• Of course violence is necessary!

    What would you do if a terrorist started punching your loved one? Would you just watch your loved one die? Or would you start attacking the terrorist? Of course, you will start attacking the terrorist, because you do not want your loved one to die, right? Well, that's what I mean. You need violence to solve problems, even though you are a soft person who faints in the sight of blood, you just need to man up and defend yourself. See, violence is necessary, but not all the time though.

  • Southeast Asian Freedom

    During the 1960'2when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was espousing non violence the North Vietnamese were using violence to free themselves from American oppression. If we fast forward to 2013, we see that Vietnam is a free nation while most of black America is imploding. Perhaps if black America had adopted some of the Southeast Asian principles of organized violence against their open enemies their situation would not be as desultory as it is today. Sure, violence alone does not achieve anything but when it is joined with a structured ideology then meaningful change can be realized by those who implore it.

  • Violence is not good or bad but grey.

    While war is often blamed and frowned upon for causing many deaths. A number of those deaths are upon people deserving of it; such as Hitler, Bin-Laden, cruel soldiers, immoral fighters, narrow-minded killers. Violence is the act. Only the reasons behind violence are justifiable; Religious faith, committing to the end, The promise of Salvation. I practice Norse and I'd like to die in battle. I don't care for a job - I want to fight. I love the thrill of it. But there are other moral reasons. Mercy-killing, protecting, defending. And even if people are choosing now to blame violence itself for everything; Through history, people celebrated the anticipation, the battle, the victory, and in some cases even defeat, (Thermopylae). They are blind to how violence is necessary to solving problems. Good or not - violence is a solution.

  • Not only neccessary, but sometimes justifued.

    Violence is often regretable, but not neccesarily evil. It is not the act of violence itself that is evil but rather the intent behind that act. However, violence must be tempered by righteous ideals, or it will run wild and hurt the innocent.

    In the old days, these ideals were known as "chivalry," and CS Lewis wrote that they offer: "the only possible escape from a world divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things which make life desirable."

    Non-violence is an admirable ideal in itself, but the price it demands is that you must either accept to be the prey of wolves, or be forced to rely on the hunter for defense.

  • Under Many Circumstances

    Government is violence. It does not ask you nicely to obey the law, it arrests you. That involves violence. So the question is basically the same as "is government necessary?" I would say yes. Maybe if everybody was never violent then it would be OK to get rid of the government, but we need it because sometimes people are and then they need to be restrained.

  • under certain circumstances

    Under a majority of circumstances it is not but for something like self defense it is acceptable.

  • Sometimes violence has to happen, because it can be unavoidable.

    If a person is protecting themselves during a threat, then violence is unavoidable. It is unfair to think that, if someone fights back to a threat that is in their face, violence is not necessary. These are extreme situations, but not everyday situations. I think it is important to teach children of any gender self-defense for these types of situations, if they should occur.

    Posted by: PointlessElbert47
  • Under certain circumstances, I believe it is necessary, such as when it is used in self-defense.

    I believe that violence is necessary when you are using it for self defense. This can be a pretty touchy subject, because there are laws that protect the offenders, which is something that I've always disagreed with, completely. One is not to stand idly by, when someone is assaulting your loved ones.

    Posted by: AheadYoung
  • In defense of one's self or family, violence is necessary.

    As much as most people do not condone violence, they would be quick and
    justified to apply it, when their lives or their loved ones' lives are
    threatened. Violence is always ugly, but sometimes a person must resort to

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • I believe that violence is necessary and warranted in certain situations.

    Although no one who has rational thought processes and is emotionally healthy likes to revert to violence to solve or end any conflicts that may arise out of a given situation, I believe there are cases in which a person will be forced to overcome the peaceful demeanors they normally have and use physical violence. I believe when your life or the life of a loved one is in danger then you must do what is needed to protect yourself or others. This must be a last resort after all other attempts to rectify the situation have been exhausted.

