Is violence ever the answer to anything?
Debate Rounds (4)
Please no trolling.
Be respectful: no profanity or anything of the sort.
Round 1: Acceptance (no arguments)
Round 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Arguments & Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals & Conclusion
But lets look at another component of political violence and that is terrorism-- defining terrorism precisely is very difficult so lets just say it an illegitimate use of violence for the purpose of advancing an illegitimate cause by individuals (lone wolves) and groups who also lack legitimacy in the eyes of those defining it. From a practical standpoint there are a number of problems with this-- one is distinguishing terrorism from state violence i.e. war which is legitimate violence unless done by bad states then it becomes state terrorism or war crimes. And that brings us to another area of distinction political violence i.e. terrorism with criminal violence especially that perpetuated by organized criminal gangs whose primary goal is economic gain as opposed to political gain.
But here as with distinguishing terrorist violence with that committed by state action the differences between the terrorist groups and organized criminal gangs such as the drug cartels become blurred. The tactics of the terrorists, the state operators and the criminal gangs are almost indistinguishable. A side noted-- the analogy between terrorist groups and criminal gangs does not include that terrorist acts are themselves considered criminal
If you manage to read through that you may come to the conclusion I am agreeing with you and thus conceding the argument. And maybe so. And that brings us back to my opening lines in this exercise-- it matters how it is defined--if defined broadly and generally enough there is a pretty good probability someone will find something where an act of violence is or would be the appropriate answer--if you start out with the stipulation of always or never you're in trouble-- as often been pointed out-- the only things certain in life are death and taxes-- and actually taxes can be avoided. Death ultimately can't. Death is the only thing guaranteed
But here as with the differences between terrorist violence and state violence
What I meant by "Is violence ever the answer?" is "Is there any situation where violence would be beneficial?" I apologize if my question wasn't clear enough.
Overall, violence is never the solution to anything, because if it is avoided, it is beneficial to both opposing sides.
The answer is to any thing --we can't know.
By the way I mostly agree with my opponent--therefore I have not tried to challenge the premise directly in what I think is the manner he intended it but have tried to pick around the edges more abstractly and indirectly. Don't know if that is said well but I'll leave it as is
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by giangreg 4 months 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument would have more efficacy if we lived in an ideal world. However, we do not. While violence is not a good first resort, it is sometimes necessary given the circumstances. If you witnessed a family member being raped at gunpoint and you could stop it, I would find it perplexing if you think some degree of violence is not the answer.
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.