The Instigator
doberto
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Violence is justified under some instances

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 1 vote the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 41375
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

doberto

Con

Violence is absolutely unjustified under any condition. This can encompass a plethora of options: War, Structural Violence, Institutional Racism, and I would argue the Death Penalty as well. No matter how much society progresses, the idea of opposing beliefs will exist, and the idea that it's okay to do something(kill) in one set of beliefs may completely differ with another belief set. Violence unquestionably begets more violence; we see this across the world as the United States overstretches its influence over the world only to produce anti-American regimes, to which the U.S. responds with violence. It's an extremely cyclical and violent concept. Even during times slavery violence wouldn't have been the most productive method; the slave revolts like Ted Turner's run boosted lynchings ten-fold. No matter how valid violence might be theoretically, history disproves every instance. When was the last time you celebrated a Malcolm X day? Or Al-Qaeda day? Non-violent movements can be extremely potent and we should try to collectively produce a more peaceful society not by force, but cooperation.
OtakuJordan

Pro

I thank Con for challenging me to this debate.

My opponent's opening statement consisted largely of rhetoric and contained only one clear contention. I will lay out two arguments of my own before rebutting Con's single contention.

Arguments

Argument #1 - Violence is not inherently immoral
Violence is defined as "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."(1) While this definition may seem largely negative, violence is itself amoral (not to be confused with immoral), meaning that it is not inherently either good or evil. Whether a particular case of violence is moral or not usually depends on the way that the force has been applied and oftentimes the motives behind it.

For example, a linebacker's job is to exert force (i.e., use violence) against opposing players. Would anyone say that he is acting immorally in doing so? Of course not. And yet he is employing "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."(2) Because of the context and his motives, the linebacker is morally innocent.

It is conceivable, then, that violence is also acceptable in other instances where the motives of the individual using it are pure (e.g., a parent protecting their children).

Argument #2 - The principles of pacifism sometimes require violence
I consider myself to be a pacifist. However, I am not a pacifist for the sake of pacifism, but because I place a high value on human life and dignity. So, what do I do when I believe that my non-action will result in greater harm to human life than my use of violence? I intervene. To do otherwise would, ironically, fly in the face of my pacifistic principles.

In the words of the famous ethicist and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "It is better to do evil than to be evil."(3) Bonhoeffer was a Christian pacifist who lived in Germany under the Nazi regime. He violated his pacifistic principles and engaged in a conspiracy to kill dictator Adolf Hitler. Although he believed that violence is evil in all cases, he believed that this one action of evil would not make him an evil person, while doing nothing to stop the genocide against the Jewish people would make him evil. Bonhoeffer's book, Ethics, is a solid rebuttal of absolute pacifism for even those who believe that all application of violence is evil.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal #1 - Violence always leads to more violence
This is impossible to prove even with no evidence to the contrary, and it is easily disproven with any number of hypothetical or real-life cases. To give just one example, a Georgia mother defended herself and her two children against a violent intruder.(4) Would Con please explain to me how her use of deadly force led to more violence?

Soures
1. http://www.who.int...
2. http://wgntv.com...
3. http://news.psu.edu...
4. http://www.examiner.com...
Debate Round No. 1
doberto

Con

doberto forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
doberto

Con

doberto forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 3
doberto

Con

doberto forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Pro

Well, that is unfortunate.

Please vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Muscle_Boy 3 years ago
Muscle_Boy
Well in this case I stand with Mr. OtakuJordan on the pro side

the rare and just use of violence is necessary sometimes:
we punish our enemies, assfuuuck the wife etc etc
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
dobertoOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, I think Pro did a way better job. He showed that violence is only applicable in certain situations like war, law enforcement, and self-defense. Con forefeited, but that is not necessarily the reason I voted against him. Con did not show especially in his opening argument how violence can be used to protect the value of another human life.