Jaw jaw jaw not war war war?

[rockchick-steph]

I'm doing a debate in school on this and would like to know other people's opinions/

[Scribbler1]

I figure once you present something I could have an opinion ABOUT I could offer one. Maybe you should read some of the threads before you post anything.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you mean that diplomacy is a better solution to international disagreements than armed attacks?

If so, I agree...

[Jack]

I hope you aren't suggesting we draft JarJar Binks to fight in our conflicts.
Otherwise I have to agree with both Scribbler1 and PatrickHenry.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rockchick-steph I'm doing a debate in school on this and would like to know other people's opinions

Steph, you've gotten reponses from some of the most extensively opinionated people I can imagine, yet received one sentence responses. Obviously you're not giving us much to go on.

Is diplomacy always better than war? Usually. Not always. Maybe. I believe Desert Storm was justified and I don't think diplomacy could have accomplished much to resolve it. I think Iraqi Freedom was a massive mistake that underutilized -- nay, ignored -- diplomacy.

What's the actual debate question? Is talking always better than fighting? That's a pretty broad debate question. The first thing the war side is going to point out is how diplomacy failed in WWII. Is diplomacy an answer if you're attacked? How serious a threat is your enemy that would compel you to go to war? What are their goals? What are our goals? The same people here who would tell you that diplomacy is always the better response will also tell you that you have the right to arm yourself for personal defense, meaning that being prepared for deadly combat is justifiable. How does that differ on the international level?

.

[Scribbler1]

Diplomacy over warfare is kind of a no-brainer, actually. No real debate, IMO. If the lass would favor us with a return visit it would be a help.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Diplomacy over warfare is kind of a no-brainer, actually. No real debate, IMO. If the lass would favor us with a return visit it would be a help.

Not if you are attacked first.

Not if the other fellow uses the time you talk to grow stronger

The phrase "it depends" is the optimum one in this discussion

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Apeman81 Not if you are attacked first. Not if the other fellow uses the time you talk to grow stronger The phrase "it depends" is the optimum one in this discussion

I agree, especially with your first sentence. If you are attacked first, your response most definitely depends on whether you can survive a war with the attacker.

[Jack]

Since diplomacy is often goaded along by the threat of attack, both "jaw" and "war" can work hand in hand at times. But I gather from what little we were given to work with that we're supposed to choose one over the other. Ideally I'd support diplomacy. In the real world force often accomplishes more, though it may have unintended consequences.

[rockchick-steph]

The motion is 'This House would Jaw Jaw Jaw not War War War' I've defined Jaw as speaking about something and War as a conflict between Countries, States or Parties. It's a broad topic because everyone wanted to debate about a slighty different aspect of it!

I guess I could add to my definition so it was in some cases War was justifiable but I'd rather not because I've done that in a lot of debates recently.

I personly believe war is never justified but I haven't done anything about war in Modern Studies so I don't really know the pros and cons for 'war' and 'jaw'.

Hope that helps!

[Scribbler1]

That was the problem. You hadn't defined ANYTHING.

[bugsbunny04]

Look kid, if nobody understands you question, you arent gonna get much. I understand what you are asking, but you could have asked it better. You first priority should be learning how to ask the right questions, and how to phrase them.

"jaw, jaw, jaw or war, war, war?" IS NOT a good phrasing of a question. "Diplomacy or war?" Would be much better, BUT, you are asking a question that is quite general. It must be taken into context with a scenario. Apply it to Afgahnistan? Iraq? Which occasion? Darfur? Iran? Give us a specific application, and beleive me, you will have a volume of information in a matter of days. BUT, you should browse a little and do a search first, make sure it hasnt already been covered.

I estimate that you are in about the eight grade. If the impressions Im getting arent a phase, you are about five-six years away from being a starbucks addicted student of theatre and/or classical music...not that there is anything wrong with that

Be good kid, dont beleive everything you read, and think for yourself. When you get information, consider it's plausibility, and consider the source. Consider how often it has been wrong before.

Finally, I leave you with this, its pretty funny, and even though its from a different forum, it is certainly valid:http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

[Kite]

And remember, its Fox news, not REAL news.

