Return to CreateDebate.comJoin this debate community

freepressbible.net


Debate Info

80
50
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:130
Arguments:93
Total Votes:143
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (56)
 
 Disagree (37)

Debate Creator

atypican(4866) pic



Violence never serves the cause of justice

Many equate the meaning of "violence" with "use of dangerous force" or "agression." If that is how you think, you are (I predict) likely to disagree with the assertion this debate is based on. I would consider this debate a success if the opposing sides could agree on a succinct definition of violence.

Debate formerly titled: "Violence is never justified." then "The doing of justice never requires violence."

Agree

Side Score: 80
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 50
2 points

I don't agree all too much with violence either, but you can only fight fire with fire.

If someone is trying to kill you you aren't going to sweet talk them to stop, you're going to use whatever is necessary to save your own life. That could include violence and even taking your aggressor's life. I believe violence is only justified in self defense.

Side: agree
gekoboy(6) Disputed
1 point

thats the thing lets say someone IS trying to kill you there are the non-violent methods of stopping that personalthough i agree partially with your arguement "self-defense" there are extremely effective non-violent methods to subduing your attacker

Side: fifty fifty
Forktail(24) Disputed
-1 points

Well, if you think violence is only justified in self defense a person who killed a police trying to stop him might as well say that he did so because the police was trying to shoot him.

Side: Disagree
duncan(2) Disputed
4 points

It's not that simple, as any legal system will show. There must be good reason for me to believe that the person (in this case a cop) has an intention to kill me. Normally I would not make this assumption just because a policeman pointed a firearm at me. On the other hand, if the cop had just shot at me unprovoked, I might consider shooting him or her. Of course ideally in that situation one should aim to remove them as a threat without killing them.

Side: Agree
DaddyTang14(6) Disputed
3 points

True, it's circumstances such as those where it's an exception that you shouldn't defend yourself, unless the police officers is literally trying to kill you.

Side: agree
atypican(4866) Disputed
3 points

I hope that people don't regard police so high that they rule out self defense options simply because of their [The police's]position of authority.

Side: agree
2 points

I am interested to see the validity of the following definition of violence challenged.

Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries

allegory example:

It is not considered respectful of rightful boundaries to shoot someone because of a verbal conflict. Now let's say they shoot at you and you shoot back in self defense. Were you the one who breached the boundary, or was it the person who set the precedent by shooting at you? I posit that once one person breaches a specific rightful boundary they demonstrate that (at least regarding interactions with them) that that specific, commonly accepted or rightful boundary is ok to disregard.

Not as simply expressed as I would have liked but oh well

atypican

Side: agree
Akulakhan(2960) Disputed
3 points

Considerations to account for, if you will:

-

1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.

2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.

3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.

I agree that violence is never justified, but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified. It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.

Side: agree
2 points

Beautiful, a response I will have to digest a bit in order to give a thoughtful reply. Thanx for that.

1) The lack of uniform boundaries, due to social development, or personal belief.

Lack of well understood boundaries, I agree acts as a strong catalyst as violence escalates and spirals out of control.

2) Whether an inital breach of common codes or boundaries, in disregard, affects the moral standards of both parties or just the antagonist.

It can, and all too often does, I think. But I don't think it necessarily does. One deeply committed to non-violence NEVER intends to harm anyone. They can (only through violent means) be forced to however. If I am forced against my will to harm someone, my moral standards need not change as a result, but they certainly could.

3) The classic "means justifying ends" debate.

That is the predominate angle of "disagree" posters to this debate. My aim is to promote the belief that the means we employ should be as pure as the ends we seek. In the face of dangerous violence, the primary goal of the non-violent activist is to stop the violence not upstage it.

I agree that violence is never justified

pleased to meet you!

but I do not agree that retaliation to injustice to the degree of mortality is justified.

I am strongly opposed to capital punishment as well.

It's a great irony in my personality, but it hearts from reason.

