Is force (or violence) reliable when dealing with conflicts?

  • Depends what you mean by "reliable"

    Sometimes conflicts can't be solved peacefully, that why we have wars. If early disputes like the ones that formed this countries freedom had been peaceful we would not be a free country. If you are just talking about arguments, then you who said no are correct there is no reason for beating or abusing someone just because you're angry or can't agree. Those kinds or conflicts should be resolved with words and no harmful actions are needed. Thank you.

  • No...No. And NO

    Debate is the finest, yes, finEST form of conflict-resolution, ever, developed by vertebrates in the Solar System.

    All forms of violence, including war, are beneath the level of having a brain.

    I never liked football AT ALL until, one day, I watch the History of Rome and the History of Attila the Hun - twice through. That was the day that I realized that Sport is the most beautiful form of war any where

  • No it actually makes the situation worse.

    All situation should at least begin in a civil manner and not start with acts of aggression. If it starts with aggression the situation becomes a little more elevated and it may bring more individuals into it. Although sometimes it can be reliable to stop the situation from happening again you may discredit yourself when others approach you because you may be seen as a very volatile person.

  • Force can only make conflict escalates further

    The use of physical force or violence to approach a conflict will only make things worse because it can easily trigger more anger and hatred in both parties. It may or may not lead to further problems and may also cause serious implication to the society as a whole. As a result, the innocent will have to bear responsibilities.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.