The Instigator
SIIKE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

You can't solve violence with violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 82607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

SIIKE

Pro

I believe that you can't solve violence with violence. How can you tell someone they are wrong and do the same thing you are trying to eradicate? There are other ways to stop violence instead of promoting it by doing it.
Stupidape

Con

Violence can be solved with violence. Case in point, if every country launched every nuclear device there would be no more violence forevermore. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SIIKE

Pro

If every country launched there nuclear devices(Which is unlikely to happen) it would lead to the destruction of everyone. Can you really call that a solution when no one benefits from it? If you're trying to protect your county by using violence and you end up destroying it in the process, you only made things worse. You didn't solve anything if you destroyed what you wanted to protect.
Stupidape

Con

"You didn't solve anything if you destroyed what you wanted to protect." Con

Pro never stated such a solution was a good solution. In fact, its a terrible solution.
Debate Round No. 2
SIIKE

Pro

SIIKE forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheSmartMan 1 year ago
TheSmartMan
I am with Pro, yes, violence can solve violence, but it is not always the right case, but people do it anyway. if you (being the one who wants to stop a violent altercation, be it small or large scale) have the mentality and skill in speech then conflict can possibly be avoided all together
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sdio 1 year ago
Sdio
SIIKEStupidapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Simple and short. Con shot down Pro's stance pretty quickly. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit. Con takes it.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
SIIKEStupidapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
SIIKEStupidapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con levies semantics to win this debate. "Solve" is a dreadful term for Pro to have to defend. In reality, a single solution (which Con provided) is sufficient for Con to win. Thus, arguments go to Con for negating. I'll award Con conduct points for the round forfeit.