The Instigator
marctjester
Pro (for)
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)

Violence is not an effective method to ensure peace.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RonPaulConservative has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 96451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

marctjester

Pro

Throughout history, people have relied on wars and violence in order to resolve issues, whether it be for profit or satisfaction in other ways. As of now, it is culturally acceptable, in certain circumstances to use violence in order to resolve issues for a supposed peaceful endpoint that "justifies the means". My argument is that violence only perpetuates more violence, and in order to mitigate it, we must create new alternatives and change our ideology that has been ingrained through social conditioning.
RonPaulConservative

Con

We didn't win WW2 with appeasement, we won it with guns.
Debate Round No. 1
marctjester

Pro

Each war that was created was created without consideration to alternative and better means in order to resolve conflict and ultimately obtain peace in a more ideal and sustainable way.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
I know myself. I am fully aware of my capabilities to sustain pacifism for myself. What one person can do another can also.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
Sorry for posting twice. Accident. But it applies to every political adversary, every nation, and can help to prevent war from happening in the future. If this was taught instead of war being inevitable or unchangeable and certain principles were established around the world that people would strictly adhere to, we'll defy what most call impossible.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
That reality isn't something that should be accepted or taught; that's the problem. Generally, the truth doesn't have to require war or violence. I can easily imagine another possible reality where all of humanity prohibits even considering the option for war. A single act of violence in a potential future could result in making breaking news. It's evolutionary, less primitive and barbaric. It's an idea worth promoting instead of contending across the globe if we're going to break the cycle. The history of war has taught that peace is a lie and unattainable in our currently taught reality. You can call people incorrigible and let that be your reason but potentially profound changes apply to every person on earth and it's depressing that I encounter more disagreement than support for these type of ideas. I understand that the reason is because peaceful ideas are considered dangerous in a world of people bent on killing each other. If the people who order every military are inclined to have a war to solve anything, to secure their power, religion, or system for examples, then I think they should do us all a favor, after we deny participation, and fight the war themselves.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
That reality isn't something that should be accepted or taught; that's the problem. Generally, the truth doesn't have to require war or violence. I can easily imagine another possible reality where all of humanity prohibits even entertaining the option for war. A single act of violence in a potential future could result in making breaking news. It's evolutionary, less primitive and barbaric. It's an idea worth promoting instead of contending across the globe if we're going to break the cycle. The history of war has taught that peace is a lie and unattainable in our currently taught reality. You can call people incorrigible and let that be your reason but potentially profound changes apply to every person on earth and it's depressing that I encounter more disagreement than support for these type of ideas. I understand that the reason is because peaceful ideas are considered dangerous in a world of people bent on killing each other. If the people who order every military are inclined to have a war to solve anything, to secure their power, religion, or system for examples, then I think they should do us all a favor, after we deny participation, and fight the war themselves.
Posted by Sovcody2 10 months ago
Sovcody2
It SHOULD, and I wish we could completely agree, but the reality of the harsh world we live in kicks in. You can try to disarm, our Political Adversaries wouldn't.

People die in wars that start because of absolutely STUPID Reasons, I am not a proponent of Warmongering, though I believe that a war in self-defense is ABSOLUTELY Justified.

The Just war theory states you must exhaust all peaceful options, WAR Is a LAST RESORT.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
It should be the only option.
Posted by Sovcody2 10 months ago
Sovcody2
As I've said, The Diplomatic option should always be preferred to a conflict.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
I understand that it's hard for most people in this culture, including you, to accept that we're born with an extraordinary ability to always resolve conflict or issues peacefully or, due to misinformation, to even accurately address the psychological conditioning related to what even causes violent behavior. Whether many tend to regard the causes as spiritual forces or genetics, they depend on ignoring the actual science of the effects of the environment and society on human development so we can maintain our long-lived traditions and comfortable routines in the system we've grown accustomed to. There's also the desire for a community, to belong. Empathy is the primary factor. So, you say that the diplomatic option is always the best, but war and violence are necessitated by our current diplomacy. History teaches us that war is necessary but I doubt you can imagine that history could teach us otherwise; we're setting it right now. We have the ability to set the right foundation and examples for a new way of life that has much less suffering. But, I know that what I'm typing is never going to be understood by the people of today's cultures. It doesn't stop me from being absolutely right, though.
Posted by marctjester 10 months ago
marctjester
Violence is unnecessary use of force, so yes you are.
Posted by Sovcody2 10 months ago
Sovcody2
I'm not advocating for unnecessary use of force, the diplomatic option is always the best option, as a very famous Chinese Philosopher said "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting".
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.