Ban All Individuals Who Have Used Violence to Further a Political Cause, From Standing for Election
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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! :)
"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.
emmadebates1 forfeited this round.
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.
"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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.