The Instigator
emmadebates1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Schopenhauer
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election

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 1 vote the winner is...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 43842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

emmadebates1

Pro

It is a bad thing because politics should not be achieved through violent means. Persuade me as to why I should think otherwise!
Schopenhauer

Con

I will not be posting an argument first, as i believe the honor belongs to pro first, rather i will be making a statement declaring my ideas. I believe that violence is a valuable tool, though not at all the best or first option for furthering a greater political belief, and i will be attempting to primarily argue that those who use violence should be allowed to stand election but as my secondary goal i will attempt to have pro at least understand my position.
Debate Round No. 1
emmadebates1

Pro

Firstly, thank you for accepting this debate. I will begin with my primary argument: that those leaders who feel that their primary way for furthering their political cause should be violence are not fit to stand for election. By allowing such leaders to promote their ideologies when they have done something fundamentally wrong in the first place gives the underlying message that it is an acceptable thing to do and this should not be the case under any circumstances. We should deny any individuals who have done this from having a chance to run for government to ban those sorts of people from becoming political leaders and subsequently allowing their ideas to be enforced within a country which we believe is fundamentally a problem and will have long term repercussions.

In response to a comment: could Abraham Lincoln have achieved his goals without violent means? How about Gerry Adams? Would this have had a better impact on their country in the long term if they had not done this? I believe that if they had used legitimate means for obtaining power it would have had a better Impact on their country and reduced violence as the citizens of that country would not think that violence is a legitimate form of getting your message across.

Thank you.
Schopenhauer

Con

Violence in politics is inevitable. Most people just make insults, mud slinging, power plays, and bribes to sugar coat it. Why is this so much worse than using violence? At least with violence the problem is quickly solved and does not drag on unecessarily. With violence, problems are resolved. Politics of now simply rot away a society, seeminly make politics a game of lies where those who lie inherit the throne of lies and so on. Idiots who know how to cajole people and pull strings run countries, rather than those who prove themeselves throug the fires of conflict. Violence, when used to further politial ends, is a tool like any other. Why lie and cheat when you can be open about your force and power? When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he declared war on a country much like all of ours today. The republic was a disease that needed to be cleaned off by force and conflict. Of course, if the republic had not been corrupted it would be a superior government to the empire, but it was corrupt. Our governments today have not reached this point of corruption, a point of reckoning.
The purity of violence is that it is open. It conceals nothing. Has the web of lies and cheaters of politics been better I might ask? Now i will illustrate key points.
1. Violence is a tool like any other- the first step to accepting violence to further a political cause, (NOT INDIVIDUALS) is accepting that violence is a tool. It is a tool just like lies, gossip, mud slinging and other politicsl machinations.
2. Violence is a human instinct- perhaps the most convincing arguement for violence is that is part of human nature. It is an instinct, and a healthy one that needs to be let put in small increments lest you be overwhelmed. It is unavoidable, and even if politics did not use violence, then it would be let out in another way for better or worse.
3. American leaders have used violence- the founding fathers used violence to free themeselves from Britain. There was no other way to ensure and secure freedom. If they had not, then who knows what the kings domination would have led to. Freedom is often obtained through violence by political leaders, why is this bad?
4. Sometimes violence is the only way- often times violence is inevitable, it cannot be helped.
I don not believe violence to be fundementally wrong. Violence ismingrained in our own planet whith hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes. It is lart of every species, and will be long after our own is gone. Also, violence is acceptable. It is natural, and hopefully is delivered in small increments so as not to be overwhelming.
Debate Round No. 2
emmadebates1

Pro

Rebuttal: please stare how violence has ever solved anything? Surely even if politics today is a game of lies it is better than a potential LOSS OF LIFE and the associated repercussions of violence. Yes, violence is open but is it good to see people dying or being hurt because of a political cause that a certain individual or group believe in?

On to my substantive: that such people should not be allowed to stand for election as they are unfit for power. So far, ALL the examples you have used have been from ancient times/ the Middle Ages and we have now become a much more civilised people. You cannot say violence is inevitable and we should let it happen because through this motion we set to PREVENT this violence so that these individuals will be put off and will be more likely to gain power through legal methods if they want a chance of standing for election. This, I feel outweighs your points because you are just telling us to accept the status quo when I am actually providing a SOLUTION FOR IT.

Also, could please care to prove to me how what Gerry Adams or Abraham Lincoln's violent actions can be justified and how they should have been allowed to continue being violent? You haven't responded to that point of rebuttal.