I would like to understood that better.

Side: agree
1 point

short train of thought - please critique

Violence must violate something.

That "something" that violence violates is rights

certain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.

an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attack

therefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violent

make any sense at all?

Side: agree
3 points

I haven't read all the arguments, and this is my first posting here. So excuse any misunderstandings.

I am inclined to agree with your train of thought. My preliminary formulation would be something like:

"Violence is the use of physical force against another person, but only when the force used is more than that necessary to avoid a greater act of violence"

This formulation is perhaps similar to the way regulations of police use of force are formulated, they are limited to the use of reasonable and proportionate force. They would argue that by following this guideline they are not being violent even in quite aggressive and heated confrontations.

I support the statement "The doing of justice never requires violence" in the sense that I am inclined to consider any use of violence as inherently unjust. However I think that there are times when, for example, widespread use of force in overturning a despotic regime can be justified as preventing greater acts of violence against a population.

Side: Defining violence
1 point

haha summed it up for me. although i would say if i had a gun and someone shot at me instead of shooting back i would at least try to escape the situation instead of creating a larger situation out of the already existing situation.

Side: agree
1 point

Violence is never justified.......................ONLY...........................because violence shouldnt ever happen in the first place. ...A really pathetic example would be --It triggers stupid tit for tat like the ongoing shitslinging matches that go on between myself and kinda.......However i feel i am justified retaliating verbviolently to some of his posts.:)

Side: agree
2 points

Are all aggressive acts necessarily violent acts........?

Side: agree
1 point

No ...............................looking at my various experiences and beyond my own experiences............................................................. i dont believe so. Sorry. Hey i think you know im not going to shush there. :) Aggressive love making is a vey nice example. And i have seen aggressive end of year sales ,funnilly there are some rather violent shoppers. But more seriously , when i swore at my daughter i was passionately aggressive at my Daughter , but i was not violent. When i was at the hospital , i was not violent at doctors , nurses , staff, etc , I was agressively hurting and very hostile but not violent. The day , i was asked to leave the hospital , i was in a real state. My daughter was at this point in isolation . I had to wear a mask and was not allowed to kiss her.I had at this point already been cautioned about my aggressive emotional outbursts.Then right in my face , this doctor from her team of doctors did the eskimo kiss, rubbing her nose on my daughters nose. My daughter had no immune system and they were telling me not to kiss her , not to come near her without a mask. I had been put on my first warning the week before , so i told them i had had enough , i was reporting them.And of course , when they caught me talking to media they got nastier. They reported me. I was in a state. They have the letterheads ,they have your signature , AND THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY so they have your life in their hands.What can you do? So on this day i cooperated to leave. But they got security of the hospital to escort me. I asked to see my daughter . At the time she had a central line, with both lumens attached to blood supply. I hugged her AND GAVE HER A KISS and said "i love you , mummy go now ,love you baby." She had barely got to say "love you mummy" when the security guard yanked me from her. I dont know if it was him grabbing her mum like that or if he had snagged her central line , but her little face just broke and burst into tears. I kicked him. LOL He kicked me back. so i kicked him again. They had no reason to be violently aggressive. I had been willing to co-operate.

Side: agree
1 point

there are certain times it may not be justified but if someone was shooting to kill you and you were shooting at non fatal areas of the body to incapacitate that individual then your violence is definitely more justified than the person shooting to kill

Side: agree
1 point

The point I am making is that responding with dangerous or even deadly force isn't violence unless you are violating a right the person has. For example we could say that people generally have the right not to be shot at. My thinking is that they lose that right if they begin shooting at others.

Can you understand my frustration with how difficult it is to make this simple point? Check the debate description...am I that unclear? I stand by my observation that most people view violence as meaning "use of dangerous force"....I think that that way of interpreting the word is suboptimal.

Side: agree
1 point

Violence isn't the only way to solve things, but, it's the most effective way.

