The Instigator
Kebenzis
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Occupy Movements: Stop Protesting, Revolutionize the Proper Way.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 23826
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Kebenzis

Pro

Lately there have been these movements that are happening today. Protests to stop the banks from ripping off the 99%. So, let's debate about this some more shall we? I believe that this revolution that's happening isn't making any progress. Those marches where people yell and people sitting down in a bank, crying out loud: "We will not be silenced".

As peaceful as these protesters want it, I believe that the best way to get results NOW is to do something rather than say it. I mean, I doubt one's voice can be heard from a 60 floor business building. In order to start a proper revolution, there must be destruction. Then there's the thing about "being screwed over" and losing money in the process for all the repairs and all the lives that have been lost. Well, a lot of successful revolutions happen in that manner. If you were to actually be afraid of this, no matter how illogical it may sound then obviously there will not be any progress. If you want to fight for it, you need to make sacrifices right?
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept the debate. I will be contending that non-violent or political protest is more successful way of protesting the Occupy movement than wonton destruction. As CON & acceptor of the debate, my opponent has the Burden of Proof. Therefore, I shall wait for him to post his arguments in favour of the protest before my own.
Debate Round No. 1
Kebenzis

Pro

As a heads up, I am not encouraging the destruction of the world but instead a way to have one's ideas brought about more efficiently. As we see on today's news, there have been complaints about the banks controlling everything, the rich is feeding off the poor and the poor doesn't have anything to actually fight back. There have been successful ways of protesting and rallies of the sort if we were to look through the historical moments in which movements were conducted to have points made across. That's in the past though, how about now?

I believe that in this discussion here, I would debate through the use of "real life examples" and things that you can see right before you.

As the world begins to evolve, the use of words no longer could work as the "more powerful folks" are becoming more witty and are simply ignoring them. I mean, if you're a rich person for example, would you really give a damn on what people think about you. Heck, your rich; screw what the others are thinking. If you noticed lately, the people who are seen as the bad people clearly don't give a damn and the people who are protesting are simply wasting their breath, their time, so on. This idea of "the pen (refer to as the voice in the context of the argument) is mightier than the sword" no longer applies anymore. The idea of marching and yelling, crying and such will not do anything because "sticks and stones will break their bones but the words will never hurt them".

So how about by means of destruction. As much as it's dangerous, radical, and can be seen as a disapproved way of getting a point across, it has made some progress. Yes, peaceful protesting have been a great way of like getting the point across but wouldn't the use of violence actually make the powerful people afraid of those radical protesters. I mean, unless you got "a set" you probably would be able to handle them but most people would be afraid if chaos were to reign. Yes, there will be damages, arrests, deaths, etc. but if you're going to fight for this cause then you have to make some sacrifices you know? Yes... the taxpayers will be upset (those who do not protest) but I mean, if you're so passionate about it (those who are protesting), I'm pretty sure you won't have any problems destroying things and getting in trouble along the way.

In this world, peace and destruction have to balance. In order to have peace, you need to have destruction. Like this cycle kind of thing.

Hope to hear your counter-argument and do not worry, I am no terrorist. Just playing "Devil's advocate".
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My argument why we should be using non-violent political is simple: because it is more effective. I shall split my argument into three main points: precedence, society and effectiveness.

Precedence

This is simple: we look at historical precedence, and we see which actions have resulted in the best results. Violence or non-violence. We'll take the most prominent in history.

The suffragettes in the UK is the primary example here, because there are both the violent late 19th century suffragettes, and the early 20th century suffragers, who both fought for women's rights. In history, the earlier suffragettes are seen as badly, as causing many problems and as making little progress. They attacked people, and caused many vandalous acts, doing thigns such as setting property on fire. However, the non-violent protestors were most well known for filling in for the war effort, stopping all protests and helping fight the Germans, all the while petitioning Parliament. This method was much more successful: by 1918 women could vote, by 1928 they had roughly the same voting rights as men at the time.

Another example is the rIRA. The Irish nationalist group fought endlessly with the UK government, killing, terrorising, bombing and generally destroying property, as my opponent wants us to do with the Occupy movement. They failed. Badly. The rIRA itself is seen as an extremist group, of which people prefer to be associated with Sinn Féin, a political party aiming for the Mitchell Principles, meaning they renounce violence.

Finally, the examples of M.L.King, and others show non-violence is many times more effective. King won the Nobel peace prize for his work to end racial segregation: his work towards civil rights is phenomenal. He famously is known for using non-violent methods such as civil disobedience. Non-violence is the most effective means of protest: history has taught us that, and we should learn from it, and not be doomed to repeat the failures my opponent is advocating a return to.