On a side note: THANK YOU! This debate is proving really interesting! :)
Schopenhauer

Con

I do not believe I necessarily deserve all of the thanks, if it had not been for you This debate never would have occured. Now I will immediatly jump into rebuttals.
"please stare how violence has ever solved anything?"
WW2, WW1, American Civil War, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, etc. Nearly every war in the history of mankind has solved some sort of issue. Violence gets issues done quickly, and prevents them from expanding and blowing up. Of course there is loss of life, but if an issue builds pressure over time and erupts, then there will be a much greater loss of life, this is the inevitability of violence.
"Yes, violence is open but is it good to see people dying or being hurt because of a political cause that a certain individual or group believe in?"
It is never good for people to be seen getting injured and being killed. But for something worse I point to The issue over slavery before the American Civil War. Compromise was impossible, and rather than have a war without a massive loss of life problems built up because people believed they could quickly compromise. The American Civil War became one of the bloodiest, violent, and horrendous wars in U.S. history.
"So far, ALL the examples you have used have been from ancient times/ the Middle Ages and we have now become a much more civilised people."
Really? We are not "civilized" we have simply found other ways of shedding blood. You may tell we are much more "civilized" to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to people in third world countries who starve to death, to victims of rape, murder, and police brutality. People just lime to lie to themeselves and deny the nature of Humanity, we are beings who tend to be selfish, cruel, and malevolent. We are hust as bad as we were 500 to 5000 years ago, our methods of killing each other have simply evolved.
"You cannot say violence is inevitable and we should let it happen because through this motion we set to PREVENT this violence so that these individuals will be put off and will be more likely to gain power through legal methods if they want a chance of standing for election"
But violence is inevitable. People need to protect themeselves to avoid being killed. Lf course we should try to prevent violence from murderers, rapists etc. but the point is that violence, though not necessarily pleasant, is a valuable tool for furthering POLITICAL CAUSE, not for any individual lust or want.
"This, I feel outweighs your points because you are just telling us to accept the status quo when I am actually providing a SOLUTION FOR IT."
There is no solution for inevitability. People will always use violence to further political ends, in the same way people shouldnt fear death because no matter what its coming for you. Im not telling anyone to accept the status quo either, i, telling people to know that violence is unsavory but so is politics. Violence hopefully will only last awhile, jnstead of slowly wearing down a society.
"Also, could please care to prove to me how what Gerry Adams or Abraham Lincoln's violent actions can be justified and how they should have been allowed to continue being violent? You haven't responded to that point of rebuttal."
Gerry Adams allegations have not been completely proven yet. If he is a member of the IRA then in truth I can justify his actions to a degree. The british are hanging on to a small piece of a land they have primarily freed, they do not want to be part of this government and should take action. However, I cannot necessarily approve of the hse of violence in a situation as complicated as this. Keep in mind however, that during there time the founding fathers were also viewed as terrorists.
I do support Lincolns use of violence. He preserved the upUnion, his war was for his nation and I can and will support him. Ho else do you think the mixing pot of so many issues that culminated in the American Civil War? There was no other alternative but the inevitability of war. Virginia held a peace conference, and the north was willing to compromise and gives concessions. In his own inagural adress lincoln stared that he would be willing to let the south keep its slaves but not spread.
I want to thank you for this debate, I agree that it is turning out quite interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
emmadebates1

Pro

emmadebates1 forfeited this round.
Schopenhauer

Con

Since I do not have any arguements to repond to, I will be simply restating that violence is a valuable political tool, and that it has been used by many lesders world wide.
Debate Round No. 4
emmadebates1

Pro

Sorry for the delay in replying Schopenhauer, I have been quite busy lately! Anyway, back to the debate:

I think, however, that all your points fall when I can prove to you that there are less harms on my side of the debate when you prevent violent people from standing for an election as at least a few of these inevitably violent people will perhaps be prevented from doing so due to the threat of them being unable to enforce that political ideology due to the fact that they are unable to stand for an election. What is your response to that? If you can prove to me that there are less harms to people on your side than my side, than you can win the debate. At this point, however, I fail to see it.
Schopenhauer

Con

Thank you for your responses and this debate, I have had a great time debating over this topic.
"If you can prove to me that there are less harms to people on your side than my side, than you can win the debate."
Keep in mind, that my central goal of this debate is to simply win it. While convincing you that violence is an acceptable political tool is ideal, my first goal is to win the actual debate.
"I think, however, that all your points fall when I can prove to you that there are less harms on my side of the debate when you prevent violent people from standing for an election as at least a few of these inevitably violent people will perhaps be prevented from doing so due to the threat of them being unable to enforce that political ideology due to the fact that they are unable to stand for an election. What is your response to that?"
I am not going to lie, it is true that harm will come of people using violence to further a political cause. But, I wish to ask the question, what happens when a violent person cannot let their violence flow through a political idea? The truth is that because these people are inevitably violent, their own violence will flow through another medium. Would it be preferable to have someone who stalks and murders random people to satisfy the hunger for violence? No, of course it is much better to have some one let their violence flow through a cause, that way their violence serves a greater purpose than the individual. It is a choice of lesser of two evils. Also what do you mean by the "threat" to not be able to stand election? You have proved yourself that violence is a part of human nature if people have to threaten others to stay out of politics. Violence will be and always has been a tool used to further political ends. Having a person not be able to stand election if they use violence leads to retaliation of more violence. We know this because if someone is using the legal system to obtain election, then they still have at least the smallest shred of respect for it.
Thank you for this debate, and I encourage everyone to re evaluate their own ideals based on what has transacted now between pro and con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Congratulations, you've just restricted Abraham Lincoln from running for President.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
emmadebates1SchopenhauerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro loses conduct due to forfeiture. Nobody used any sources, and I'm also undecided on S&G. In my opinion, Con made better and more detailed arguments.