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

Violence is a neccesity

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  
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: 8/8/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 78499
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Looking for a challenge, any experienced debaters interested in debating this topic?

The definition I will use for violence is: "The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

This is my source:

With that out of the way, I would like to list my contentions.



Sometimes, violence needs to be used to make arrests for criminals who run away. For example, if police could not use violence to subdue drug dealers, more of them would evade arrest. This would result in more dangerous drugs being transported, and therefore more drug related deaths.

I have used the example of a drug dealer because dealing drugs is not necessarily a violent crime, and it is assumed violence does not exist in this hypothetical situation.

Worse yet, violence not being used would make a society plunge into anarchy. Allowing prisoners to break out of prison without subduing them and allowing drug dealers to get away from arrest would imply to the citizens of a society that they can break laws without any real punishment.

Let me conclude this contention by quoting Niccolo Machiavelli, a famous Italian philosopher.

"Every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency....Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only."

In other words, violence is not desired, but it is sometimes needed. (This is a part of "The Prince", by Machiavelli.)


The lack of violence would cause many to lose their jobs. With no violent crime, there wouldn't be as much need for many job positions. Unemployment is already very high in many countries, and seeing as a lack of violence would decrease opening for jobs, it would also increase unemployment. Seeing as unemployment hurts an economy, a lack of violence would be a new problem for these already struggling countries.

I know my opponent will probably say ending violence more important than a few jobs. Well, statistics show that about 16% of US. employees are USA are government workers. A good portion of these workers are police officers, in the military, or judges.

Over to you, Con. Good luck!


Thanks for the debate. This should be interesting.

The most important word in this debate's resolution is "necessity". Based on the gravity of the subject matter, it seems clear to me that necessity in this context means "necessary for life". Note also that the definition of violence pertains to actions between humans. It does not include accidentally stepping on a bug or hunting animals for food. Based on that, I would contend that Pro's resolution is clarified as "violence between humans is necessary for life" I believe the answer is firmly "No" and it is Pro's job to prove that it is.

Note: I will use the term "necessity principal" for this argument.

I also contend that this resolution is broad in it's implied time dimension. If Pro had intended for this to mean "violence is necessary at this time", that should have been stated. Pro must show that violence is necessary for life now and forever in the future.

Pro uses an example of a drug arrest to show how a non-violent activity necessitates violence. Based on the resolution's clarification above, this is a non sequitur. There is no reason that the arrest of this non-violent crime is even necessary. It is true that at the present time, drugs are illegal, but this is a societal norm. Humans would flourish on this planet without drug legislation. This should be obvious, especially since the first legislation in the United States did not occur until 1860 (1)

Pro also states that society would plunge into anarchy, with prisoner breaks, etc. To understand why this does not help Pro's case, we need to stay focused on the "necessity principal". We also need to think not only of the hear and now, but to think back through the chain of violence that led to the current situation. Prisoners are there for either two reasons: one, they committed a victimless crime such as drug trafficking, or they committed a violent crime. I have already covered the example of victimless crime (drugs). But what of the violent criminals? Was their crime necessary for life? We can continue this thought experiment until we back up to the theoretical concept of the "first violator". If this first violators actions were not necessary for life, then the whole chain of violence breaks down. Any police actions were reactions to an event that was not necessary in the first place. This same principal can be applied to self defense.

Based on these concepts, it is clear the violence is not necessary.

Debate Round No. 1


I meant violence was necessary for humans to exist, and, actually, come to think of it, everything to exist, now and forever. I have no problem debating this stance, even though it was not my original intention.

This is because innumerable food chains would be broken without violence. Though this may sound absolutely insane at first glance, it actually makes a lot of sense if one looks at it closely enough.

Without violence, here is a list of animals and plants that would not exist:

Mosquitoes (they suck the blood of humans for nutrients)
Venus fly traps
All other carnivores
That being said:

Con's rebuttal to my first contention is extremely misguided. It is true that social norms are not always based on logic, but the amount of death that would result from the lack of arrests because of legislation preventing drug dealing would probably be at least tens of thousands per year. Hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are extremely dangerous, and if there was no motivation to not traffic drugs like these, more people would do it.

Con's rebuttal to my second contention is also very misguided.

First of all, he/she implies that drug dealing is a victimless crime by stating that, "Prisoners are there for either two reasons: one, they committed a victimless crime such as drug trafficking, or they committed a violent crime.", and I negated this assumption in my first counter rebuttal.

Second of all, it doesn't matter if what a victim is doing is necessary to save another life, it doesn't change the fact that a murderer destroys the life of the victim. Self defense is justified because killing another person is justified if the purpose of doing so is to save your life, an thus the action is necessary for life. However, killing another person if the action is not needed to save life destroys a life without saving one, so your principle does not apply in this situation.