It's like training a dog, if your dog shits on your floor you stick his nose in it and hit and tell him no ETC. He then becomes 'house trained'.

What this means is that Animals (which we are) respond to pain.

As do we.

I stand by that.

Side: fifty fifty

Violence accomplishes nothing except destruction and unhappiness.

Side: Agree

Violence is never the answer. Violence will only cause death and destruction.

Side: Agree

Regardless of definition, if someone is being violent towards you, you may need to be violent in order to defend yourself.

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

Would you mind giving a response that does not disregard definition? Particularly I would like you to critique the definition I assert on the "agree" side.

respectfully

atypican

Side: agree
rockyboy(48) Disputed
1 point

I agree with Joecavalry. atypican your question is not clearly worded nor can you sum up justice and violence in one simple sentence. There are so many situations to consider that your sentence has no logic or body to debate.

1 Self defense

2 Juvenile violence

3 Road rage

4 Mentally insane

5 War

6 This list goes on and on.

Side: Disagree

i don't believe the ambiguity is violence, I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. I think an extremely devout person, or a person who sees nonviolence as significantly more powerful than violence might see a situation where violence might be 'justified' - for example, when someone is likely to attack you, where they would refrain

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
2 points

i don't believe the ambiguity is violence

So then if you please, in your own words define violence.

I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. [that is ambiguous]

What justifies the use of dangerous force is indeed too ambiguous. I assert that this is partly due to our failure to come to terms about what violence is.

Question to ponder: What must violence violate in order to be considered violent?

example, when someone is likely to attack you

Ah the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. A violence promoting doctrine methinks.

atypican

Side: agree
2 points

Violence can take many shapes and forms, and it can be a profound noticeable action or something that goes undetected.

My first inclination is to say that violence is anything that violates a channel of communication.

I'll share with you a scene I watched in a documentary about the non-verbal language of babies. The test went as follows. A female scientist picks up a baby and holds it at eye level. While maintaining eye contact, she proceeds to make cute baby sounds and silly faces. Very soon, the baby starts giggling. As the baby finds this more and more entertaining, it starts to make sounds and reaches to touch the face of the scientist. With the communication and eye contact established, this game goes on for a few more seconds. Then suddenly, the scientist, while still holding the baby in the same position, turns her face away (sideways) from the baby and becomes neutral. She no longer faces the baby, and she does not respond to anything the baby does. As this happens, the baby first thinks this is part of the game. So it keeps staring at the scientist waiting for her to turn around and play. But she doesn't. Then the baby makes louder noises and touches the scientist's head. But she gets no response. Soon the baby starts crying, and you can see from the body language that the baby is hurt. The baby has been violated.

It took no "dangerous force" nor any form of physical aggression. Just a breakdown in communication. And it seems to me that every time humans resort to profound physical violence, it is because there has been a breakdown in communication.

But if we were to take this further, to include living beings that may not be able to communicate with us, then I would argue that violence is anything that interrupts the natural flow of energy. Cutting a tree for example, is a violent action, because it violates the tree's natural flow of energy.

Side: agree
2 points

my definition of violence (in this instance) is anything that causes injury, however slight.

I think the case might be made that violence would be 'justified' when it is preventative of greater violence. (though I think there are still many variables - certainty, imminence, available options, etc.) One presumably non-controversial example might be to grab a child's arm even very quickly and harshly to keep them from running into traffic.

(there are other definitions - for example, the storm was very violent, which seem to be outside the realm of 'justification' per se)

Another example which might be in between the two is - she slammed on the brakes violently, where someone in the car might be hurt, but it avoids a crash that potentially would have caused more harm

Side: Disagree
2 points

Fighting violence can only be done agressively , even if that means lowering your own standards , even if that means it is required to fight dirty , even if that means agressively taking no action.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.

I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.

Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.

