frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

Violence Solves Everything

Opening Argument

VaulkVaulk 337 Pts
edited September 2017 in Philosophy
Too often in common conversation the phrase "Violence doesn't solve anything" is used as an argument against the use of force or violence to achieve a goal.  Unforunately for the pushers of this idea it's simply not true.  We can't even have an honest discussion about the establishment of our Country (U.S.) without having an honest discussion about Violence.

My opinion is superbly aligned with Robert A. Heinlein who said

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger PigeonViolence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

Violence is not only a natural part of our Human History, but it's essential to our survival.  I'm not suggesting that we need to religiously embrace violence like the Spartans but an honest look at Violence would, in my opinion, help us to understand ourselves better.  More importantly though, I think we need to stop teaching and preaching the fraudulent idea that Violence is wrong or that it "Doesn't solve anything" becase it's dishonest at best.
ale5natbaronsjoecavalrynorthsouthkoreayolostide
  1. Does violence solve anything?

    26 votes
    1. Yes
      46.15%
    2. No
      53.85%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • @Vaulk, Your argument is reasonable and I mostly agree.  In fact, our country is based on violence. It was by violence against native Americans we even live here today.  
    SilverishGoldNovaVaulknatbarons
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • While violence is recommended to use against violence, I wouldn't say it solves everything. Teamwork's also necessary to accomplish tasks. Whether to eliminate cancer, to build a product, or completing any team activity.
    Vaulknatbarons
  • @PowerPikachu21,

    Well said.  While your statement is correct, I'm going to take the alternate side of the looking glass and say that we're trying to "Eliminate" cancer...not "Make peace with it".  One cannot build anything without damaging something else whether it be cutting down a tree, forcefully destroying vegetation in order to make room for buildings or crushing something into a finer resource for mixing with another.  Granted not all things require violence but I would contend that in some way, shape or form that violence can indeed solve everything.  Perhaps not to the degree that we want though.
    natbaronsjoecavalryPowerPikachu21
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • The country was built on violence and genocide, particularly towards the native Americans who once dominated the country. The 2nd amendment and others also defend violence.
    northsouthkorea
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • America was built on the killings of Native Americans and violence. It can't be removed from American history or American circuits. America can't remove violence from the modern day country due to certain amendments.
  • I don't think making games has any violence when making it (other than a few arguments). But yeah, violence is a huge part of humanity and will never go away even though many teachers and anti-bullying groups would wish.
  • " will never go away"

    I'd like to think we will move past violence someday.
    DrCereal
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • I think you all make good points. However, how about thinking as a weak person. For that person, violence might not solve everything. And how would you solve problems like poverty? Would you violently force rich people into giving their money to the poor? That would cause even more problems. When you fix one problem, more problems sprout up. However, I admit that violence does solve a lot of problems.
  • VaulkVaulk 337 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @Ghosty

    Two points to counter yours:

    1. From a weak person's perspective, let's say that someone accosts you.  What should you do?  Well if you're truly too weak to prevent or stop the violence against you...then you flee and are obligated to call the Police...who will then come and exact violence upon the person who accosted you...for you.  lol.  The police use violence in the shape of physical force and the threat of violence by display of intent to discharge a firearm in order to obtain compliance from criminals.  So even being weak...in cases of violence against you...violence is still the answer.

    2. Ghosty said:
    Would you violently force rich people into giving their money to the poor? That would cause even more problems. 
    HAHAHA, this is actually hilarious.  We DO violently force rich people into giving their money to the poor.  The richest people in America pay an incredible portion of their income to the Government in the form of Taxes.  The IRS tax code is a legally enforceable code and if you don't pay your taxes...that's right...the Police WILL come to your door, they WILL force you to comply with them with either violence or the threat of violence and they WILL forcefully take you to jail.  We DO violently force rich people into giving their money to the poor because it's no secret or surprise that without the Rich paying the amount of Money they currently pay to taxes...we wouldn't stand a chance at financing all the subsidized programs like WIC, Welfare, Foodstamps, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, Free School Lunches...the list goes on and on.
     
    I do agree with you however, that it causes more problems.


    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it wasn't violent. They didn't use violence against the white people and police weren't on their side either. Of course this isn't true nowadays with BLM. 

    I agree with most of what you said however. Because of Gandhi the British rule was extended, and the gap between the Muslims ands Hindus increased which contributed to the separate nations of Pakistan and India now. Violence unites people. 
  • VaulkVaulk 337 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @Fascism

    While I agree with you on the reason for the Civil Rights Movement's success, we've overlooked one critically important fact.  While MLK and the Civil Rights Movement didn't use violence Against anyone per say...they did in fact strategically use violence to their benefit by seeking it out.

    Without violence in Birmingham, Alabama the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't have gained the traction it needed.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. organized and structured the Civil Rights Protests in that area with the specific intent of receiving a violent reaction (They were extremely intolerant in the area and particularly Racist).  MLK KNEW that a protest in Birmingham would result in a violent reaction from those who wouldn't tolerate it and thereby used the violence against his movement to put on full display the injustices happening to Black people at the time.

    He was a genius for doing it and while he definitely used violence in his favor, he didn't exact it against anyone else.  It took incredible intelligence, planning, leadership and will power to stand up knowing that they would be beat back down...but they did it anyway and succeeded.