If what you mean is that police should not arrest a murderer because the action of murder has already been completed, then you are insane. I obviously don't think you mean this, however.

Note: My opponent didn't refute my second contention, but since they want to debate whether violence is neccasary for life, it may not apply here. Or he/she might do this in the second round.

Back to Con.


Thanks Pro, I always appreciate a good response.

Clarification of contention
In this round, Pro has agreed to the resolution I proposed in round 1, which is "violence between humans is necessary for life". I'd like to point out that Pro did not contend the time dimension aspects I proposed in round 1, so the contention is not only that violence is necessary, but will always be necessary.

In this round, I will show that Pro misunderstood my argument in round 1, therefore I will first clarify that position and then provide rebuttals of specific points from round 2. The key to my argument is the sentence:

We also need to think not only of the hear and now, but to think back through the chain of violence that led to the current situation.

Pro continues to raise examples of violence countered with violence. For example Bob murders Joe and then Sam arrests and violently imprisons Bob. Pro focuses on Sam's violence being necessary. However, this violence was only necessary because of Bob's violence. Was Bob's violence necessary? No, not unless Joe was himself the start of the violence, in which Joe is the instigator. There is always a causal chain of violence that begins with an *unnecessary* violent act. This shows that none of this violence was actually necessary for human life to exist. The difficulty for Pro in this debate is the steep curve of proving the "necessity principal". At best, Pro may be able to show that violence is necessary for order, but that is not the contention.

Another way I might clarify this is to show a way that Pro *could* prove the resolution. For example, perhaps it could be shown that violence has psychological affects on humans that drastically increase our competitive spirit, without which we may not have survived.

Pro's first contention talks about non-human entities and is therefore irrelevant since the resolution only concerns humans.

Pro's argument from round 1 is that lack of violence would increase unemployment. The main problem with this argument is that it is simply unsound. If violence didn't exist, how would we even know those jobs were missing? An analogy will help here: lets say that every year some strange, dangerous alien bugs infested the earth and it required some kind of special branch of the military to kill them. If we had the option to easily stop this somehow, would Pro say "No, don't do that. We'd lose those jobs". Economists don't spend time trying to invent things man could be doing in order to manage employment. Instead, labor is put to use creating those things consumers most urgently need and desire. Absent violence, I'm rather sure everyone would rather spend that money on a trip to, say, the Yucatan peninsula (for example).
Debate Round No. 2


Now I feel stupid.

I misread Con's argument. I really don't know how to defend my contention now, because I would have to say murder is neccasary.

However, I can still defend one of my arguments.

I was using the argument of a food chain to say that humans would be extinct without certain animals that needed violence to survive. Humans also need violence to kill animals, even today.

Same for my second contention, I really don't know how to justify this anymore.

So, to sum this up, this isn't a total concession, but I think it's fair to say Con won this debate. I'm not disappointing about this though, as I was looking for a challenge, and this was a good debate.

However, Con still hasn't responded to my argument about drug trafficking.


Is this the point where I'm supposed to relentlessly pound my opponent into submission?
Ha ha. Nah. I'll just quickly address Pro's arguments in round 3:

First, I already addressed the issue of the food chain under "Contention" in round 2. Remember, the resolution definition only includes humans.

As far as the drug trafficking question, I'm not 100% sure what you are referring to, but I suspect it is this statement:

"but the amount of death that would result from the lack of arrests because of legislation preventing drug dealing would probably be at least tens of thousands per year"

That statement is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure it's in my interest to clarify this, but I will anyway. I assume the position here is that some non-violent activity (drug dealing) requires violence, or the net result would be many deaths from the increase in drug traffickers and drug users. However, I'll remind readers of Pro's resolution clarification at the top of round 2:

"violence was necessary for humans to exist"

So even if the above contention is true, Pro would need to argue that humans wouldn't exist under these conditions, which is highly unlikely. In short, I believe I have shown, and it seems Pro agrees, that the burden to show that ""violence between humans is necessary for life" has not been upheld.

Thanks for the debate DATXDUDE!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ax123man 2 years ago
meh, for once I wasn't too upset about the "no votes". Although, this seems to be an issue at DDO these days.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
theax123man, you won this debate, and i think that should be noted. just thought i should let you know.
Posted by ax123man 2 years ago
DATXDUDE, I realize this was a bit of chicanery. However, I did take a little risk here because if you had defended/refined your meaning of the resolution and challenged the way I was changing it, it would have made things much harder for me. Assume the worst when your opponent is manipulating meaning and defend yourself. And of course think about and define the meaning of each word in your resolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.