I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)

Side: Disagree
1 point

A combination of uncommon viewpoints and this blessed curse of my ability to freely blurt out what is on my mind , has on numerous occasions , been the trigger towards some of those hostile or violent situations ive found myself in. :)

Side: Disagree
1 point

Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.

I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.

Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.

I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)

Side: Disagree
1 point

"even if that means lowering your own standards" - i simply mean -that personally i have done some rather horrible things in order to defend myself against violence , even getting in first with violence just to get my message accross that it is best not to fuck with me , can be a deterant from a threatening source of violence. I dont go out of my way to be a violent person , i am a happy happy joy joy person until some arsehole behaviour of some kind or another shits on my parade. I am also the sort of person who will go violently to save a person from unfair violence if i see it happening. I dont care if you are a stranger , if i saw you being attacked by thugs i would make a hostile defense for your safety. Not everyone is able to be aggressively violent in order to protect themselves , its just not in them , they may still have instincts , or flight or fight but do they have their brain in order or panic and lose it out of fear or do they try to get instantly physical as if they are in a playground brawl , or do they size up the situation , see what would best work to their advantage for ensuring their safety , and do what is abley neccesary. Sometimes trying to plead or fight is not the best solution. The thing that people often forget is that if someone is intent on hurting you , it is an insult and ought to be taken as such. I have been bashed to a pulp , raped and abused ,many times , but i will never be beaten ,unless i give up. Stooping below my preferred standards , (unfotunately too often) , is why i am alive today. I have had forgivness for most , not that they know it , but forgivness for them lets me avoid seccumbing to an irrepairable wreck hellbent on revenge. I have broken down many times because of violence , but then after time ( a long time ) i sucked it up , cracked the shits , and started sticking up for myself . And i have had less violence for it.

Side: Disagree
2 points

If ones attempts to use justice prove futile, then the next logical step is to use force and, if necessary, violence.

OR

If your efforts at justice are met with violence, then out of necessity you must use violence if only out of self-defence.

Personal opinion: I asked a relative if she would kill to save her son (she's a pacifist), her answer was precisely what is to be expected 'yes.'

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

I don't think I disagree with the underlying sentiment. I just don't think instances of defensive behavior (defending rights) you described should be thought of as violent. I ask you, what right is violated in the defensive action you describe?

Side: agree
TERMINATOR(6762) Disputed
1 point

The debate says 'never requires violence.' If I were in such a position where I am to deliver justice, I would most assuredly reatliate OR be the cause of the violence if I were of the belief that they were going to retaliate.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Violence is never justified...Ha. Who would bother to waste the brain power required to shit on such a naive view.

Side: Disagree
Akulakhan(2960) Disputed
2 points

Please do .

Side: agree

there are also types of post action 'violence' which our society deems justified - like incarceration - in part as a measure to prevent repeating the offense by that person and as a societal pressure discouraging that behavior by others

Side: Disagree
1 point

Well, let's say there's this guy (for the sake of this story, his name will be Hidler). And he hates a race of people (The Joos) and he decides to kill them all in a holocaust (about six million).

We stop him with violence (War is pretty violent, right?). I would say saving all the Joos from Hidler through violent means is justified.

Side: Disagree
Forktail(24) Disputed
1 point

Then are you saying that as long as it was in self defense or in attempt to help the others (like the "great" job the US is doing in Afghanistan combating terrorists whose number increased even more after they came), violence can be justified? But then, if you are a murderer (for the sake of this scenario) and someone shoots you, wouldn't you shoot him back and think your action had been perfectly justified? As long as your argument is valid of course.

Side: agree
ThePyg(6759) Disputed
1 point

Okay, so us stopping the Nazis from killing Jews wasn't justified because we did it violently...

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

Is forceful response to violence necessarily violence? I don't think so.

Care to give some direct scrutiny and comment on my proposed definition?

atypican

Side: agree
ThePyg(6759) Disputed
1 point

so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...

that's a weird definition of violence.

