wrote this, so don't think I'm spewing any sort of bias.
and
You are not your fucking khakis.