The Instigator
SeekandDestroy
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
rangersfootballclub
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,608 times Debate No: 7078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

SeekandDestroy

Pro

Now when you see the topic of the argument I don't want you to think that I am judging all people under a certain group or race to be extremely violent with no hope of change. What I am trying to point out whether people want to admit it or not is that certain societies religions and other things have brought constant exposure to violence to certain groups of people making them more prone to violence. When you grow up seeing something for most people they do what they saw from when they were little. If you are taught from a young age that violence is not neccisarily wrong than who can tell you that it is? Ok so argue with me person.
rangersfootballclub

Con

ok i will take this up ,i will base this argument on personal exprince and not statistics , as for me i have lived through some bad domestic abuse , nothing even close to dictaorship or goverment evil , i am talking about the place were i grew up .

When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now.

Where i grew up drugs were coming into play , alchol abuse was incredibly high and teenagers were alays lookign for a fight with deadly wepaons . This may not be the glasgow the world knows , this is the glasgow i know and the people of glasgow know. Stabbings were common , deaths even more common ...
i was taught violence was good to an extent , i was taught if you are violent you still stand a good chance of being invovled in violence however if you are not violent , not willing to stick up for yourself even when somebody calls you something stupid and wont apologise then you become a vicitim. Certain groups become victims i accept mainly because they let themselves become vicitims they are not prepared to do something about it.

i was taught to respect violence , i leanred myself that you never start a fight . But however you will always have the last laugh. i think the old saying is right to an extent if you lived in a place like i did , " better to be feared than loved " or in my case " better to be feared , than stabbed to death " ...
Debate Round No. 1
SeekandDestroy

Pro

As touching and sad it was to hear what you had to say the fact remains is that all you did was prove my point. You said "When i was young in the city i lived in called glasgow , scotland . I was never once taught violence was bad , infact i was taught the complete opposite. Now it was not that my parents never cared for me it was for one simple reason, If i thought violence was bad and was afriad of it then , there is a very very high chance i wouldnt be here right now." Right there you admit that the teachings of your parents were that violence is necessary for survival. You also mention that stabbings and deaths were frequent so you could say that by the influence most people from Glasgow are going to be more violent. I never said that violence was wrong or unnecessary. Lets go back to the title some races and groups of people are more prone to violence than others. Now lets use and example for the argument on the table. Lets take Muslims living in the middle east. Now the teachings of their god Allah teaches peace and prosperity, but think the Muslim government in the past brought forth the idea of the "Jihad" a holy war. Now a god who teaches peace never says charge into battle does he? Over time though there was more and more "holy wars" and the result ultimately became a warring group of people. Even now we are fighting many middle eastern who aren't united under a banner in fact you cant find anything similar among them except they are for the most part Muslim!!! The violence and the fanatical behavior did not just develop as soon as America began fighting its war. It was developed from centuries of war and battle, chemical weapons testing, and suicide bombing.
rangersfootballclub

Con

Of course if somebody hits you mostly likely you are going to hit them back , doesn't mean you are a violent person . Like I said I have been in lots of life threatening situations and have never once resorted to violence with somebody I had the problem with , only when people attack me shall I defend myself .

The idea the more exposed you are to violence the more likely you are to be part of violence in the future is nonsense , I have done ok in my life and have never even seen any violence with my eyes in over ten years now.
The fact of the matter is that if you choose to have a bad temper and choose to aggravate people , which certain races and people do. Then you will be part of violence, I grew up there and its never even occurred to me to hit somebody in 10 year after being exposed to all that death and violence.
Debate Round No. 2
SeekandDestroy

Pro

i never mentioned self defense and were you witnessing this as it occured or exposed to this violence directly?
rangersfootballclub

Con

I'm not sure what you are talking about , my point is short and simple , I have been heavily exposed to violence and death as a kid , yet today I am no more prone to violence than some farmer living up a hill with nobody around for miles. The point is , you are more prone to violence if you choose to be.
Debate Round No. 3
SeekandDestroy