According to the dictionary definition of violence:

: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

killing Nazis would be considered violent, no matter what (unless we use your non-dictionary definition, of course).

Side: Disagree
1 point

Well if it's the definition of violence we have to debate for -

Violence is any form of physical attack. If I punch my friend in the arm it is violence - but such little amount of violence. If I have a fight with someone at school it is a much larger and obvious amount of violence.

Violence tends to have negative connotations.

Is smacking your kid violence? If yes - then I will always agree that violence can be justified. If hitting someome to protect your pride and honour is violence again I would say it is justified. We should always look for non-violence, but there are times when violence is justified.

Meat industry violent?

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

Do you agree that the meaning of violence is very very very closely related to the meaning of the word violate?

if so we might logically progress to:

What can be violated? A Law? nope, true laws cannot be violated. An agreement? Ding! Ding! Ding! agreements CAN be violated. care to offer another example of something that can be violated?

if you draw a blank there you might be soft minded enough to be persuaded that All violence is violation of an agreement. An integral and necessary component part of the philosophy of non-violence is to develop clearly understood agreements. If we are not working diligently on that, any commitment to non-violence we claim to have is in vain.

ramblings of a rambler known to trail off into nonsense at times :)

atypican

Side: agree
Kinda(1648) Disputed
1 point

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you're saying but I'll try.

I don't see how violence is a violation of an agreement. Sometimes violence IS an agreement. Let's say for example I lent somebody money. I made it clear that I will use violence if that money was not paid back. It was not paid back. I used violence. That is an example of how violence is in no form a violation of an agreement. Infact lack of violence would be.

Violence is the last and most effective means to get a point across (generally although there are many circumstances where it is not).

If I have completely missed the point I apologise and ask you to explain to me as simply as possible what you're trying to get. Thanks

Side: Disagree
1 point

I also posted this exact post in another debate on murder being justified.

I AM A HYPOCRIT - I dont know but last night as i sat looking over my sleeping babes , this debate popped back into my head. Can murder /violence ever be justified? Honestly , i sound like a hypocrit. I cannot , under any circumstances , settle on the idea , that it cant be. I dont know if it is because i had a hard hit to the head but i remembered , last night something i did back in 1993. I was young and immature and I got involved in an break and enter. It was a stupid thing i did . My accomplices , afterwoods went to mug a passerby. I didnt even mug people in the 6 years i had spent on the streets so at this point i chose to leave and go home. A short time later they returned to tell me that they had stabbed this person in the neck with a antique clokepin that had belonged to me and that they had left it in his neck with my prints on it. My head immediatley started to race with ideas of going to jail for a murder i didnt commit. Two days later i went to the police and reported myself as being involved in the recent break in and then i also reported to them what i knew of the mugging and of what the other two people had said to me about setting me up. The police had no reports of the attack on a man being stabbed , however he had been mugged..Ultimately the two who had mugged him had brought themselves undone , by making me think they had set me up for a murder i didnt commit..........i was labbled a dog and recieved death threats.....i moved away...Two years later an ex came to say some people who were looking for me had smashed his car up...of course it was one of these two previous mentioned accomplices and her rather large heavies still hellbent with threats of revenge.I contacted the police and asked for a detective who had dealt with the case at the time to come see me. I then wrote a statement stating that this person and her heavies were still after me with the intention of seriously harming or killing me. I was a single mum on my own with a small child. I stated that unlike them i had moved on , however if they did happen to find me then i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my child , even if that resulted in the death of the other person. Anyhow i dont know how i forgot about this(maybe the windscreen) but last night as i looked in on my children , i remembered it all. And thought about this debate again..and thought hypocritically as much as i hate it , i did pre-justify the posibility of my possible violent actions of violence to this woman and her heavies possible violent actions , Legally. And I am glad to say that as 2009 comes to a close, i heard nothing more from this girl , not since i made the statement to police covering my butt against any possible charges of MURDER in defence to hers . But i guess justified or not , i would still fight to the death for my children, And revenge , in regards to anyone harming my children , will always come as a passionate reflex response. Maybe if people started having enough balls to stand up to arseholes , then we would have less arsehole behaviour in society for a start. And if youve misunderstood my basic simple talk , then maybe thats tough , As i feel all this intellectually intelligent diologue is violently pompous .