    Bottom line, without the violence that MLK sought out in Birmingham and in other areas during the movement...I can easily see the Civil Rights Movement either failing or taking incredibly longer than it actually took to succeed.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • No, violence is not good for people and society.
  • @Vaulk

    From history, “violence” is in part, a function of social evolution. That is, there are dynamic channels of freedom in conflict with dynamic channels of resistance, at times leading to violence. This is predicated on the “constructal law” (a unification theory of evolution within thermodynamics) and states, “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”


    The evolution of culture is the flow of good ideas, and/or philosophical persuasion, to provide greater access to the currents of social harmony via our “unalienable Rights,” a version of the constructal law. Because the evolution of technology, the globe is becoming an effective local neighborhood; and therefore, the “melting pot” of culture is inevitable in units of generational time; hence, cultural globalism.


     Those who feel “violence” will solve their crusade against cultural globalism will fail, because it goes against a physical law in nature. Relative to their crusade, violence will not solve their plight, only speed up their extinction.   

  • @Mike

    Great points, I'd also point out though that while I agree that Violence won't solve the crusade against cultural globalism...it's still necessary to stifle, slow and in some cases stop all-together the violence against those who are focused on Harmony and cultural evolution.
    Mike
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • I think that there were many strong debates found throughout this argument but I think that violence can't solve everything because what did the Las Vegas shooting that killed more than 250 people solve? I don't think that it solved anything and most of the times violence does mental and physical damage to people and yes it's clearly necessary to living but that doesn't mean that it solves anything in my opinion. The only time I would think that it would solve something is that if our country is in the middle of a war and we're trying to win, but I wouldn't support violence through acts of bullying or terrorism or mass shootings for absolutely no reason. 
  • Saying that anthe act of violence did not solve something does not me any act of violence can't solve something.
  • @averyapro

    You're correct in that the violence that this shooter allegedly committed didn't solve anything.  You're however, missing out on the second aspect of violence and that is the violence that we pay police officers to exact on our behalf in enforcing the law.  Those same police officers responded to the shooter in his hotel room and while they didn't necessarily get the chance to use it...it doesn't diminish the fact what-so-ever that the violence they were prepared to exact is absolutely necessary and in every way is critical to problem solving.
    averyapro
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    I do agree with your point about how police officers need to use violence to help people and assist everyone that they can but in most cases they do need to use violence. I definitely agree. However, there are over 250 acts of violence a day in which people do not call 911. Think about bullying. I was bullied two days ago and I didn't call the cops about it. I once saw a kid at our school that was slammed into lockers and that definitely fit the definition of violence but I don't think it's solving anything. Also, a gay kid that was in the closet always punched kids and threw food in all of our faces and one time my best friend, who is also gay, and is bullied the most, found the bully in the boys locker room asking him why he bullied my best friend so much and the bully shut his locker and kissed my best friend. The bully said not to tell anyone or he would kill him but my best friend told me and a death threat is an act of violence so I don't think violence solves everything. 
  • @averyapro

    On the whole I agree with you.  I think we're just seeing the different sides of the coin there.  Police officers (In most of their daily business) don't need to use violence per say...but the threat of their potential for violence is what prevents that.  Imagine if criminals KNEW for a fact that the cops wouldn't get violent, the power would shift completely.  It is because of the "Threat of violence" that our Police don't need to exercise it directly in most cases.  We comply with the police because we know they'll get violent if we don't...without that threat of violence...we'd be following their orders out of...respect I guess?

    Also, here's an example: Bully Bill slams Casey into his locker, the Principal sees this and grabs Bill by the arm and yanks him back off of Casey, effectively man handling him and using direct and intentional force to separate the two.  Who used violence in this example?  The answer is both Bill and the Principal.  Violence was used against Casey and Violence was used against Bill to stop him.  Think about that before you just assume that violence ONLY happens when bad people use force.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Aggressive behavior is natural in human beings, and in most animals, which basically leads to violence. From my point of view I think that violence should not be our first option, we should at least try to resolve conflicts in a logical and practical manner. I know that cannot always be achieved, and in certain situations violence might be the only solution, but we should not rely solely on violence to solve our problems. 
  • @Vaulk

    Fair point about the principal and also about how the threat of violence makes people want to not do anything wrong. However, I still don't think that violence solves everything because when those police use violence (for a good reason) it's typically someone is using violence or doing something with the threat of violence which forces the police to use violence against people. I mean police almost always use violence to arrest someone by putting people in handcuffs which supports your point of view but again, the suspect was more than likely inflicting violence upon someone or something for this to happen. 
  • @averyapro

    Good points all around, although I'm almost certain you said that Violence is only necessary to solve problems (In other words).  
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Kill the killer and then you get killed!

    Circle of life? No, the circle of idiots.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Vaulk Good point. MLK did use violence to his benefit. But look at more recent events. Is violence doing BLM any good? Violence has made it much worse for them. If they sought out peaceful more rational ways of dealing with the inequality between Blacks and Whites economically, then they may have succeeded in bringing African Americans closer to Whites in the economy. 
  • VaulkVaulk 337 Pts
    @Fascism

    That's absolutely a great point, it showcases just how powerful violence can be.  In the case of BLM, they're trying to equate their cause with the civil rights movement...no one can argue that it's a great cause.  Unfortunately their methods are destroying their cause because violence will always speak volumes louder than any perceived intentions.  BLM being highlighted by violent activities and general threats of violence is becoming less and less of a valid movement in the U.S. and they're losing support and subsequently losing the steam to drive their cause forward.  It's an unfortunate circumstance to see happen to what was supposed to be a movement for equality.

    While I don't think that systemic Racism exists in our society anymore, I can't deny that there are lasting effects of historical systemic racism and that Black people in particular are still feeling it.  If MLK was alive today then the BLM movement might not be derailing itself and might have actually succeeded in bringing to light the issue of the residue left from fairly recent racist laws and policies (Redlining on the basis of race).


    Fascism
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch