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

Violence does not equal evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,482 times Debate No: 56688
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Although violence may be a horrible thing, in of itself it isn't evil. Violence is part of our life, it's also tool for the nature to use in it's evolutionary mechanics (Survival of the fittest). But violence can be found even in daily part of our lives and things that we would consider harmless. Football, Boxing, Wrestling, actually any form of sport has a little bit of violence in it. We can also find violence in art, when it's showed as a form of expression. So, something that is actually natural to us, just another fact that exist, can be actually considered evil? Of course used against another person it can be evil, but to use violence anywhere, or consider sheer existence of violence can't be really considered as a bad thing.


I accept and define "evil" as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds." An example: an evil life. The definition comes straight from
My argument will be mainly based on the "morally bad" part of the definition of evil.
"to use violence anywhere, or consider sheer existence of violence can't be really considered as a bad thing."
My opponent says. Well, surprise for you! Even violence not against other people can be evil.
Slaying poor kitties is evil.

It looks so cute, and everybody loves cute, and therefore they will hate you for killing this poor kitty. It can then be thus concluded that killing this poor kitty is immoral and evil. Killing requires violence. Therefore, voilence equals evil in this case.

The sheer existence of violence is evil.

I mean, sure, they look harmless right now, but sooner or later, they'll be spoiling blood all over the floor. Nobody likes blood on their floor. Spilling blood on the floor requires violence using weapons. Because nobody likes this action, it can be concluded thus immoral, fitting the definition of evil, and I have fulfilled my BoP to show violence equals evil.
Your turn, pro.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much con for answering my argument and taking the challenge. Now let us begin the debate. Well then, you have stated that every use of violence against anything is truly evil. But maybe you have not truly understood what I meant by that sentence. But first we must understand what "violence" even means. The definition of "violence" is basically... use of force against anything in particular. I'm going to use the same source of definition that you use, so here:
Point two.

So when we get this out of the way, we can find violence in almost anything we do. Hell, we can even calm down by being violent to inanimate objects. That means, that also sport, killing animals for food, and even sometimes the ways that we have fun are in some way violent. So this mean that violence can be used for developing yourself in competitive play, which is not a bad, and I would even go as far as to say a good thing. Have fun, again not too evil. But there is also the fact of killing animals, though it might be an evil fact considered by many, I would rather put it in neutral territory, as it serves to feed families and is very important to our society. Not to mention that using violence to let's say overthrow a tyrant can be considered a good act.

So in short, violence isn't always as drastic as "Slaying poor kittens". And even if it is, it can be still used for good, as I mentioned before, overthrowing an oppressive government.

Not to mention that violence is also often used in art, as a form of expression, and it allowed us to create some true masterpieces. Again, I would go as far as to say, a good act.

Although violence in certain situations can be concluded immoral, it can be concluded neutral, or even moral in other situations. And a tool having evil uses isn't evil. A hammer can be used to build a house, or it could be used to kill someone. But is hammer evil because of that? No, of course not. It's just a tool.


My opponent actually pretty much only makes three arguments in his long round. I will break them down for the viewers.

1. Overthrowing a tyrant is not evil
Ah, but from the perspective of the tyrant it is immoral! You never stated in the first round that I had to fulfill the BoP that violence had to be equal under every single circumstance possible. Furthermore, I never stated violence equals evil in every single circumstance. The topic is very vague, and you did not clarify it, so therefore I can manipulate it to mean "Violence equals evil....under most circumstances".

2. Competitive Play
There is a reason why the referee has yellow and red cards, as well as foul rules. These show that particular violence is looked down upon, is thus immoral, evil, and fulfilling my BoP.

3. The Hammer
Of course the hammer itself isn't evil!!! Killing someone is evil. An inanimate object cannot be evil, by any standards. However, an action that is looked down upon can be concluded immoral.
I have thus proved violence equals evil in most types of situations.
Back to you, pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con.

Excuse me but...
"The topic is very vague, and you did not clarify it, so therefore I can manipulate it to mean "Violence equals evil....under most circumstances"."
No, you can't. The topic is precisely stating. "Violence does not equal evil" in other words "violence is not inherently evil" or "Violence is not 100% evil". So no, the topic is pretty clear. You cannot just add another sentence to the topic, when the topic isn't even mentioning it. So please, refrain from doing that in the future. This is not an argument.

