Violence Solves Everything - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

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!

Violence Solves Everything
in Philosophy

By VaulkVaulk 576 Pts edited September 2017
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. Live Poll

    Does violence solve anything?

    37 votes
    1. Yes
      54.05%
    2. No
      45.95%
"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 +



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.  
    SilverishGoldNovaVaulknatbaronsZombieguy1987
    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.
    DrCerealcheesycheese
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • 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.
    cheesycheese
  • VaulkVaulk 576 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 576 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.
    DrCereal
    "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.
  • @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. 
  • @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".


  • To those who disagree with the OP...Since logic and history do not convince you, I challenge you to a duel to the death. Don't you think that would resolve the argument?
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 233 Pts
    edited July 2018
    Depends on what you call "solve" and what you consider the problem to be. Let's say you got in an argument on which economic system is better. Your opponent presented actual arguments then you beat the out of him. Problem "solved"? Is your system better now? Yeah, you succesfully made the other person shut up but was that the main problem here?

     Let's say you decide to ban food. Any food at all. People say everyone will die without food so you make them shut up by using your amazing karate skills. So, did you solve "the problem"? Yes you solved one of your problems, which was those people talking but will you not starve now? What are you gonna do, act violent against the very rules of our universe to survive?

     Violence solves problems, yes, but did it solve the real problem?
  • Also, if you define a "problem" as "the well-being of humans being harmed" even though violence solves one of your problems, it will inevitably create another.
  • Mr_BombasticMr_Bombastic 110 Pts
    edited July 2018
    @AlexOland
    Bottom line. There are two sides that disagree. If one side is killed, the disagreement is over. One side wins. That is what is meant by violence solving things. It works every time. Ask the Nazi's. Ask the ancient Romans. Ask the Japanese who had to bend over and take it up the *ss after we dropped the BOMBS. Violence has solved more problems than anything else. That's a fact.
  • VaulkVaulk 576 Pts
    I think there's some recent misunderstandings about what this debate covers.  There is no assumption, conclusion or otherwise argument that Violence as a solution to a problem will not inevitably create more problems.  The main argument here is that Violence stands as the most effective and most popular choice of problem solving across history and more importantly that the statement "Violence doesn't solve anything" is so incredibly and offensively wrong that it's insulting to suggest that it's true.
    "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 As I said, in the quote: "violence doesn't solve anything." the meaning of "solve" is handled differently. When there is a disagreement, you can kill the other side and you can view this is "solving" the problem. But some people will see this as only transferring the problem into another problem.

     " If one side is killed, the disagreement is over. One side wins. That is what is meant by violence solving things." I talked about this. If you define "solve" and "problem" in that particular way, yeah. You "solved" the "problem". But if you ask me, "the problem" was not the disagreement. The problem was the cause of the disagreement and that cause remains whether you kill or torture the other side.

     "My mom was saying that I should get off the computer and study. So I murdered her." yes, you solved a problem. But you did not solve "the problem".  

     Lastly, how you define "solve" and what you consider "the problem" to be is what is important here. I am not claiming that your views are invalid. I am only explaining what people mean by: "Violence doesn't solve anything."
  • VaulkVaulk 576 Pts
    @AlexOland

    I can see where you're coming from however, the statement "Violence doesn't solve anything" doesn't include any such reference to problem solving...the statement is broad stroked and generalized and specifically includes "ANYTHING".  The argument isn't that "Violence can't solve a problem" the argument is against the statement "Violence doesn't solve anything".
    "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".


  • Violence solves some things, but not everything. It may solve problems for the winner, but it creates problems for the loser. It solves as much as it creates.
  • ale5 said:
    @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.  
    Do not forget that Native Americans fought with other Native Americans, so the violence by the European settlers was not worse than what the native inhabitants were doing prior to their arrival.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1451 Pts
    Violence is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used effectively for the positive outcome, or misused for the negative outcome.

    The usage of any tool must be considered in context. If I tell you that yesterday I killed a person who was running away from me with a rifle shot, you might think me a monster - but if I add that that person first killed my daughter with a knife and then ran away from me towards my other daughter, and shooting him was the only way to save her, then your evaluation of my action will probably change substantially. In this case, I employed violence to prevent more violence. Is it justified? Depends on the moral system the individual follows.

    The sentiment that "violence does not solve anything" (usually clarified with "violence breeds violence"), while a good sentiment overall to abide, misses the fact that whether violence exists in the world does not depend solely on us. If there is already violence ongoing, then it is likely to grow and expand, unless stopped - typically by counter-violence. Fighting Nazis in a war definitely employed a lot of violence, but imagine how much violence there would be in the world nowadays had they not been fought in a war. Violence that is not properly tackled has a potential to consume everything. And the more violence remains unaddressed, the more difficult it becomes to address it in the future, as violence tends to breed naturally.

