CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
10
yes nada
Debate Score:15
Arguments:16
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (4)
 
 nada (8)

Debate Creator

shivi(22) pic



is non violence still a better weapon in 21st century???

will there be seriously a great revolution born with aid of non violence, or has it become one of the old days talk?

yes

Side Score: 5
VS.

nada

Side Score: 10
1 point

nonviolence is always the best weapon and with the advances it becomes a better and better option. I can site many reasons why this is the case.

1. the most important and most prominent reason in the world today is the backlash from an over reaction in force. look at the college students that got pepper sprayed at The UC Davis pepper-spray incident here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/pepper-spray-cop-uc-davis-compensation) the backlash from that video voiced the cause that they had to lower the costs of college.

2. with the technology today an armed rebellion in the united states even if well armed would stand little to no chance against the government of any 1st world nation. a single tank would render armaments of nearly any well armed rebellion.

3.and three the attacking group would be labeled a sleeper cell terrorist organization and the news agencies that should be on your side would spread fear and unite the country against you. this is called propaganda. it was used in WWII to unite Germany against the jews

Side: yes
3 points

it depends on what your opponent plans to use ....................................................................................................................................................

Side: nada
shivi(22) Disputed
2 points

an eye for an eye will make the world blind!

bob marley was shot before his concert 'smile jamaica' in '76. by your perspective he would ended up canceling the show and who knows if he found who the man was, he should have shot him as well. but he still performed the show and when questioned he said-

"there are people out their who do not rest a single day to make this place hell, so how could i rest to make it a better place."

Side: yes

No. My personal opinion is that humanity itself is naturally violent.

If a person attacks me, I'm naturally going to fight back.

Side: nada
1 point

Non-violence is not a weapon. Non violence is not violating rightful boundaries. It is honoring agreements instead of dishonoring them. If we hope to cultivate non-violence, we need non-violent governments. If we want non-violent governments we have to stop acquiescing to violence. The misconception that non-violence entails cowardice, and passive acceptance of injustice needs to be dispelled, before anything revolutionary will come from it as a philosophy. Being non-violent need not mean passively accepting things the way they are, or putting up with institutional injustice. It could mean creating solutions instead of trying to destroy problems, or being "creatively maladjusted" to paraphrase MLK.

Side: nada
1 point

people have become ignorant of other people's feelings. while Gandhi Ji, and other persons did get a lot done out of non violence, people today are extremely self obsessed and do not care in general about the guilt trips.

Side: nada
1 point

people have become ignorant of other people's feelings. while Gandhi Ji, and other persons did get a lot done out of non violence, people today are extremely self obsessed and do not care in general about the guilt trips.

Side: nada

I have NEVER heard of nun violence. Nuns are very nice people. It is bad for you to disparage nuns and try to give them a bad name. But if there was such a thing as nun violence, the Chuck Norris of nun violence would be Mother Teresa. She could kick poor ass like nobody's business.

BTW, I just realized that you misspelled nun. It is spelled with a 'u' not an 'o.' That must have been punishment for suggesting that nuns are violent and will continue to be violent in the foreseeable future. I would not be surprised if you end up burning in Hell for your blasphemy.

Have a good day ;)

Side: nada
1 point

There has never been a clean revolution. There has been some without blood spilt but in the end one party or the other will start spilling blood.

Side: nada
0 points

Non-violence has never been a better weapon, even just your fists are a better weapon than non-violence.

Side: nada
shivi(22) Disputed
1 point

well it certainly had been a great weapon in previous decades. india got its independence under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi who followed non violence all throughout his life. but i'm not sure the same would work in today's age. i do not doubt the power of non violence, but i'm certain that the hands using this weapon have shortened.

Side: yes
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

india got its independence under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi who followed non violence all throughout his life.

Would you please elaborate on this point?

Side: yes
dalodus(31) Clarified
1 point

Mahatma Gandhi was a political leader of India who used non violent protests to free the country of India from imperialist English rule. He inspired a country to gain its freedom without wasting lives. he is a hero and one of the greatest men who ever lived. is that a good enough clarification?

Side: yes
dalodus(31) Disputed
1 point

non-violence freed the country of India from the rule of England as well as desegregated the USA. Tienanmen square caused shock waves around the world that helped spread the idea of capitalism being superior to Communism. Violence only works in specific situations as a last resort.

Side: yes
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I see, I looked into it and it seems to be pretty complected, but non-violence does seem to play a large part.

This leaves one question though, had they had superior violent weapons to use against The British Empire and Muslim League, would it have been more effective than non-violence. This could be measured by comparing the outcome that would have been most favorable for India to the outcome they received.

Side: yes