Are violent protests a legitimate way of producing change?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
If King Donald fires Mueller, you can expect the fecal matter to hit the rotary air mover! That will be to take OUR COUNTRY BACK and stop its progression to an authoritarian banana republic. Putin is the REAL leader of our country, at the moment, just as he planned it. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Can you think of any examples of when violent protests have worked? At what point does it become absolutely necessary and why? Violence is the only method humanity has figured out to change the balance of power, because people don't (or at least rarely) give up power freely. Even in America all you really have is a smokescreen to disguise the problem. I promise you it's still there. Side: Yes
The difference between a nonviolent social movement and a violent social movement is just one too many abuses by the powers that be putting them over the edge to get violent. And the difference between a violent social movement and a revolution is just crossing an invisible threshhold to all out war. That's not to say we should just jump straight to violence. A lot can be accomplished with nonviolence. But nonviolence depends to a large extent on the society having some form of civil rights and checks and balances on power. Nonviolent protest would have done nothing to stop ISIS or a dictator. Side: Yes
|
2
points
Violent protests should never be okay. Ever. There are laws against that, and they are there for a reason. Have you ever heard the saying "fight fire with fire"? If you are going against something- and you go to their level or worse- you are fighting fire with fire. And you are burning everything down around you- including whatever it was you were fighting for. Destroying property, assaulting people, and generally wreaking havoc are not ways to get your point across. Screeching to the heavens is not a good way to get your point across either. Peaceful marches! Calm debate! Those work wonders. And if you know what you fight for well enough, you can shoot down any protest or argument because you are right and know how to counter anything. Since I know most won't believe me, consider this: if someone came through and wrecked your home, what would you do? Would you listen to why they broke your home to pieces? My answer's no. Because they are criminals, and people generally don't listen to criminals. Or they scoff at them. If you violently protest, what will people consider you? Insane, a terrorist, and a criminal, to start. The only thing you'll achieve with violent protest is disbelief and a resistance to what you believe in. Side: No
1
point
Destroying property, assaulting people, and generally wreaking havoc are not ways to get your point across. Screeching to the heavens is not a good way to get your point across either. I would love to agree with you but this is not reality. Almost every major change in the world has happened after some form of violence. Peaceful marches! Calm debate! Those work wonders. Again, I would love to agree with you, but this is not reality. People who campaign against things like homelessness and child poverty are self-evidently in the right. These things should not be happening. In these circumstances, debate only enables the liars and the excuse-makers opportunity to convince people that these problems are regrettable, but necessary. Debate is counterproductive. I'm not trying to be negative. I would love for what you say to be true, but I feel it is idealism. The actuality is that, as the majority have become more articulate and politically aware, so the powerful have developed a pseudo-language of lies and half-truths to derail the inevitable result of intellectual debate. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I would love to agree with you but this is not reality. Almost every major change in the world has happened after some form of violence And much of said "change" was bad. Example? Your boy Hitler got just a weee little bit violent, and then... Stalin got violent...and then... Mao got violent...and then... Prisoners in a prison got violent...and then... The rapist got violent...and then... The thought police rounded up all liberals with violence...and then... Side: No
1
point
(Coming back after like sixteen days. Anyway.) The main reason violent protests work is that fear is a driving factor. People join the cause not because they believe in it, but because they fear that whatever violent thing that is happening will happen to them. Almost every major change in the world has happened after some form of violence. Perhaps. But they were bad changes. Anyway, do the revolutions led by Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez mean anything to you? All were non-violent- and they worked. Boycotts and strikes worked. Non-violent ones at that. And do the changes invoked by the Bolsheviks, Taliban, Nazis, and others mean anything to you? Side: No
|