Society

My opponent states that in modern times, words no longer works (and fails to give examples of them). I wish to state that in a modern society, words are more important than ever. Now, we have means of mass communication. I can bring a message across the entire country - across the world - in a matter of seconds now. The success of the Occupy movement has been a great example of this. The peaceful message involved, and the lack of riots anywhere is something which has made the message popular, made it viral, and made it spread.

Riots make causes, in a modern society, unpopular. Looking at the London Riots, the whole thing was seen negatively because of the damage being done. Everyone now forgets the original message: I wonder how many people know what the London Riots were about here now? If anyone remembers about the Tottenham policeman killing Mark Duggan? The message is obscured by rioting. It is less popular.

Pressure groups in society such as the Occupy movement work best when they are in accordance with the government. If the majority of people want something, the government reacts, time and time again. We know this from Martin Luther King to the Suffragettes. Society works best when we work in accordance with the government. Experience and logic teaches us this.

Society is also a pluralist system. Pluralism is how "politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence"[http://en.wikipedia.org...(political_theory)]. We can use our resources to exert influence. But resources is not simply money. Politicians have influence due to their status. Likewise, the working class, or the 99%, has power due to it being the labour in a system. By not using violent means, it unifies the 99%. If the group started using less well recieved methods such as vandalism, the group would split and fracture, making itself less powerful. To retain power, it is best by far to use non-violent means.

effectiveness

This is my final point. What is more effective? As my opponent says, violence angers the taxpayers. It alienates them from the group. But this goes farther: violent means alienates everyone who is outside the group. No-one is sympathetic to any cause when it uses violence as the solution. If Greenpeace started bombing Florida, people would just be annoyed and disenfranchised and less wanting to support them, not more wanting to support them. A group which wants to exert pressure needs numbers to get the advantage.

Separately, non-violent means are seen a lot more positively. In the media, when a 'million man march' is reported, it is seen positively, when people are simply stating their views: exercising their rights. And when the police get violent, then all hell breaks loose and the people protesting are supported even more. By contrast, if we look at, say, the greek riots, when the people fought back, and was violent, we lost sympathy, and they lost power. It is more effective to use non-violent, politically smart moves than brute force.

To conclude, I have presented three of my own reasons in favour of political protest, and reasons against riots. I shall address my opponent's arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kebenzis

Pro

My radical views on the use of Brute force to somewhat encourage the message of not standing for oppressive behavior has been very well challenged with the three main points that you have addressed. Perhaps my approachable thinking had many flaws behind it and you've indeed covered the efficiency of a non-violent movement. I shall forfeit this argument and give the win to you. Thank you for providing better insight on this matter and thank you for very well giving me a welcome to this website.

I concede, and happy debating. LOL.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

No problem, I hope my opponent has learnt something from this debate: one of the major points for doing these things. I urge for a vote CON, and thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Kebenzis

Pro

I have indeed learnt a great deal even though the suggested approach to this is to very well speak out in a non-violent manner but my views in a way proposes a more direct approach that may lead to causalities. Though I feel somewhat strongly about this, perhaps the best way to do this is to very well let everything take one day at a time rather than having the results quickly.

Question, how do I forfeit this challenge? I'm quite new to this so I'm unsure.

Your help is appreciated.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

You cannot forfeit, once the debate is initiated. One should just quickly get through the rounds. Usually by saying something like...

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
Kebenzis

Pro

Alright then. Vote Con?
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Shoop Da. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Cool story bro, why didn't you vote?
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Does not matter since the occupy movement is a bunch of lazy hippies sitting on their asses and camping out all day.
Posted by Kebenzis 4 years ago
Kebenzis
Thank you for the warning, I do understand the severity of this and it will actually depend not upon my actions but instead those who are willing to engage in such activity. I am not a proponent for violence as it will endanger the population of innocents and will provide discomfort to those are affected by it. I have looked over the first post (Round 1 argument) and I have not worded it correctly (I should have added a warning label) but in the Round 2 section I have noted that I am not encouraging anyone to commit violent acts to encourage the movement.

Secondly, there have been recent events were the violence have occurred. The NATO protesting, Wall Street protests, rallies due to high tuition for colleges, and summit meetings. It is somewhat inevitable to actually prevent such movements and the actions of people who commit violent acts is sparked through their passion for the movement. There is a lot of politics in a way revolving around this along with social issues but again, I am not encouraging a radical revolution. This is for the people to decide and not myself.
Posted by dirkson 4 years ago
dirkson
Saying things like this is illegal and could get you in hot water. (And is likely to be censored by the website, in order to prevent legal repercussions for them) The courts have ruled, in their infinite wisdom, that advocating violence is not protected speech.

-Dirk
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
KebenzisStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
KebenzisStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
KebenzisStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: FF