Me, I believe war has different meanings, it goes on different levels. The scale are from arguments to full-fledged wars. Debating is also a way of constructively arguing therefore the chances of the world being entirely peaceful is slim. Full fledged was can hardly be stopped not to talk of the little arguments. There is a way of reducing full fledged wars but totally demolishing the policies of war that is were the problem lies. War can also be seen as disagreements. Disagreements lead to full fledged wars. What i'm saying is this. I'm WYSE, in name and in life application.
I don't like when people think of debating as one side trying to win over the other. That is, of course, part of it, but the main goal should be to understand the opponent's point of view and to preferably reach a common ground. I'm not saying it happens often, certainly not as much as it should, but I don't think that war should be the point of arguments.
Under the definition war = winning over the other side (=/= military actions), I don't think the word 'peace' should even exist. The London Olympics, for example, was a major global conflict. 'An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself.' - Charles Dickens