The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 245 times Debate No: 92542
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I beleive that change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

1. THBT: This House Beleives That.

2. Change:Development of current state.

3. Comes: Occurs.

4. Molotov cocktails:Actually home-made grenades, (HERE) war.

5. Voting ballot: (HERE) Peace.


R1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.

R2. Arguments.

R3. Rebuttals+ defence.

R4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.

We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.


1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits

2. No trolling

3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it.

4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category

5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.

8. BoP is shared in this debate.

9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.

I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!




Thanks for posing this interesting debate and best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.
I, PRO, am now going to show my points.
Before starting, I would like to count off my points. I will have my points as countries.
1. Egypt.
2. Palestine.
3. Syria.
4. Turkey
Thats it.
Now I'll start with explaining my points.

1. Egypt.
On 29 Jan 2012, Egypt's president, Husni Mubarak was toppled. After toppling him, Muhammad Mursi, a member of Islamic Brotherhood, an Islamist party, was elected president by 52% of the votes.
Mursi had a very powerful belief that PEACE is more effective than WAR. The IB party's motto was 'Our peace is stronger than their bullets.'
Just after a year from his a becoming a president, he was toppled by the cheif of army who had been appointed by Mursi himself.
All that happened just because Muhammad Mursi hated war. He used peace. The judge who sentenced Mursi to jail before Mursi becoming a president was forgiven by Mursi.
What I want to say is that Muhammad Mursi was toppled, had his party crushed, party leaders sentenced or assassinated, just because he didn't use war against corrupt people. If he had used war, the political status of Egypt would have been the same of the status in Turkey (Will be mentioned later). The IB's peace motto led them to hell.
Whereas Egypt's current president, Abdul Fattah Asseesi used WAR against anybody who is against him, has power now (I'm against him, because he used WAR beyond limits, too. He killed innocent people. He has a good strategy, but used it wrong.)
2. Palestine.
Who has a better reputation in the Arab world (the West hates war) Hamas or PIA? Why?
Pamela Olson says in her book, Fast Times In Palestine, "I asked Yousef ( a Palestinian) Which is better, Hamas or PIA?. He laughed and said:" You wont believe me if I answered, so ask PIA employees! They'll answer you right "
The answer to the second question is that Hamas uses war against thier enemy, While the official government, represented by PIA, uses peace (voting ballots). Compare 'Palestine vs Israel'. with 'Afghanistan Taliban vs Russia'. Palestine used peace and got defeated. Very few people used war. On the other hand, Afghanistani people supported Taliban (at that time) and WON against Russia, the owner of the largest army in the world.

3. Syria.
All of us know what's going on in Syria, and we can clearly blame 'peace' for that. A crystal clear evidence is ISIL. ISIL knew the way to become a strong superpower, WAR, and it IS a superpower now. It brought CHANGE as per its beliefs. A coalition of over 60 countries are unable to defeat it (leave the newspaper rumors ). Compare ISIL with FSA. FSA used war in the beggining, began to get many cities, than turned to peace, and eventually drowned.

4. Turkey.
The time has come to give an example of a country who used the power of WAR.
Rajab Tayyib Erdoghan, know more famously as Erdoghan, as soon as being elected as president, hanged 20 corrupt people. He discovered a military coup plot against him and hanged all people involved in it. Now just look at his power. He criticizes U.S.' actions. He criticizes Russia's actions. He does what U.S. has prohibited for him. He has 'unguessable' power, because he used WAR. He contradicted all goalless rules. And he got POWER. He brought CHANGE in his country.

These are my points /arguments. Waiting for my worthy opponent's reply.

Thank you,
Adil Muhammad,




Change can and does occur peacefully. To defend the existence of peaceful political change, I will offer three main arguments: democratic elections provide a means for peaceful change, war as a tool for change is simply less in vogue than it used to be, and that in today's modern world, peaceful movements are simply more likely to achieve their objectives.

A) Democratic elections
In democratic elections, a group may be ousted and replaced without any recourse to violence. In fact, peaceful transitions of power are the norm in traditional liberal democracies. The US, UK and Canada all enjoy unbroken streaks of peaceful transitions of power going back to the 19th century (1). The US has had the longest streak of peaceful elections, with the first peaceful change of power being the defeat of the federalists by the democratic-republicans in 1800. More recently, in the last 30 years, there are 20 democracies that have only known peaceful transitions of power (1). Admittedly, many fledgling democracies face instability the first time the ruling power is defeated in an election but the data shows that after there is a first successful peaceful transition of power, future transitions are much more likely to be peaceful too (2).

B) War is increasingly unnecessary
War has been used to achieve political change for centuries. But a variety of features of the modern world such as global trade, a stable system of international diplomacy, and the spread of liberal values, all make the organized violence of war less palatable. This is supported by ample data that shows that the last 50 years have been the most peaceful in centuries (3). Simply put, wars have been shorter and less in number during the aftermath of World War II than in any other period of history since the renaissance. Yet numerous treaties have been signed, conflicts resolved, all without war. There remains inevitable conflicts that will result in violence but the data shows that many more conflicts are now avoided or resolved diplomatically.

C) Peaceful movements are simply more successful
A recent study reviewed resistance campaigns that sought to change the government, defeat an occupier, or separate a region. In total, 323 campaigns were identified since 1900. They were then coded into whether the movement made significant use of violence or whether the movement used mostly non-violent civil resistance. In addition, the movements were coded into whether they were able to achieve their principal aims. The conclusions could not be more clearer: Non-violent movements in the 20th century achieved success 53% of the time but violent groups were half as likely to win (i.e., 26% rate of success) (4). The authors argued that non-violent movements were much better at recruiting support from the population and that their opponents tended to lose support much more quickly, particularly if they were seen as using violence to suppress peaceful protest.

In sum, war is increasingly less attractive an option to achieve political change, particularly given the success of democratic elections at creating stable societies and the relative success of non-violent resistance against oppression. There are certainly circumstances in which violence remains necessary but these circumstances are thankfully becoming the exception and not the rule.


Debate Round No. 2


I surrender. Sorry.


BaruchSpinoza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


adilmuhammad forfeited this round.


BaruchSpinoza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by adilmuhammad 4 months ago
I'm saying only war.
Opponents saying whether:
1 only voting ballots
2 both
Posted by Wylted 4 months ago
Change o viously occurs from both. What do you really want to debate?
Posted by adilmuhammad 4 months ago
everyone is jusg talking.... why dont you just accept the debate
Posted by bhakun 4 months ago
should be a good debate
Posted by bhakun 4 months ago
I love Pro's position on this. Direct action is how stuff gets done.
Posted by Cobalt 4 months ago
I was thinking that it's heavily biased toward Con. Con literally just has to show that change can come from peace and the resolution is negated. But Danielle's suggested resolution would fix that, as well as shift the BoP from just you to one that is somewhat shared.
Posted by Danielle 4 months ago
The resolution is biased toward Pro. Obviously change (of some kind) would result from war. The better resolution would be something like "Voting is a better way of instigating change than molotov cocktails" or something.
No votes have been placed for this debate.