"Ah, but from the perspective of the tyrant it is immoral!"

Well but most of the people consider it to be moral don't they? And even so, the tyrant may be aware that he is immoral and consider this action moral. Even though he still might, and probably will dislike it.

About competitive play, I've never said that when talking about violence I'm talking about most drastic option did I? Actually using force against inanimate object can still be considered violence. Even attacking (by attacking I mean tactically, without violation of the rules) the other team, trying to get through their defenses to get the ball into net can be considered violence. And another, pretty clear example of using violence in sport, Boxing. Are boxers evil if they use violence against each other?

About the hammer, well then you just prove my point. Who said that act of violence always have to be looked down upon? Again, overthrowing a tyrant isn't something that people look down upon. They tend to consider it an act of greatness. Again, violence itself can be considered a tool just like a hammer. Hammer can build a house and kill someone with it. When we think about it, hammer might have more evil uses than it has the good ones. Violence can be used to fight something y evil, or it can be used for oppression.


The violence may still be immoral. Even if the tyrant deserves to be overthrown that does not mean he deserves to be punched in the face 100 times, or like Julius Caesar, be stabbed 20-something times.

Boxers are immoral if they use too much violence against each other. Again, there is a reason there is a referee there, he is to check just in case! There are special cases in which boxers go too far. See this: The Boxer known as Mike Tyson went way too far and was disqualified. Thus, this is immoral based on the opinion of the majority of the audience and can thus be concluded evil.

About the hammer--you even conceeded this point, saying "hammer might have more evil uses than it has the good ones"! Even though violence can be used to fight evil, there is always a degree to which it is way too much. Put a thief in a Saw (the movie) trap? Too much. Putting a murderer who only killed one person under waterboard, then burn him, then electrocute him, then rape him, then skin him and slowly let him bleed to death....That's just unhumanly cruel, a complete level above evil.
In conclusion I have fulfilled my BoP to show that violence equals evil.
Debate Round No. 3


Well you haven't really proved that violence is evil. You have only proved that TOO MUCH violence, even in cases where it's use can be considered as good, is evil. Which I always agreed with. As I already said, for the whole debate I tried to prove that violence itself isn't evil. That it's existence is just a fact, and it can be used also in good ways if not overdone. The tyrant doesn't need to be punched in the face a hundred times, or be stabbed 20-something times. But overthrowing him is still violence.

Boxers can be immoral and go too far, but they don't have too, and even if they don't their fighting is still violence.

So, is hammer evil because it has more evil uses than good ones? Hell is any tool evil if it has more evil uses than good ones? Of course not, tool is a tool and it can be evil only when used in an evil fashion. Violence is also like that, it's not evil, it's just a fact. It exists, it can be used also in good ways. It's perfectly natural for it to exist and there's nothing wrong with it.


Overthrowing can be done without violence. There is something called protesting.
You conceeded the boxer point.
A tool is not evil. You need to prove tool=violence in order for your argument that tool=not evil to work out and relate to this debate.
Debate Round No. 4


Because protests always work out for everyone. Protests may be not enough, and I would actually say that even then contain a little bit of violence in them.
I don't agree, I think I explained pretty well why I actually didn't concede it.
Well I actually did it by showing the ways that violence can be used both in good and bad ways like a tool, and is nothing more than natural fact.

Well wrapping up.

As for my final statement, I still stand by the fact that violence is not evil in itself. Violence is just usage of force against someone or something. It's existence is not evil and is merely a fact in our universe. It can be used as a tool for both good and evil. It can be used to murder people, but it can also be used to overthrow an oppressive government or even just in sports. Violence is a part of our daily lives and we must accept it. Of course if we overuse it even for good goals, it will be an evil act. But that doesn't make violence in itself evil. It stands on the neutral ground of morality, just like a hammer or any other tool.

Thank you very much for this debate Con, I enjoyed it greatly.


While violence can do good, there are limitations to evil as well; even evil people can have some heart, not all villains are cold-blooded murderers. Facts can be not commonly accepted by people, and thus considered "immoral". I have shown much, much more possible evil things you can do with violence, while you have only shown the overthrowing of the oppressive governement--which can also be immoral if you do it wrong!!
In conclusion violence equals evil. Vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
huh. that's weird. I'm winning. I was playing devil's advocate and using half-arguments all the way through! Oh well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
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: Con shows how everything can be evil in someone else's perspective.