2d74 - Computer games are a waste of time!

03/27/19 • 32 min

2debate

Playing hours on end... is that really what we should do with out time?

Picture: CC0, Pixabay

Playing hours on end... is that really what we should do with out time?

Picture: CC0, Pixabay

Previous Episode

2d73 - Trade wars are more harmful than military wars!

There will be blood

At first glance, it may sound ridiculous to compare the cost, human or else, of armed conflicts versus trade wars. But there’s actually more to it. History has thus proven that both world wars can in part be attributed to conflicts over trade. Did you for instance know that starting from 1913, the world began to stop pegging their currencies to gold which meant they devalued their currencies to compete for export markets? As soon as the First World War was over, the currency war started across Europe throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Inevitably these kind of wars stoke the nationalistic sentiment within their countries (“Make X Great Again” anyone?) – and trigger weaponised wars.

But does history repeat itself? The world has significantly changed since the world wars: trade has become increasingly globalised, and “real” wars kill far fewer people than they used to. If anything, nuclear weapons have acted as the intended deterrent (hence the “Cold” war until the end of the Soviet Union). So it would appear that trade wars have increasingly become more harmful while armed conflicts appear to have followed the opposite course.

But not so fast, young Padawan. New weapons have sprung up – biological weapons, among other ones, which states are not shying away from using: remember the Salisbury attacks or the assassination of Kim’s half brother? Those happened in the past 2 years only. What if they happened at scale? Chilling thought, but not completely impossible. It’s not as if heads of state were all sane of mind, are they? Likewise, it’s become increasingly difficult to engage in a one-sided tariff war that would only affect the target country, naively believing it would not backfire.

The flip of a coin has ruled that Dirk will defend the motion that trade wars are indeed more harmful than military wars, while Sebastian will claim this is a heresy. Tune in to listen to our latest episode – and more as we, as usual, continued the discussion beyond our allocated time for the debate!

Rest assured that whatever happens and however fiercely critical we can be when we debate, we do come in peace – said the one still bloodily reeling from Dirk’s punches, kicks and cunning audio-editing :).

Sebastian (as innocent as a lamb) & Dirk (a.k.a. Hannibal L.)

Picture: CC0, Pixabay

Next Episode

2d75 - If a law is stupid, then you should break it!

I didn’t do it (or if I did, I had a “good” reason)

We all want to think we are law-abiding citizens. Yet we would prove unable to know or even understand all the laws of our country of residence, let alone of the countries we visit. Perhaps worse, while we hold a perfect image of ourselves when it comes to respecting the law, it’s in stark contrast of what actually happens – perhaps not in the case of everyone, but most of us. We voluntarily go slightly over the speed limit because there’s really no one on the road. We feel okay to illegally download a film because we tell ourselves we would never have gone up the cinema to watch it. We shamelessly consume unauthorised substances because we do it just once in a blue moon (when I say “we”, it’s a general “we” to encompass you listeners and other human beings, since neither Dirk nor I do drugs, hand on heart).

And so we continuously break the law for a variety of reasons. Most often it’s because we deem the law to be stupid. But does that realisation entitle us to act the way we do? After all, laws were voted for (hopefully) valid reasons, by people weelected to power. It doesn’t seem a democracy would work well if we suddenly decided to change the meaning, application or validity of any given law. But what if we don’t live in a democracy: does that give us any entitlement – or further entitlement – to breach rules?

It’s once again a tricky series of questions that are not simple to answer. And that’s why we debated about them, coalesced under the motion “if a law is stupid, we should break it”. As usual, we flipped a coin to assign sides randomly. This time, Dirk comes up with reasons why we shouldn’t break the law in any circumstance. On the other hand, Sebastian will argue that there are a number of instances which call for civil disobedience.

On 2debate, we keep it simple: it’s either thumbs up or thumbs down. And YOU get to choose with no risk of persecution nor retaliation. So go ahead, vote on our website to break the law – or to respect it – depending on who convinced you the most.

Be safe.

Sebastian & Dirk

Picture: CC0, Pixabay