CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
3
Yes No
Debate Score:7
Arguments:8
Total Votes:7
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (3)

Debate Creator

judgemaster(265) pic



Is violence a better means of getting your voice heard?

Nowadays, people do not listen to folk who try to get their voice in through persuation. However, they wag their tails and listen to every word of men who are violent and strong.

Does this mean that violence is the new method of getting your voice heard?

Yes

Side Score: 4
VS.

No

Side Score: 3

It is easier to be noticed by using violence, but in my opinion it often hurts ones cause more than it helps.

Side: Yes
judgemaster(265) Clarified
1 point

So, is it better or worse than the use of non-violence?

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: Yes
wardogninja(1789) Clarified
1 point

If you are trying to communicate with people and want to try to convince them of something, non-violence is better.

Side: Yes

With my personal experience, I think it is gaining over non-violence.

Side: Yes
1 point

Sometimes you have to pin someone down to make them listen, whether it be mentally, financially or physically.

Side: Yes
1 point

Only if they're arguing with humans of a lower mind set. Ones that can't handle a real argument.

Side: No
1 point

Violence is only the better means when you have no other options. If you live somewhere where you have the privilege of being able to organize, protest, and express yourself then violence is the weaker option and is at least as likely to backfire as it is to help your cause.

Side: No

I don't believe in violence but the Media sure loves to report about it.

Side: No