The Instigator
Deepansh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are there any peaceful ways to agitate?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 79482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Deepansh

Pro

I obviously think there are more than a plentiful reasons to agitate peacefully like hunger strike or by civil disobedience.
SnaxAttack

Con

Since my opponent has failed to give the definition of "Agitate" in the first round, I will establish the definition. Stated under Merriam-Webster's dictionary, to Agitate means to: "Stir (Especially a liquid) briskly". Following the definition, it is impossible to stir peacefully, when you have to add some form of force to stir the mixture.

Debate Round No. 1
Deepansh

Pro

My worthy or rather non worthy contender you are a resident of the United States that is why you can believe there is no peaceful way to agitate but me , coming from India has witnessed a revelation by the name of Mahatma Gandhi , since you wont know about him he was a complete supporter of non-violence . I suppose u need to understand that there is a world outside your own beliefs and ideologies. He got us our Independence through his non violent methods . Since my contender has been giving the wrong meaning his argument is completely flawed and this shows he doesn't have any knowledge of what goes on around him.......
SnaxAttack

Con

My opponent quotes in this round: "Since my contender has been giving the wrong meaning his argument is completely flawed and this shows he doesn't have any knowledge of what goes on around him". I actually do, but my opponent has failed to give the definition Agitate in the first round, and because of that the word could mean anything. My definition that I have provided in the first round was: "Stir (Especially a liquid) briskly". My opponent fails to see that it is impossible to stir "peacefully", when you have to add force when stirring.

In reality, my argument is not flawed but my opponents is because my he or she failed to define the words within the topic. The word "agitate" is nothing more, but a load word. However, I did define the word "Agitate" in the first round, and that means that this will be the definition we are following. It is to late in the round to change the definition, unless both sides agree upon a new definition. The moral, post the definition of your words in the first round so no one can get them confused.
Debate Round No. 2
Deepansh

Pro

Deepansh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Deepansh

Pro

Deepansh forfeited this round.
SnaxAttack

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I agree with SnaxAttack on this one. I didn't know an alternative definition for "agitate", so I thought he meant "to anger", which is impossible.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
You failed to define "Agitate". If you did, I would have followed the definition but you didn't.
Posted by Deepansh 1 year ago
Deepansh
I think it is pretty much clear and if you still don't understand it is you fault . I hope you know hat peaceful is and you have already explained what "agitate" means so I don't find a reason for u to make a complaint.
Posted by FundamentalGuy 1 year ago
FundamentalGuy
This needs to be much clearer.
No votes have been placed for this debate.