Side: Disagree
1 point

So you've been there, where the apex at the heart of this debate is. And you came to the conclusion you would do anything for your kids. Interesting, yet easily understood.

This is my character flaw, the story you've entailed holds it. I wouldn't know what to do in the situation, but I do feel this drive to protect my kin, as you do. This drive is very prlimal, as you would know. Need I sacrifice my own standards of humanity to protect what I love? Is that not an irony of great vexation?

Side: agree
1 point

It never is something i would like to have to do. Unfortunately i have had a lot of violence in my life , i have also unfortunately witnessed i lot of violence (but i am lucky , i was born and live in Australia), and i unfortunately have caused violence or been violent to various degrees. Sometimes , even worse than this , sometimes i have been violent with no real cause to be so . Sometimes , this has been in the heat of the moment , sometimes out of jealosy , and when i was younger , usually because i was feeling sorry for myself or was rebelling ; On those grounds , the after taste of that violence was of regret or shame. Sometimes i have been violent and thoroughly felt victorious and glorious for the outcome and Sometimes i feel bad inside for feeling those feelings over a violent situation , which i think could be a moral hint that violence is never justified . Sometimes i have just copped the violence because of being , either outnumbered or overpowered . In the case of outnumbered , i just approach each person individually later on , or if i have no choice to take flight , i give it all my best. In the case of overpowered , in one messed up point in my life , i relied upon some even nastier knights on shining armour , they were a little hard core and i regret ever having that gang in my life , talk about grossly violent , ( at one point i actually considered killing two of the people from this gang out of fear of them and their "ownership" on me )(this was a seperate incidence to that in my above post ) im just glad they are out of my life. Also another rival gang to this , i copped a flogging and a half , the guy tried three times to punch my nose through my brain , stuck a bottle in my leg after missing my you know what , he was taking these swings at me as i leant to pick up my bag , kept smacking me back to standing point , once knocking me on my arse. The other burly hard mugs watching couldnt believe i was still standing , between each hit i would say to him " name , dont hit me " , and each blow would get harder as he got angrier that i wouldnt go down. Then he said he was going to kill me , i just grabbed my bag , looked at him and said "on that note i will be leaving , i got 4 kids that want to see me tomorrow." then i legged it out of there. And left them all , these big hard arse mongrels , standing there dumbfounded. Later i bumped into one of there guys and was invited back for an apology ...no doubt i declined. Once i was in a violent relationship , three weeks into moving to a remote town , my then partner got drunk and after watching "once were warriors" forgot he was halfcast kiwi and decided to do the haka on my head. He had me pinned down , sitting on my chest with his knees pinning my arms he just kept hitting and hitting and smashing my head into the slate floor. I just told him to kill me... he stopped long enough for me to escape him , i ran thru bush to the neighbours , who called police . But i had to go back because my kids were there. The police still hadnt arrived , as i was just getting to the kids room he jumped out and kidney punched me , but despite the 30 odd now welts to my face and head and that i was dropped like a bag of shit , i saw my then two young sons and suddenly this surge of agression gave me enough strength to push him backwards from the room and shut the door , barricade it , throw the pram out the window , grab the boys , and hightail it . the cops finally showed 40 minutes later. I still have this gross aftertaste at the thought that i at one point gave up and told him to kill me. That feeling is more gross than the aftertaste of the violence ive caused and regretted. You know i have just realised that i have far too many accounts of violence to recall , if i dont stop writing now then the page will run out. I just want people to be nice , OR ELSE. I dont need pity for any of my experiences , they have all been learning ones , regardless of being bad or good experiences . Here is a funny violence in my life , just to end this post ,on lighter notes. My grandfather use to get all his grandkids in a broken circle ,each end would hold a wire on this little black box contraption that he made. We would wait eagerly as he wound up its handle , then he would let it go and a bell would ring and the handle would unwind and an electrical current would shoot round the circle through the lot of us. Sounds nasty...but we would always go back for more.

