Gandhi is bad. - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

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 | 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.


The best online Debate website -! 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!

Gandhi is bad.
in Politics

By FascismFascism 337 Pts
Gandhi is way too peaceful. He was also racist against Africans. 
  1. Opinion on Gandhi

    8 votes
    1. He was good
    2. He was normal
    3. He was bad

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • I am not sure if their was a limit to peacefulness considering the positive impact of peace.
    DebateIslander and a lover. 
  • @joecavalry
    Gandhi addressed Hitler as "Dear friend" and pleaded for him to stop. This obviously didn't work. When dealing with people like Hitler, you don't use peace and call him "dear friend". Sometimes violence is the solution to combat violence. I'm not saying that it was bad to ask Hitler politely to stop, but if he doesn't listen, you should accept the fact that you have to use violence. Gandhi couldn't accept the fact that violence is sometimes the answer. 

    He claimed to have experienced what the general public and the poor experience, but the truth is, he didn't. He took off his clothes and lived without a house, but he wasn't killed because the British were scared of angering the public. However, the British weren't scared to kill normal people as much. Gandhi was famous and was safe from the British. He didn't experience what his followers experienced. Peace worked out for him, but many people around him died being peaceful, without fighting back. 

    Even Buddhists accept the fact that when defending yourself, sometimes violence is the answer. Today they are fighting against the Chinese. 

    There are situations such as the Civil Rights Movement where peace is better than violence, but in situations such as Chinese oppression, violence is the answer. 
  • NopeNope 346 Pts
    Fascism He was raciest agents Africans. Well he is better then the a lot of people during that time. So he field to stop Hitler. Well he accomplish more good then most every one ever. It took a large group to take down Hitler. You are not being fair to him. Compare him to every one and he turns in to a great person in comparison. Your also only look at flaws. Ignoring the good will of course lead us to think he is a bad person. Come back with a better argument.
  • NopeNope 346 Pts
    That was fun. Can't wait to read your reply. : )
  • NopeNope 346 Pts
    Well I can wait but it is a figure of speech. I am exited to read your reply.
  • @Nope
    I agree that if you only look at the flaws of someone then you are biased and you have to look at the good things too. If the good things outweigh someone's bad things, then that person is probably good. If the bad things outweigh someone's good things, then that person is probably bad. 

    What I'm trying to say is that you can't make an argument like this:

    Person 1: Hitler was bad because he did genocide. 
    Person 2: You're only looking at the bad things. He removed the economic depression Germany was in. You have to look at the good things too. 

    Of course Gandhi was no where near Hitler in evilness, but I think that Gandhi still did more harm than good to India. 
  • Fascism O Well you only mention quality's of him. You should mention negative vs positive impacts.
  • Gandhi helped spread peace and make a better environment possibly. I don’t believe he had many negative aspects.
  • @Nope
    Most of the time the qualities matter more than the impacts. Because of Lenin, Stalin came to power. Does that mean Lenin is responsible for Stalin's purges? No. 

    Gandhi had bad impacts as well. He was the reason the first tensions between Muslims and Hindus occurred because of Gandhi. Gandhi also supported Nehru being PM. Nehru was a communist who implemented socialism in India. Gandhi could've chose someone else. Nehru also supported the separation of India into Muslim and Hindu states. Without Gandhi and Nehru then Pakistan and India might still be united. The reason Muslims disliked the Hindus was because of Gandhi not listening to them. He purposely favored Hindus more because he viewed them as more peaceful. He also supported the execution of many Muslim leaders who fought against the British. Beforehand the Muslims and the Hindus weren't as hateful of each other. He is forgiving of Hitler when he declares war on other countries, but not forgiving against Muslims who are fighting for freedom. Because of him the British rule was prolonged as well. 
  • @northsouthkorea
    Too much peace. 
  • Fascism I am aware quality is important. I just mentioned it because your claim was he had a bad impact on Indira. There is parallelism between Gandhi and Lenin and Nehru and Stalin from what you just mentioned. Also when compared to many others people during that time what you mentioned is common in a person back then. Most people fall victim to tribalism. That does not make them bad. : )
  • FascismFascism 337 Pts
    edited November 2017
    "There is parallelism between Gandhi and Lenin and Nehru and Stalin from what you just mentioned. "
    I know. That's why I'm saying qualities are more important. 

    Although there was parallelism between Gandhi and Lenin, there was still a difference between Lenin and Gandhi. Lenin didn't want Stalin to be the new leader of the Soviet Union and he tried to warn the party to not appoint him. Gandhi knew the bad qualities of Nehru, but he was the one who appointed him leader. He rejected other candidates and chose the bad one in particular, even though he knew about is incompetence and willingness to separate India. 

    I'm not saying Gandhi was not a good person when I mean "Gandhi is bad." I mean that Gandhi is just bad at things. He isn't competent. He isn't competent to preach about good morals. He has huge flaws in his philosophies. I agree that his mentality was common back then, which is why I don't like him. He was just as good as a normal person back then. He doesn't deserve the recognition he does. There are other Indians who fought to the death and united India instead of separating it. Why can't they be the father of India? 
  • Fascism He lead a movement. A movement in which many today support. Why? I don't know.
  • @Nope
    It's because they don't know. They see the word "peace" and they assume he is good, but all he really did was extend the amount of time the British occupied India, and split up India into three parts after its independence. 
  • The problem with pacifism is that pacifism lacks the property of stability. What I mean by that is the following. Imagine a society consisting of pacifists only. Now, add one person to this society who is not a pacifist. That person will be able to easily exploit this society, by employing violence in order to get what they want from people, and not facing any violent action in return. In a way, one non-pacifist can wreak havoc in a society of pacifists. Another way to phrase it is that pacifist societies do not have checks and balances.

    Pacifism can work for a given individual, however, if that individual limits their exposure to instances of violence as much as possible. Gandhi was after changing the entire society, however, and in such cases pacifism simply does not work. 

    As for whether Gandhi was "bad"... Depends on the perspective. Gandhi was fighting for independence from the British empire - but when that independence came, it turned out that India lacked a proper alternative in mind. The British India featured a higher quality of life for the average Indian, than independent India. 
    At the same time, Indians became free from the colonial rule. The British empire was not particularly concerned with rights of the Indian population, so, at least, for some Indians life became much easier and freer than before.

    My outlook has always been this: "If you cannot rule your land well by yourself, then you need a rule by someone who can". In this context, British empire is a better ruler of India, than Indian population itself. At the same time, not ruling your land means you are not in control over your life, and if the ruling entity decides to take action against you, you will not be able to defend yourself. Which one is more important is very situational.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | 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
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch