I understand your confusion. You've been assigned (or chosen?) an extremely untenable position.
You could defend warfare by stating that the strongest would get the scarce resources and land for its people. Adolf Hitler convinced the German people in the 1930s that they were superior and so deserved the land and resources of other European countries.
Conflict over scarce resources and overcrowding, leads to increased levels of warfare. What would I say about this when I'm against global peace. I think to help me understand this entire concept of the essay I need an example sentence on how to state my point. I'm just so confused right now.
6 answers
We were assigned this position. So I would state that overpopulation leads to increased levels of warfare. I still don't understand what my reasoning would be since i'm against global peace. When I attack this essay is it that since i'm against global peace i'm for war? I'm having a hard time figuring this out.
Yes. If you're against global peace, then you're in favor of war. War usually results when one group feels that the resources and land of another group is rightfully theirs.
So would this be the way to write one of my points.Overpopulation leads to increased levels of warfare. This causes the strongest people to get the scarce resources and land for its people. But how does the world peace fit in?
Sorry this is still Kara
The strongest people go to war to get these resources. If we had global peace, then they wouldn't go to war and wouldn't get another countries resources and land.
0 answers