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: Kite And remember, its Fox news, not REAL news.

Dont you mean Fuex News?

[Sonart]

.

FAUX News.

And I think you're being a bit tough on rockchick, Bugs. I believe most of us 'got' that jaw-jaw meant talking and diplomacy versus war. It's just that the subject - is diplomacy better than war - seemed so broad (or so narrow, depending on how you look at it ) as to be sort of a 'Duh!' question. Is talking better than fighting? Is living better than dying? "Duh!"

So speaking for myself, I wouldn't even know where to begin? Are we talking about a specific instance, such as the War in Iraq? How about the War on Terror? Any war?

If, as she indicated, "I guess I could add to my definition so it was in some cases War was justifiable but I'd rather not because I've done that in a lot of debates recently." then I'd be at a loss, because I honestly believe that there are times when choosing war is unavoidable. Y'know, "Better Dead than Red".

That being said, if someone else has a way of getting the ball rolling, maybe I can expound on their points. If nothing else, I can provide rockchick with some devil's advocate points for her to anticipate.

.

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: Sonart . FAUX News. And I think you're being a bit tough on rockchick, Bugs... .

I didnt mean to come off as being tough...Im all smiles. Im glad to see some creative intellegence around here.

[G. Adams]

Diplomacy and conflict are merely tools at the hands of the state. Alone they are neither good or bad, they only become so when we apply them to a particular context.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rockchick I guess I could add to my definition so it was in some cases War was justifiable but I'd rather not because I've done that in a lot of debates recently.

Ok, Steph, go with that and see if you can defend it. En Garde: December 7th, 1941... Germany, by force of arms, has conquered most of Europe, and their ally by treaty, Japan, has conquered most of Asia, and now Asia has attacked Pearl Harbor. How would you imagine diplomacy resolving this?

Anyone else?
.

[rockchick-steph]

I know the topic is way too broad. I'm having a problem writing a debate and it's tomorrow! I used the wording of the motion.

Quote by: Sonart . Ok, Steph, go with that and see if you can defend it. En Garde: December 7th, 1941... Germany, by force of arms, has conquered most of Europe, and their ally by treaty, Japan, has conquered most of Asia, and now Asia has attacked Pearl Harbor. How would you imagine diplomacy resolving this?

I don't think the war should have been started in the first place. After WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler made his Army bigger than it was allowed to be and and the Army trained in areas they weren't meant to be in. If the rest of the world had been tougher on this it's much less likely that Germany would have invaded Poland which means it's less likely WW2 would have started!

I estimate that you are in about the eight grade. If the impressions Im getting arent a phase, you are about five-six years away from being a starbucks addicted student of theatre and/or classical music...not that there is anything wrong with that

I live in Scotland and I'm in S2. That's Year 8 in English School years. I've been debating for nearly two years and I've already been in a league with only S5s and 6s. Other people from my year who've been debating for about the same amount of time as me have been in the NOSS (North of Scotland Schools) league (also with only S5s and 6s) and did really well. I could have been in that league but I had rehearsals on two out of the 3 debates in the first round. My Mum wanting me to change school because she doesn't think my school is very good but I wouldn't because no other schools in my area have a debating team as good as mine for S2s.

Somehow I'm thinking it's not a phase.

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: rockchick-steph I don't think the war should have been started in the first place. After WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler made his Army bigger than it was allowed to be and and the Army trained in areas they weren't meant to be in. If the rest of the world had been tougher on this it's much less likely that Germany would have invaded Poland which means it's less likely WW2 would have started!

Run with it.

I live in Scotland and I'm in S2. That's Year 8 in English School years. I've been debating for nearly two years and I've already been in a league with only S5s and 6s. Other people from my year who've been debating for about the same amount of time as me have been in the NOSS (North of Scotland Schools) league (also with only S5s and 6s) and did really well. I could have been in that league but I had rehearsals on two out of the 3 debates in the first round. My Mum wanting me to change school because she doesn't think my school is very good but I wouldn't because no other schools in my area have a debating team as good as mine for S2s. Somehow I'm thinking it's not a phase.

You're a neat little kid, I bet you even like rugby