The Common Grounds coffeehouse was packed with EMU students and community members alike on Tuesday evening, Feb. 13. They were drawn there by a question that rests at the heart of pacifism — is war ever justifiable? This question was the subject of a debate, free and open to the public, between speakers Pete Kilner and David Swanson. The Anabaptist Center for Religion and Society sponsored the event.

Both debaters are writers who have made names for themselves internationally. Kilner, a military ethicist, served more than 30 years in the Army and the U.S. Military Academy. He was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan on multiple occasions to conduct research on combat leadership. He is a graduate of West Point, holds an M.A. in philosophy from Virginia Tech, and a Ph.D. in education from Penn State.

Swanson is the director of WorldBeyondWar.org as well as an activist, radio host, and journalist. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize during each of the past three years, and his books include “War is a Lie” and “When the World Outlawed War.” He holds an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Virgina.

Will Ewart

The debate format allowed each participant 20 minutes of speaking followed by a three-minute rebuttal from his opponent, followed by one minute to answer or respond to that rebuttal. Swanson went first and began by emphasizing the waste of military spending and the slow violence caused by such waste, stating that “three percent of that money could end starvation on Earth.” He went on to state that “it is the institution of war that kills far more than actual wars.” Swanson then listed wars that his opponent might label as “just” and refuted that label for each, among them, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Kilner argued that “love is protection,” and that therefore war can actually be consistent with love. He claimed that, like police and firefighters, soldiers “are people that have a deep sense of love for their community, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for that love.”

He went on to challenge the practical feasibility of adopting a pacifist national policy and shutting down the military as we know it.

After both sides had exchanged their initial closing argument, questions for Kilner and Swanson were taken from the audience. The debate ended on a heartening note, with both sides holding a focus on their common ground.

“I like that they both agreed that military expenditure should be lower and that they both agreed on lowering nuclear weapons,” said graduate Center for Justice and Peacebuilding student Filip Cvetanovski.

When asked afterward for their opinions on the debate, student audience members had positive feedback for both the debaters and the debate itself. Abe Hartzler, senior and Common Grounds manager, was pleased with the way the two speakers carried themselves, saying, “I thought they both did a fantastic job. They stayed civil, with just the right amount of conflict between them to keep it interesting.”

“It definitely gave me more things to think about,” reflected sophomore Lydia Haggard. “Growing up in a Mennonite church, I’ve always heard war is wrong — period — and I really appreciated some of the challenges that [Kilner] gave to think about the actual implications if war is always wrong.”