ELC DEBATE:

- Is war Justified or not? -

DATE: 03-10-2019
CLASSES: TG3A, TA2A
TEAM CAPTAIN: Alex Boamfa
REST TEAM MEMBERS: Kim de Waal, Stef
Putmans, Milla Derhaag, Bjorn Joosten,
Rik Niesing, Sven Bouman, Casper van
Campen, Emiel de Vijver, Xander de Vries
 2.

CONTENT OF PAPER

- SHORT WORD FROM THE CAPTAIN

 A thank-you to all of the team members.

- SIGNING PAPER
 Text which everyone can put his or her signature on it they
agree with what it says.

- LOGBOOK
 Division of tasks
 All of the information every team member has gathered and
written down.

- ARGUMENTS
 All of the arguments we have gathered to use against the
enemy.

- CONTRA ARGUMENTS
 All of the things we will use as come-backs to our enemies.

- SOURCES
 All of the links to the website’s we used
 3.

SHORT WORD FROM THE CAPTAIN

Just like the title says, this is a little word from the captain; Alex
Boamfa. I know this didn’t have to be part of this paper but I did it
anyway :).

I want to say that I am proud of all of the team member of this group. I
have seen that everyone in this group has done his or her best to make
sure we win this debate. I really liked seeing the team put all the
tables together at the beginning of every lesson and putting all our
effort in doing the research, coming up with arguments etc.

I had a lot of fun working together with this group, and I just loved it
when I saw the result of this document that you are reading at the
moment.

I want to say thank you to all of the team members who worked on this
debate and I wish you (and me) good luck for the debate!
 4.

SIGNING PAPER

Everyone signing this paper, agrees with everything said in this paper.

Yes/No – Alex Boamfa:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Bjorn Joosten:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Stef Putmans:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Sven Bouman:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Emiel Vijver:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Kim de Waal:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Milla Derhaag:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Rik Niesing:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Xander de Vries:

…………………………………………………………………………

Yes/No – Casper van Campen:

…………………………………………………………………………
 5.

LOG BOOK

DIVISTION OF TASKS

- WWI: Emiel van de Vijver, Xander De Vries

- WWII: Bjorn Joosten
- US Civil war: Rik Niesing, Sven Bouman
- Terrorists: Milla Derhaag, Casper van Campen
- When do we start a war and when don’t you: Alex Boamfa, Kim de Waal
- Strategy thinking: Stef Putmans

ALL OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE TEAM MEMBERS

SVEN BOUMAN:

The south formed a new independent state, the confederate states. Abraham
Lincoln was against slavery, but the confederate states still heavily
relied on slavery. Then the confederate states tried to claim a fort from
the United States. This led to the US having to declare war against the
confederate states, in order to reclaim their own territory
The civil war ended and a process of rebuilding a nation free of slavery
started. End result is positive
To justify the War, the Bush administration claimed that Afghanistan only
had "selective sovereignty", and that intervention was necessary because
the Taliban threatened the sovereignty of other states.
support its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration put
forth a 'selective sovereignty' thesis that would legitimise intervention
in states that are accused of supporting terrorists.

argument: hundreds of people die because of terrorism, simple solution:

go to war with the terrorists!
Starting a war takes a lot of thinking because we have to think about
all the consequences such as live loss Soldiers know that there is a
chance that they are going to die (and affect his/her family members and
everyone they know). By knowing this, it is the choice of the soldier to
go in the army or not.
Revenge is justified because you have to right to take back what's yours
war on terrorism. Countries’ have to take the things necessary to fight
against terrorism in the country or people who want to be independent and
take the means necessary to fight the country. Are you going to leave
your country as it is with terrorist / rebellions in there?
Examples such as: Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (side note: in a
part of these countries other countries had to intervene) The clearest
example of a just cause is self-defence against an aggressor
assassination of a prominent person attack on a neighbour or ally allies
(NATO, UN) protecting your companions
End statement: the Ends justify the means

RIK NIESING:

War is justified for self-defence: invasions, terrorism, national honour

and economic attacks. example: united states government declared war on
terror after 9/11
 
invasions: when someone is invading your country or a neighbour country
which will lead to a threat or a country is being invaded which you have
a alignment with like NATO. terrorism: when terrorism is occurring in
your country like the central Asian’s Taliban and the terrorist groups
 6.

