Is violence part of human nature? And if so, will it always be so?
Debate Rounds (3)
It only seems so.
The many wars that are witnessed are not a result of THE WANT FOR VIOLENCE.
It is only a result of the inner feeling we always have to fight against oppression.
Sometimes Wars are just a violent manifestation of the desire for liberty.
I don't think many see violent movies just for the violence .They see it because some where inside they want to see the Hero win.
Therefore they indirectly want good to win.
It is only that we now lack any other effective way to GET WHAT WE WANT.
Therefore this intense desire to get what one wants manifests itself in the form of violence.
Therefore the Question should be Are Humans becoming more selfish by nature.
There are many other more effective ways to live but violence is chosen by many because it gets us what we want faster.
What many people don't understand is that violence only gives temporary results.
But the main drawback is that what is temporary for the world is permanent for us.
Therefore when we are capable of seeing beyond ourselves,violence will cease to exist.
One may think I am indirectly supporting the topic,but no these are just the truth one has to deal with.
However violent a human is , but still ultimately in his/her life there comes a moment where non violence wins, but unfortunately this moment for many of us only comes in our life a few years before death.
If humans were violent in nature then we wouldn't have even cared to hear names like,
Gandhi,Martin Luther, Nelson Mandela and many others.
In this world anything that is false cannot remain for long.
But the simple fact that people gave a thought, however small, about non violence at the time of Christ and now still people give a thought about it confirms its unrivalled existence and victory.But this victory of non violence over the long run is being wrapped by the victory we get through violence over the short run.
But the same applies to non violence you may say.I say yes , But what violence we see shouldn't be seen as a human nature.
But the Greed and selfishness that sometimes brings about violence should Be.
So can humans never get rid of their evils??
They can but they don't want to.
This will be pretty easy to refute but I am going to start with the resolution
Is violence a part of human nature
The second part of the resolution is irrelevant as this is a syllogism. I am fully confident I can dispute the first premise and with the angle I am taking it will take down premise 2 with it.
Violence in every species.
Almost every species exhibits traits of violence. Whether or not the violence is provoked is another story. In almost every species we can see the willingness to fight over territory or fighting for a mate. Humans are no different. There are a variety of reasons species exhibit violence such as social dominance .
Regardless of the reason we can trace back violence in almost every species on earth, and note that it has always been there and for every logical reason we can fathom it will always be there
It is no different with humans than other species. We fight for the same reasons. We exhibit violence in self defense , for wars and territory, or just as chemical reactions to certain situations. While violence may not a primary factor in humanity it is a part of it and will always be a part of it. We can trace this back through history and just look at the wars.
Wars go back as far as Mesopotamia and even up to the height of Rome. They have happened in Egypt and almost every other corner of the earth. Even if we look at the brief time of the Americas we can see countless examples of this
The Civil War, World War 1 and 11, The korean War, The war of 1812, and countless others have all happened within 1,000 years. I want to note that is literally just 1,000 years out of the history of world.
From every observable angle, we have always seen war and violence in humanity. Whether it is in self defense, war, or just out of reaction to a situation. The most logical conclusion to arrive at is that if has been happening non stop in the observable past and within our scope of what is observable, it can and will continue to happen into the future
It is on my adversary to show that it can and will not happen. From every piece of evidence we have, we have to conclude violence will always be a part of human nature.
I am not talking about the dictionary meaning of violence.Sometimes one has to take to arms for a greater purpose .It is inevitable sometimes.
Fighting for something that is right is not violence.
Violence in my words is any action done against truth,righteousness,morality .
When a person fights to protect these moral policies which act as pillars of the society , it does not become violence.
I agree that the second part is rather meaningless.
My statement is that the violence which are shown by humans in history are but extreme steps of some humans.
A small spark can ignite a very big fire.
Similarly many wars are but big fires created by sparks of some morally misguided Humans.
These people are misguided.
They change because of circumstances,greed,selfishness. But it is not inhibited by them.
What I mean is that violence is not programmed into a human, but a few choose to be violent.This choice is also not a human trait, but it is only a choice at a certain moment.
A person is not violent always.He only gives into violence at a single moment.But this single moment is enough of a spark.
Violence has become a part of humanity but it has not been a part of it.
Violence is an alien trait which convincingly fools us to think it is indigenous.
Even an intelligent man becomes a fool in company of other fools.
Humans because of their selfishness , like I have said before have chosen to go blind and not see the other doors.
Violence is but a gold plated door and we are therefore choosing to overlook the other wooden doors .
Humans are capable of reasoning, which is a tremendous gift.
Trust me no one ever wastes it.
Even the most violent use it.And when they use it they realize that they have only chosen a slow poison.
What I mean is that violence is just a weapon. It is not included in us.It is foreign to us.We can chose to not choose it.
But the greed,desire and selfishness that makes many chose violence are the actual culprits.
They are the ones which make us chose the weapon.Therefore it is irrelevant to blame either the weapon or the wielder of the weapon.But the cause must be blamed.Violence is not worthy of the blame.
VIOLENCE IS NEITHER THE SIN NOR THE SINNER.HERE THE SINNER CANNOT BE BLAMED OR HATED AND SIMILARLY NEITHER THE MEANS TO DO THE SIN CAN BE BLAMED.ONLY THE SIN CAN BE BLAMED.
THE MEANS IS NEITHER A PART OF THE SINNER NOR IS IT A PART OF THE SIN.
Violence Is Just The Means
My adversary pretty much conceded this debate. He tried to change the definition of violence, but violence is violence.
Violence - rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment
Allowing him to say violence is not violence would win him the debate, and I do not concede to that. That would open him up to change it to any definition he wishes.
Let me show you were he has almost conceded or at least lost the debate.
His last line is
" Violence Is Just The Means"
Meaning he acknowledges violence happens but happens for different reasons. The reason it happens is irrelevant. Per the resolution we are debating if it is a part of human nature. Even my adversary acknowledges it always happens but it happens for different reasons. He just tries to explain why it happen. He lost the debate the moment he accepted this. He has admitted it is a part of human nature
I would go further but there is no need. He is arguing against his stance without even realizing it.
Violence is in fact a part of human nature. Even my adversary finally acknowledges it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con indirectly proved Pro's point, as Pro pointed out at the end. Only Pro used sources. Good debate!
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.