The Instigator
SirSocrates
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bearski
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Is violence ever the answer to anything?

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...
bearski
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 325 times Debate No: 91999
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

SirSocrates

Con

Thank you in advance for accepting this debate.
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
bearski

Pro

thank you for offering this opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SirSocrates

Con

Violence is detrimental in any scenario for obvious reasons. For example, let's say that two people are fighting over political issues. One of them believes something that is contradictory to their opponent's point. If they fight each other and one of them dies, even if their point is valid, they will have no chance to spread that belief anymore for obvious reasons. Therefore, violence can only result in less valid beliefs. Violence is detrimental to the human race.
bearski

Pro

In an ideal world there wouldn't be any violence and there would be no need for it for everything and anything. But the practical reality is sometimes it can't be avoided. Lets also note violence isn't only physical but can be sexual and emotional as well-- and I am sure there are other things it can be too. As to when, where, and how it can be avoided-- we have a 15 year old woman who has been raped by her stepfather and is pregnant with his baby.. Basically she has two choices-- each of which involves acts if violence of one sort or another. She can have the unborn baby aborted. At least in some people's minds that is a violent act-- akin to murder and in some Catholic countries the woman would go to prison if she aborted her stepfather's baby. So there we have violence from several different angles-- the rape we assume wasn't an answer to anything- but the woman choosing to kill her unborn baby was an answer to the rape; and sending her to prison for aborting the baby was an answer and also violence in a manner. But lets flip it over and say the woman doesn't abort the baby-- one can't say her decision wasn't free of some manner violence being imposed on her to compel her to keep the baby-- even if the decision to keep the baby is purely voluntary there is still a degree of violence. My point is violence in one form or another isn't always avoidable
Debate Round No. 2
SirSocrates

Con

Let's build off your scenario. The woman chooses to keep the baby and there is no violence involved. She has avoided violence altogether, right? If you think childbirth is violence, it is obviously not. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, violence is "the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc." Now let's create a different predicament. There are two countries at war. They are both fighting against each other. Wouldn't it be beneficial for both of them to stop fighting and make a treaty? Of course. Less lives would be lost and their economies would not be hurt anymore, because they don't spend as much money on military purposes. In this case, violence is not the answer.
bearski

Pro

What I think is important and was alluded to in one of the comments is how narrowly or how broadly violence is defined. Or how specifically or how generally it is defined. To get away from that point for a minute and address the question exactly as it is state Is violence ever the answer to anything? Now if you take it literally as written-- there is little question as to what the answer is-- it is an answer to most everything. Now is it a good answer-- That is another question-- which is what your query is really aiming for. And what you are looking at is rather narrowly on the lines of political violence-- of state sponsored violence particularly i.e. acts of war.

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
Debate Round No. 3
SirSocrates

Con

I understand the difference between state violence and criminal violence, and neither are justified, even if countries are at war.
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.
bearski

Pro

The question being debated 'Is violence ever the answer to anything?' I will close with a brief statement of fact. One can never know for certain at the time the decision is made whether or not to use violence was the better answer. Suppose someone had had the opportunity to kill Hitler-- not knowing who he'd turn out to be--- and obviously if that situation did occur it wasn't acted upon in a way that resulted in Hitler's demise. If that hypothetical situation had occurred one could surmise we would be better off. But can we be certain of that? No. We could have ended up with somebody worse,

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
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SirSocrates 9 months ago
SirSocrates
iamasuperuser123, I think you will find the answer to that question in the third round.
Posted by iamasuperuser123 9 months ago
iamasuperuser123
Firstly we have to define the scope of this question. What constitutes violence? Is violence always malicious or intentional? Or could an action one takes to save his own life be constituted as violent? If violence intentional and malicious then i will agree it is never the answer. However, if violence is any action to hurt another regardless then in specific situations i can see its merit.
Posted by Vict0rian 9 months ago
Vict0rian
I think it is a necessary thing in certain situations. To sound like a nerd and quote Dexter... ""You believe some people deserve to die?" "I believe some people don"t deserve to live.""
Posted by Ragnar 9 months ago
Ragnar
Of course it is :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by giangreg 8 months ago
giangreg
SirSocratesbearskiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
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.