ISIS and al Qaeda national honour: when a prominent person like a

minister or someone from the royal palace is murdered by a group

Self-defence: invasion: The clearest example of a just cause is self-

defence against an aggressor. For example when an enemy has crossed your
borders and invaded your territory. But an actual invasion is not
required. The self-defence cases below are less obviously just causes for
war - whether they are or not depends on how severe a particular case is:
assassination of a prominent person: - a monarch or president attack on
national honour: (e.g. burning the flag, attacking an embassy) attack on
state religion economic attack:(trade embargo or sanctions) attack on a
neighbour or ally pre-emptive strike: attacking the enemy to prevent an
anticipated attack by them. Pre-emptive strikes may no longer be
acceptable by UN members, since the Charter says that short of actual
attack, "all Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means" (Article 2:3) Assisting an invaded friendly nation. Human
rights violations: Another common example is putting right a violation of
human rights so severe that force is the only sensible response.

War is justified for self-defence: invasions, terrorism, national honour

and economic attacks.

The United states government declared the war on terror after 9/11 are
you saying that that is not justifiable?

opening statement the debate subject is is war justified we will be

taking the affirmative and you will be taking the negative

ALEX BOAMFA:

(Contra)Argument: Starting a war takes a lot of thinking because we have

to think about all the consequences such as live loss.

Contra Argument: Soldiers know that there is a chance that they are going
to die (and affect his/her family members and everyone they know). By
knowing this, it is the choice of the soldier to go in the army or not.

Contra Argument: Revenge is justified because you have to right to take

back what’s yours.

A war is justified when it has meaning, purpose. You never start a war
without having a reason to start one.
Made this document (except logbook)

MILLA DERHAAG:

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence,

generally against civilians, for political purposes It is often used with
the connotation of something that is "morally wrong" When terrorism is
perpetrated by nation-states it is not considered terrorism by the state
conducting it, making legality a largely grey-area issue.[12] There is no
consensus as to whether or not terrorism should be regarded as a war
crime

Defending your own people is also war, and justified. 

You go into war with a country to defend
 7.

1. War creates power balances 

2. Ends justifies the meanings
3. Learn lessons during wars 
4. Over the long run war has made humanity safer and richer. By most
estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all the people who lived in Stone Age
societies died at the hands of other humans. the century’s 100–200
million war-related deaths added up to just 1 to 2 percent of our
planet’s population. If you were lucky enough to be born in the
industrialized twentieth century, you were on average 10 times less
likely to die violently (or from violence’s consequences) than if you
were born in a Stone Age society.
5. By creating larger societies, stronger governments, and greater
security, war has enriched the world.

6. The Greeks that defeated the Persians at Marathon created the concept
of freedom, unleashing the most brilliant era of human creativity in
history. The Union victory in the Civil War ended slavery. And the Allied
victory in World War II destroyed incomprehensibly evil totalitarian
states. There are many other examples.

KIM DE WAAL:

Justifying war.
Justification: the action of showing something to be right or
reasonable. 
Economic impact:
 • The economies of both combatants are effected by war. Since all the
trade and exchanges are focused on war and war supplies, the country’s
commercial sales will severely be disrupted. For example, GB was the
number one largest overseas investor before WW1. And it was the biggest
debtor after WW1. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-consequences-of-war 
(Mental) health:
 • Not only the soldiers, but also the citizens will be greatly affected
by war. Citizens live in constant fear that something will happen to them
and to their loved ones participating in the war. 
• War destroys families and disrupts the social and economic development
of countries.
 • Women are more vulnerable to the psychological consequences of war. It
is now known that maternal depression before and after the birth of the
child predicts poorer growth of infants. Kids have even a higher rate of
trauma-related psychological problems.
 • The greater the exposure to trauma- physical and psychological- the
more pronounced are the symptoms.
 

justifying war. 
Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e.,
aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations.
A war is only just if its fought for a reason that is justified, and with
a good reason. Sometimes a war is fought to prevent a wrong from
happening. War to defend the innocent are considered just.
 Self-defence
 • Invasion. the most obvious reason is to protect your country against
an aggressor. This also includes recapturing something that the enemy has
taken away. 
• Assisting an invaded friendly nation 
 8.