Side: agree
1 point

i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my child , even if that resulted in the death of the other person

I would too. and I am arguing on the agree side. How can this be? Am I a hypocrite?

I would justify it to myself in that my intent was purely focused on protecting (if I was stronger I would have more options) and I was forced into the behavior

Thanx for the post

Side: agree
1 point

Hi atypican , Hypocrite ? , i dont know. Thats not for me to say.I dont FEEL you are. Maybe im not hypocritical , maybe i just , am self-critical. I am only a little woman ,not very big , my strength is passion and will. Scared ,I use to put up with so much ,now i find violence offensive , which gives me more strength to deal with each individual situation if it arrises. Anyhow i wont ramble on , i wrote more up above. ps Thanks yourself. :)

Side: agree
1 point

You really can justify anything with anything if you can convince yourself it makes sense =/

Justice is a laughable notion anyway.

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

I guess I sympathize with your cynical sentiment but...

In what sense is the notion of justice laughable? It seems to me that matters of justice tend to be of a most serious nature. Those concerned with justice are about the business of defending rights are they not? Or is the notion of rights laughable too? Trust me if rights precious to you are violated you wont be laughing, you'll either go the cowardice route or you'll seek justice. To further refine my argument: The doing of justice never requires violence. much better than my initial debate title. :) Thanx for the prod.

Side: agree
TyTheTiger(104) Disputed
1 point

Atypican, define justice - in your own words.

.................................................................

Side: Disagree
1 point

I think violence is only just if it's used in defense, I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence. However, it is quite a bit more complicated than that. Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

Ok how about if we think about it in terms of rights. We probably both agree that in general people have a right not to be attacked. Now if someone attacks you, do you think that they (during their attack) retain that "right not to be attacked"? I would bet that you agree with me that they don't. Now is it strange for me to think of violence in terms of what is violated? According to my proposed definition a right must exist for violence to violate.

Side: agree
1 point

I see your point, but violation could be used subjectively. For example, a hobo might feel violated if someone stops him from stealing a loaf of bread that he needs to feed his children. In the eyes of the shop keeper, the hobo stealing the bread is a violation of his/her right to property and ability to make income. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained. In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable. But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated. It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates. I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence. I hope that isn't the case forever.

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence.

Seems like you have your mind made up already. What if there were a non-violent option?

If you have truly understood my point about how the initiator of an attack DOES NOT retain the right to not be attacked then you will be able to see that using forceful or even lethal methods in self defense does not necessarily make those actions violent.

I am arguing for the philosophy of non-violence, which IMO could use to be better articulated.

Just admit that the better a system works the closer it adheres to fundamental principles of non-violence and I won't be forced to relentlessly debate you. :)

Side: agree
1 point

Anyone who Agrees with this unfortunately lives in a fantasy land. Yes it would be awesome if violence didn't exist but wake up. Look thru thousands of pages of history and tell me what happens when you don't stand up to the bully. It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler, get real people

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

Anyone who agrees with what?

Clarify what you don't agree with specifically.

You equate standing up for yourself with violence? violence of what?

As to your statement "It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler"

Well if we had been more clever we could have done it without killing so many innocents don't you think? Is it unrealistic to have non-violence as a goal?

Side: agree
1 point

this is a sad subject, it exists root cause are parents. Raise your kids right

Side: Disagree
atypican(4866) Disputed
1 point

I won't disagree that the root cause is parents. Or that it's a sad subject. Care to comment on why you disgree with the statement that "Violence never serves the cause of justice"?

Side: agree