Pro

You my friend are but one example of a million incidents. Do you really expect me to believe that someone who is raised with violence and hatred and murder all around him with pressure from gangs to join is going to be less violent then someone who is raised by a loving family in a gentle neighbor hood where violence rarely occurs?
rangersfootballclub

Con

as heard as it seems to believe yes , several of my friends died , now however the ones that I still keep in contact with are living it up. I keep in contact with 10 out of my 14 good friends I had when I was a kid. the other 4 died 2 killed and 2 died of other causes. My friends and me didn't realize how bad it was when we were kids , we thought violence was acceptable. We have taught our selves after the death of friends that , its not and we realized if we continued to live in the same area as we did and refuse to learn at school , then violence was always going to be around us .

You are right in saying some races and groups are more prone to violence however , its only those that choose to be. You are not born into violence , unless you live in a country torn apart by war of course. You choose to continue living in violence , and not to change your life and do better things.
Debate Round No. 4
SeekandDestroy

Pro

Wether or not you expect people to base all incidents off of your own life expireince or not i refuse to believe that someone who is born into a good family raised in a good neighborhood and is taken care of and disciplined is more prone to violence then someone who has no parents or born in the ghetto or uses drugs. It just doesnt make any sense. In the end you are right we have a choice but i believe strongly that the enviroment and the teachings of our parents or peers dramatically change or decision when it comes to it.
rangersfootballclub

Con

my parents were alcoholics ....

but like I have stated so many times , is everybody has their own free will. You make choices about your own life in the first world countries. Nobody else can tell you what to do , sure there is peer pressure , drugs gangs and the works. But of course its obvious groups are more prone to violence , because the area they live in is violent and deadly . Think about it though say I was a middle class , well educated and white and middle aged ( because they are group least exposed to violence ) do you think for a second the only reason these people are not violent is because they dotn have to be ? if they walked into these ghettos and bad areas after several days of living there , they sink to the same level as the people that have always lived there. Unless of course they choose not to , violence is a disease , if you don't get protected against it , you are guaranteed to catch it.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
Galiban is right im saying not everybody is as strong inside as you ranger. Most do not break free. I myself have seen my friends od on heroin and drink and etc. You get the point i broke free too but so many of my friends did not. i did not want to tie my own life into this.
Posted by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
"You are right in saying some races and groups are more prone to violence."

Con just forfeited right there. He would have lost anyway, one person's experience's are not sufficient to justify negation.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Very interesting debate. I believe that you both are arguing two different things.

Seekanddestroy is arguing the resolution that there are factors (the old adage of Nature vs. Nurture) in the nurture of children that directly effect future decisions.

Ranger is arguing that you can break out from Nurture by your own free will.

Both of you are right. Ranger though SeekandDestroy is on resolution. You are arguing that you broke out. Seek and Destroy is arguing most do not. History proves the resolution. You are not arguing against the resolution.
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
That is an awesome saying thank you for posting it.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
most my family are in the army and I am strongly opposed to most wars , most my family are religious ( I am not ) however religion has never affected a decision I have made.

You are born an original don't die a copy ...

people can make there own choices in this day and age in the majority of countries.
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
Military group. If you are raised in a military family does that make you more prone to agree with war than others? Consider religion as a factor to the terrorists who join the insurgant groups.
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
now wether or not violence is wrong is a moral issue. But for the most part im saying that certain groups of people from certain areas and certain religions are far more prone to violence than others and that teachings from a young age against violence makes a definite impact on ones ability to harm or steal.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
" If you are taught from a young age that violence is not neccisarily wrong than who can tell you that it is?"

Who says violence is necessarily wrong anyway? What about people living under evil dictatorships? They surely have the right to violently resist their oppressors?
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
With any given military force being a group, I really don't see the point of this argument.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Good idea for a debate - should be interesting!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jedis2008 8 years ago
jedis2008
SeekandDestroyrangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
SeekandDestroyrangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
SeekandDestroyrangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70