• Human right violations When basic human rights are violated so severely
that force is the only sensible response.

• Even if you don’t start a war and just defend your country, you’re
still participating in the war.
 • People always die in war, it is inevitable. But, because this
happened, for example after ww1: after ww1 they decided to never do this
again. Source: Myers

CASPER VAN CAMPEN:

Argument: hundreds of people die because of terrorism, simple solution:

go to war with the terrorists!
Why should we go to war? Nationalism always plays a big part in a war,
nationalism is really standing up for your country. like myself, I really
stand up for my motherland and for the croissant in general of course.
But it does play a big role in wars, in the wars people will be fighting
against each other and there is no better motivation than: “fighting for
the motherland” and it works people are more motivated they have
something they would fight for and granted occasionally die for.

BJORN JOOSTEN:

There is no doubt that stopping the Hitler regime from slaughtering more
people — which was the effect of destroying Germany in World War II — was
a justified move, especially when you consider the peaceful, free country
Germany has become since then.
The theory of a “just war” is a teaching of the Catholic Church that
originated with St. Augustine and was refined by great thinkers such as
St. Thomas Aquinas. At its core, the teaching says that force, conducted
by a proper authority, is acceptable in response to aggression if:
"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of
nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
“2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
“3. there must be serious prospects of success;
“4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
" [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309]. Considering that both the
Germans and the Japanese committed open aggression against other
countries; that the damage they inflicted was grave and long-lasting;
that peaceful actions to resolve the issues were unavailing (think of the
Munich Agreement); that the Allies had a reasonable chance of success;
and that the violence employed by the Allies was certainly no greater
than the damage done by the Axis

EMIEL VAN DE VIJVER:

War is justified to defend the people, as an example the Afghanistan war.
The United States, The United Kingdom, Australia and France all attacked
the Taliban in Afghanistan at the 7th of October under the name "Enduring
Freedom" this was to take Osama Bin Laden, after what the Taliban did in
9/11 this all was to defend the people in the whole world so things like
this could never happen again.
Made the Logbook.
 9.

STEF PUTMANS:
(counter against innocent people dying) the medicine is harsh, but the
patient needs it these people are sacrificed for a good outcome we can't
avoid death during war can we?

Counter argument (given that they're covering ptsd): it does not just
occur with war veterans, people who had to go through life threatening
events often develop this too. For example people who are abused both
physically and sexually and people who have been through natural
disasters could also develop it
 10.

Strategy thinking:

- Death:
The death of soldiers: These people know there is a chance of dying, so
does their family. But sometimes you just have to make the ultimate
sacrifice. If soldiers were wusses, and didn’t want to die, would they
still be in the army? Would they fight for us?
The death of innocent people: The medicine is harsh, but the patient
needs it. Sometimes you just need to let the people die in order to win
the war, a harsh sacrifice indeed, but think of it this way. There is
always a positive outcome for war, sometimes it’s for this country, other
times it’s for the other country.

-PTSD:
PTSD also can occur in people who didn’t fight in war, it does not
discriminate in that department. PTSD occurs when you are in a
threatening situation, anyone who has been assaulted, abused, a motor
accident, or school shootings (mostly America).
The cure: PTSD is a mental disorder, therefore there is no real cure for
it. However, the symptoms can be managed to partially restore the
functionality of the person suffering. The way this is done is by
therapy, therefore this can be helpful to decrease the severity.

-The life of a soldier:

Do soldiers experiment remorse after shooting people? The answer to that
question is no, soldiers do not feel remorse. During the war the soldiers
are too busy fighting for their lives, that they don’t have a sense of
remorse, there is no time for that. However, after the war it is not the
same story. While they do not have remorse, they do have regrets. They
had to take the lives, they can’t do anything about that. They do not
like that, but being a soldier requires you to shoot people. The regret
is there because they wish that there was a different way, but there is
not. There are some people who get remorse, the people who didn’t think
wisely about their decisions, they joined the army for the wrong reasons.
As a soldier you have to be prepared for 3 things.
1. You can get killed or heavily injured, fighting in the army is
fighting for your life.
2. You can become a prisoner of war. People can become prisoners of
war, innocent or not. These people can be taken by aggressive
powers, and held prisoner.
3. There is a chance you have to kill someone. Killing someone in war
is not doing anything wrong, it’s not your fault.
 11.

