The Instigator
Arthas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

A disagreement of ideals justifies physical violence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 56007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Arthas

Con

Obviously not, if either parties resort to physical violence no agreement or understanding would occur and therefore causa more conflict.
A opinion is simply that, but when an opinion becomes an action that either parties would find hazardous to the enviroment or society it would be justifiable to impede such action to take place.
We're of course talking about realistical ideals.
Debate Round No. 1
Arthas

Con

Great.
Thesis: A disagreement of any sort be it polytical, ideological or religious does not justify violence due to the hazardous effect it has to both parties and the sorrounding parties.

Arguments:

1#Violence is an emotional response.
No logic can come from an emotional reaction, be it love or violence.

2#No natural agreement comes from violence
Violence tends to result in more conflict, in chain creating no result for the discussion both parties had before, even if, the party that suffered the attack does forgive the attacking party.
Mikal

Pro

Resolution - A disagreement of ideals justifies physical violence.

Justified - to provide a good reason for the actions of [1]



To win this debate all I have to do is show that there are any number of possible situations that could occur that would justify violence. Meaning if any possible disagreement of ideals could justify violence, my adversary looses this debate. Remember that justified essentially means showing there is good reason for, so we can break down the resolution like this

If there is any possible disagreement of ideals that could justify a rational response or good reason for physical violence the resorption is affirmed.

Con has the BOP

Let's lay this out as a syllogism.

[P1]: If any possible scenario justifies a physical retaliation, the resolution is affirmed
[P2] : ????? (any infinite number of possible scenarios ) ( IE ; the holocaust, slavery, suffrage movement, ad infintum)
[C] The resolution is affirmed.


C1) Defense of C1

If there is *any* possible situation (disagreement of ideals) that could justify physical violence, the resolution is affirmed. This premise speaks for itself, if there is *any* and I mean *any* possible situation that could warrant a rational response that equates to violence due to a disagreement of ideals, the resolution is affirmed.


C2) Defense of C2

There are *any* possible number of past and future scenarios (disagreement of ideals) that justified or will justify violence as a response.

Take the holocaust for example. This was a disagreement of ideals due to the massive amount of killing that was going on. Hitler's ideals cost hundreds and thousands of people their lives. Obviously the rest of the world disagreed with this ideal, and in turn acted with violence ( a war ) to stop the killing and bloodshed.


This action was justified because it mitigated the suffering of hundreds and thousands of people. Any action that reduces harm can be justified rationally


Conclusion

The resolution is affirmed.




Rebuttals in the next round



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Arthas

Con

Arthas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Disclaimer: that was not a personal attack...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Mikal is a noob-sniper
He deserves to get roughed up
by wind-shield wiper
And then get bitten by
a big fat African bush viper

Can I have a cookie, Mikal? :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
ArthasMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
ArthasMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
ArthasMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF