The Instigator
Francie123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RiskTaker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

You cannot be pacifist if you believe in any form of non-peaceful protest or in nuclear deterrents.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 398 times Debate No: 51303
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Francie123

Pro

I would like to argue that to be a 'true pacifist' you must be against nuclear arms, the defence budget and non-peaceful protest. There is no room in the below definition of pacifism, or any other major definition, for violence:

Pacifism: - 'the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

As I'm from the UK and most of you are from the US, it seems only fair we make this about global pacifism, rather than sticking to one country. A simple debate seems best - Round 1 acceptance, Round 2 opening arguments, Round 3 rebuttal of those arguments, Round 4 conclusion with little to no new arguments.

This should be possible to accept, but considering my computer skills, I can't promise that... But anyone is welcome to debate with me!
RiskTaker

Con

In the eyes of Pro, this world is black and white. There are only things that are right, or things that are wrong. There are no necessary evils, no contextual changes of morality and no wavering from the written word of scripture when dealing with matters of deciding right from wrong. If everyone in the world were to have this mentality then it is very likely we would all be dead by now, and the pacifists would be first to go since they wouldn't fight back.

What this debate really boils down to is whether or not being a hypocrite in some ways is alright. Pro's case relies wholly on the notion that being a hypocrite in any remote manner is impossible and negates one's identity as a believer in a philosophical cause. This is rather idealistic to the extreme and is simply not the case in practise.

The army are there so that civilians don't have to fight. Violent protesters and the people who sign off the papers to permit nuclear warfare are there so pacifists don't have to fight. It is not wrong for the pacifist to appreciate how necessary the violent people are, nor is it required that the pacifist oppose their way of life in the context of protesting and war. The pacifist may, within themselves, never be able to believe it is right to do, but they can potentially accept the necessity for violence itself and believe in the right of others to carry it out in the same way that the severely religious can respect the rights of gays and those of different religions to live life their way.

In conclusion, it's about tolerance and moderation. If no one was a hypocrite and never accepted the actions of others that oppose their belief system, this world would be a very desolate place due to everyone being an extremist of their own moral code and killing off others of a different way of life.
Debate Round No. 1
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
RiskTaker

Con

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RiskTaker 3 years ago
RiskTaker
That's not the definition that Pro provided so I'm afraid that my attack is legitimate. :)
Posted by HyugaNeji45 3 years ago
HyugaNeji45
Since I missed my chance to pick up the argument, I guess I'll just put my two cents in the comments section. Pacifism, from what I understand, is a complete and utter hatred for all violence, no matter what the situation. Some people, however, believe that violence, when truly used to further the cause of peace, is quite alright. These people are referred to pacificists. This orientation falls somewhere between pacifism and defensivism. If anyone wishes to research this topic, there is a book by the name of Ethics, Killing, and War that discusses it in detail.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Not in my book.
Why don't you pick up this debate?
Posted by HyugaNeji45 3 years ago
HyugaNeji45
No offense, but the thread is a bit obvious. People who believe in some form of non-peaceable protest, but ultimately frown upon war and other types of violence, are referred to as pacificists.
No votes have been placed for this debate.