ARGUMENTS

- Thousands, maybe millions people die because of terrorists, so we have

to go to war with them to stop more people from dying.

- Starting a war takes a lot of thinking because we have to think about

all the consequences such as live loss etc.

- Countries have to take the things necessary to fight against terrorism

in the country or people who want to be independent and take the means
necessary to fight the country. Are you going to leave your country as it
is with terrorist / rebellions in there? Examples such as: Yemen, Syria,
Afghanistan and Pakistan.

- War is justified for self-defence: invasions, terrorism, national

honour and economic attacks.

- War for your friends: when a friendly nation of you gets invaded (e.g.
N.A.T.O.)

- Human rights violations: Another common example is putting right a

violation of human rights so severe that force is the only sensible
response.

- The south formed a new independent state, the confederate states.

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery, but the confederate states still
heavily relied on slavery. Then the confederate states tried to claim a
fort from the United States. This led to the US having to declare war
against the confederate states, in order to reclaim their own territory.

- Defending your own people is also war, and justified. As an example

Afghanistan. The United States, The United Kingdom, Australia and France
all attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan at the 7th of October under the
name "Enduring Freedom" this was to take Osama Bin Laden, after what the
Taliban did in 9/11 this all was to defend the people in the whole world
so things like this could never happen again.
Also, to justify the War, the Bush administration claimed that
Afghanistan only had "selective sovereignty", and that intervention was
necessary because the Taliban threatened the sovereignty of other states.

- You go into war with a country to defend your own.

- The civil war ended and a process of rebuilding a nation free of

slavery started. End result is positive

- War creates power balances.

- Over the long run war has made humanity safer and richer. By most
estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all the people who lived in Stone Age
societies died at the hands of other humans. the century’s 100–200
million war-related deaths added up to just 1 to 2 percent of our
planet’s population. If you were lucky enough to be born in the
industrialized twentieth century, you were on average 10 times less
likely to die violently (or from violence’s consequences) than if you
were born in a Stone Age society.

- By creating larger societies, stronger governments, and greater

security, war has enriched the world.
 12.

- The Greeks that defeated the Persians at Marathon created the concept
of freedom, unleashing the most brilliant era of human creativity in
history. The Union victory in the Civil War ended slavery. And the Allied
victory in World War II destroyed incomprehensibly evil totalitarian
states. There are many other examples.

- End Statement: Ends always justify the meaning.

 13.

CONTRA ARGUMENTS

- Soldiers know that there is a chance that they are going to die (and
affect his/her family members and everyone they know). By knowing this,
it is the choice of the soldier to go in the army or not.
if soldiers wouldn't be willing to fight, to make the ultimate sacrifice,
how would we as a country be able to defend incoming attacks? if we'd be
attacked, according to you (the other group) we should just sit there and
be like 'well this is not favourable' and let innocent people die,
instead we should defend, fight for what's right. If some soldiers they
die, they made that sacrifice, they die a hero, it is 1 life vs multiple
innocent people.

- PTSD, anxiety and depression do not just occur with war veterans,
people who had to go through life threatening events often develop this
too. For example people who are abused both physically and sexually and
people who have been through natural disasters could also develop it.

- Revenge is justified because you have to right to take back what's

yours.

- There is no doubt that stopping the nihilistic Hitler regime from

slaughtering more people — which was the effect of destroying Germany in
World War II — was a profound moral good, particularly when we consider
the peaceful, free country Germany has become since.
 14.

SOURCES

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmdf9kZG-2A
- https://www.wehonorveterans.org/veterans-their-needs/specific-
populations/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties
- https://www.quora.com/Was-World-War-2-an-example-of-a-just-war-How-is-
it-used-to-justify-wars-in-the-present
- https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-consequences-of-war
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472271/
- https://www-tc.pbs.org/thewar/downloads/just_war.pdf
- https://www.ducksters.com/history/civil_war/causes_of_the_civil_war.php
- https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-
civil-war
- https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikaanse_Burgeroorlog
- https://www.psychguides.com/pstsd/treatment/
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/cause_1.shtml
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/prisoner-of-war
- https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dienstplicht https://www.quora.com/What-
drives-a-person-to-choose-to-become-a-soldier