    Posted by: KnottyTrenton
  • Violence is never justified

    "Love your enemies." "Turn the other cheek." "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." The lessons from the New Testament are clear: violence is always wrong, even in self-defense. Usually if someone is threatening you it's because he feels threatened himself; if you make it clear you're no threat to him he'll probably stand down. And in the few cases where he doesn't, it's much better to die knowing that you have refrained from violence than to live knowing that you have hurt or killed another person.

  • Violence is bad

    Violence is never good. It will never be good. Violence only causes a vicious cycle. Two wrongs do not make a right. No matter what happens, do not use violence, violence will only make matters worse, not better. There are many better ways of sorting out things, rather than violence.

  • Violence is a physical privilege; peace is a choice.

    Self-defense theory is attached to premeditated violence. It presupposes violence and in this sense, will never break the cycle. Look at the 'gender' of whom is propagating it...

    Do we want violence to stop? Or do we merely want violence against our own person to stop? And does the latter necessitate violence towards others, in the guise of self-defense?

    Peace and foreign policy: peace does not come from aggression. And there is a certain form of peace that is also a form of war; an econ0mically unjust or unequal peace.

    Wake up. The world does not want violence to stop, precisely because it is to useful to it.

    Unless...You realize that by perpetuating it, remaining silent on it, etc, you are not protecting yourself.

    Victims of violence, particularly gender-based, rarely support 'self-defense' as a 'necessary right'. It is too often used to justify premeditated violence.

    Peace will never come from violence; it is a physical privilege, and undemocratic in terms of age, gender and physical disability.

  • Violence is not always necessary

    I just agree, really. All these wars, and all there has been no resolutions for it all. Yet there have been thousands of deaths. From a government point of view, the violence is not necessary; they arrest you first time, instead of giving you a chance to fix it and obey the law.

  • Violence just brings death

    When you think about violence has just brought more hate between people in fact in Ferguson, Missouri people are burning others and their property for the sole fact that a defenseless black child was shot and killed so ask yourself this is violence necessary. All the pain and suffering is not needed at all

  • If we all stop violence together

    I have to say we live in a world where violence is "normal" and is practically seen everyday, on the news in the streets etc. I believe in the statement that violence only brings more violence, which I can mostly guess that mostly everyone agrees with. But if we lived in a world without violence then there is no real cause for violence if everything is stable and everyone is equal. Until this close utopia has been made then people will always believe that violence is needed.

  • The suffragists got their message across without violence.

    The suffragists were a non violent group and they still got their message across and managed to persuade men to give them the vote. Even though the suffragettes thought they made all the difference to get them the vote, it was actually the suffragists. The suffragettes used lots of violence to get their message across but it is not always the only method.

  • No violence in the world.

    Violence is never a good thing and it will never be good even if you use it in a self defense way. Violence only cause trouble and pain. If someone does the wrong thing and you do it back doesn't make u right. Violence is never is the option but peace has always been the option.

  • Violence has killed more people than it has saved

    America and Germany fought for power even though some suggest it was to solve conflict. That is fair enough. Yet after the war, Russia tried going after America, and since then, there as been unrest between the two. Now they have created weapons of mass destruction in order to scare each other off and try gain peace. But what happens when the time comes to use those weapons to "solve the conflict"? Will there be anyone left to save? Violence is the WORST way to solve conflict. It is exactly the same as getting shot in the leg, and then shooting the other one to make it even.

  • Violence leads to big conflicts

    Two wrongs don't make a right, we all know this so it is always best we stay out of fights, this can lead into bigger conflicts,for example in school when people make fun of you just ignore them because the person has nothing to say,leave the person ,report to an adult,etc.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
debate.chakma says2014-02-16T04:07:08.140
What about the police should they use violence why can some people agree to use not to use violence but let the police use it for them isnt it a bit Hippocratic and if anyone would like to die instead of use violence but let other people do it for them isnt it just the same? Has anyone thought of it like that? Im just saying.