The Instigator
username2191
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AizenKnaik
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Violence is not necassry to change the government

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...
AizenKnaik
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 44324
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

username2191

Pro

History is full of examples of people who have changed the government using non violent tactics.
AizenKnaik

Con

Sorry. That comment was supposed to be my argument. Anyway, here it is:

Basically, there is no particular action that would alter the government- much more violence alone. But somehow, violence would make the government respond to its external environment. They wouldn"t hasten whatever tactics and actions they would make without an "obvious" prevailing problem. So I think, violence could somehow be responsible in changing the government.
Debate Round No. 1
username2191

Pro

However don't you believe historic figures such as Mlk Jr. Ghandi have changed the government? And may I add that they used non violent methods such as marches, boycotting, etc.
AizenKnaik

Con

Not that I don't believe in historical figures changing the government. Of course, I do believe on them, considering that they were already factoids that had long been came to existence. What I was trying to say is, if there is a violence, the government could not do anything but to react as it is basically their role to do so. By reacting, it just shows that they have acted. Similarly, if they act, there is a tendency that part of them if not all will alter, though the change is quite ambiguous. You also have a point there that in the early times, they made use of marches and any other non-violent act to create change. But don't forget that the government themselves are sometimes (or most of the time) pretentious and tend to be 'blind and deaf' (basing on my observations). So that means to say, even when people rally, the government won't simply care. But their attention could simply be catch by the people through violence. They couldn't just simply resist to act if people will appeal to them or else, their 'business' would be revealed.
Debate Round No. 2
username2191

Pro

username2191 forfeited this round.
AizenKnaik

Con

AizenKnaik forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Hey con, why don't you argue this: the threat of violence always exists in government change.

In democracy, if the government does not willingly change based on elections, citizens reserve the right to forcibly topple the un-democratic government. That's why the American Constitution allows all citizens to have guns, so that no one can declare themselves president-for-life without expecting some serious rioting and mutiny.

"If violence isn't solving all your problems, it's because you're not using enough of it!"
Posted by AizenKnaik 3 years ago
AizenKnaik
Basically, there is no particular action that would alter the government- much more violence alone. But somehow, violence would make the government respond to its external environment. They wouldn"t hasten whatever tactics and actions they would make without an "obvious" prevailing problem. So I think, violence could somehow be responsible in changing the government.
Posted by AizenKnaik 3 years ago
AizenKnaik
Basically, there is no particular action that would alter the government- much more violence alone. But somehow, violence would make the government respond to its external environment. They wouldn"t hasten whatever tactics and actions they would make without an "obvious" prevailing problem. So I think, violence could somehow be responsible in changing the government.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
username2191AizenKnaikTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better argument, had more relevant points