Is there ever a valid reason to fight?
Debate Rounds (4)
Fighting is wrong, but fighting for what you believe in is right. Thousands upon thousands of people have fought for our freedoms and rights. Look at the countries who fought in World War II. Look at the women who fought for all of the women so they could have the rights to vote. Isn't that right? Is it really wrong to not stand up for yourself and what you believe in?
But then, is it right for Russia to fight Ukraine, and for Ukraine to start fighting back? Is it right for fights to turn into killing?
It isn't the starting a fight that is valid, but the ending of the fight. Can one stop, even though they had victory when the other is lost and down? Or do they have to keep going so that one fight could turn into twenty, into a hundred, into a thousand, and then the number of fights turn into the number of people dead?
As you can see, one fight that could be once valid, could also turn into something that isn't valid anymore. But, as in the scenario at the beginning of my argument, where one is being threatened, it is valid to fight for your freedom.
In conclusion of my first argument, it is valid to fight, there are just many limitations and rules to what is 'valid' and to ones interpretation of valid. My understanding is that it is 'right' or 'correct', but valid can only stay valid for so long.
Fighting as in war is also unacceptable. War kills people. It is taking away a persons life, taking away their breath. We should be able to live in peace.
Terrorists and gangs are born partly from child abuse and neglect, which, in it's on way, is a kind of fighting. Violence leads to violence, fighting to war. Fighting threatens lives and can injure people.
I also agree that war is unacceptable and that killing is also unacceptable. This is not a valid reason to fight.
Also, hitting a man for stealing your purse, might not be valid either. I would probably chase after him, or call the police. I wouldn't go ahead and punch him as he hasn't done anything majorly wrong in the first place!
I agree that we should live in peace, but there will always be someone who doesn't agree. No matter how we change the world, at least one person will appear saying they don't like it. And even if we could live in peace, we don't, so I would accept valid reasons on fighting and I would fight if it would save my life or one of someone else, but I would not kill someone to do so.
There is a pattern to violence. A kid gets bullied or abused and they seek to release their anger. Many do it in a violent way. If they don't learn to control their violence, they may fall into an abusive relationship or crime. There are many long term effects of physical child abuse and bullying, which are both forms of fighting. (https://www.childwelfare.gov...)
If they start hitting you in the first place, then a good old punch in the delicate areas will get you free and you can then get an adult and stop it. As I said before to keep fighting back isn't good, but a few punches here and there JUST so you can escape is okay. As long as you stop before you get too violent, I think that it is okay to fight your way out.
In conclusion, there are valid reasons to fight, such as when you're being threatened, you're standing up for yourself, and you're getting yourself out of a bad situation. But, these valid reasons could turn into invalid reasons if you don't stop when you should.
School fights lead habits that lead to war and destruction. It's better to just say no that one time and not have the violent habit then try and break out later.
In conclusion, there is never a valid or justifiable reason to fight.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes with his first sentence in round 2
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.