    For the same reason, "violence solves everything" also is incorrect. Suppose my friend dies. No amount of violence can solve the problem of me having a dead friend. Violence can solve some problems, although, as @AlexOland justly noted above, violence solving a problem sometimes may be an illusion, as that problem is a part of the bigger whole, which, in fact, is only worsened by the act of violence.
    George_HorseAlexOland
  • Violence does solve some things, but not "everything". There are many problems that can be solved in a peaceful manner. War has solved many problems, had it not been for violence, or combat, World War II might have not occurred, and Hitler along with Mussolini and Hirohito might have achieved their objectives. It would have been the same for other wars, in the Korean War, if we did not help push back the North Communist Koreans and Chinese, the entire peninsula would have probably been communist ruled up to this current time. But for other things, violence cannot solve the problem:

      Example 1: the typical school bully, what shall his victim do? He has tried to report the bully the teachers and school, yet they have not done anything, so his victim resorts to violence, though the violence does not particularly stop his bully, but to make him only angerier.

      Example #2: A wife and husband are in a argument and cannot come to a resolution, how should the problem be resolved? By violence? In which the husband brutally assaults his wife?

      Example #3: A loud neighbor is playing music too loud, you ask for him to keep the volume down, but he denies your request, what shall happen next? Shall violence be used to solve the problem?


    AlexOland
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • VaulkVaulk 576 Pts
    Violence does solve some things, but not "everything". There are many problems that can be solved in a peaceful manner. War has solved many problems, had it not been for violence, or combat, World War II might have not occurred, and Hitler along with Mussolini and Hirohito might have achieved their objectives. It would have been the same for other wars, in the Korean War, if we did not help push back the North Communist Koreans and Chinese, the entire peninsula would have probably been communist ruled up to this current time. But for other things, violence cannot solve the problem:

      Example 1: the typical school bully, what shall his victim do? He has tried to report the bully the teachers and school, yet they have not done anything, so his victim resorts to violence, though the violence does not particularly stop his bully, but to make him only angerier.

      Example #2: A wife and husband are in a argument and cannot come to a resolution, how should the problem be resolved? By violence? In which the husband brutally assaults his wife?

      Example #3: A loud neighbor is playing music too loud, you ask for him to keep the volume down, but he denies your request, what shall happen next? Shall violence be used to solve the problem?


    Example # 1
    Answer: In the case where the Teachers and School administers have done "Nothing" as you clearly indicated, as unlikely as that is in today's world, the victim shall call upon the assistance of local law enforcement who, by threat of violence, shall uphold the law by either bringing punitive action against the perpetrator through the use of force and subsequently the act of violence through use of force or threaten the perpetrator and/or the perpetrator's legal guardians with punitive action...again enforceable by threat of violence through the use of force.

    Violence is the answer.

    Example # 2
    Answer: No the Husband and Wife should not by all rationale resort to using violence against one another directly.  This however does not eliminate the use of violence in this case, the Husband and Wife are both protected under law from abuse from one another, protection under the law that will be enforced with violence through the use of force should one or the other require it.  The knowledge that the law stands as it is and that law enforcement will exact violence upon either of them is largely what maintains law and order within the United States.  This, of course, is not the same in every single case but is largely the case overall in the vast majority of cases.  One might argue that most people don't behave with civility because of the threat of punishment under the law but this argument stands upon the conclusion that laws aren't necessary in one way or another...which is absurd for obvious reasons.

    Example # 3
    Answer: Yes, violence should be used to solve the problem.  You call the police, they show up with guns and use the threat of violence through use of force under enforcement of the law and gain compliance from your neighbors.  There's a widespread misconception that just because you didn't raise your own fist in violence against someone that you are somehow detached from and innocent of using violence against someone to solve a problem.  This is wishful thinking at best and in all honesty it's classical denial of the truth.

    Calling upon someone to exact violence on your behalf does not absolve you of the use of violence and does not change the fact that the use of violence in these examples was the proximate cause of the solution.  As I might have pointed out before, even Martin Luther King Jr. used violence to solve problems, he took his protesters to places he knew wouldn't tolerate Black people and protested openly with the foreknowledge that they would be attacked and USED that occurrence to further his support and to further rally political motivation to change the law.  MLK used violence to solve problems...he just didn't use it directly.
    George_Horse
    "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".


  • Violence is not used in golf.
    Violence is not used in disk golf.
    Violence is not used in gardening.
    Violence is not used in the scientific process.
    Violence is not used on debate island.

    Using violence in any of these and many other things will solve NOTHING!!!!!!
    So, violence doesn't solve everything.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Vaulk So you truly believe that violence can solve any problem? Another example: A car fails to start, shall violence be used to solve the car's problem? 
    Zombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • "@Vaulk

    I made a valid point, and you didn't address it. I have proven to you that violence doesn't solve everything. Have the decency to concede properly!!!!!
  • If violence solved everything the nuclear holocaust would've happened before the 1990's
    George_Horse
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • AMERICA F**K YEAH
    FREEDOM IS THE ONLY WAY YEAH

    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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