pacifism is just as bad as warmongering

I will offer a rebuttal and then a closing statement. Rebuttal1. My opponent is wrong to claim that allowing for an atrocity is as bad as instigating the atrocityThe moral equivalence my opponent draws between doing nothing and committing evil runs counter to much of common sense morality. We can draw a distinction between the failure to rescue someone and the willful infliction of harm on others. The latter is usually judged more harshly. This is even seen in our legal system where punishment for purposefully hurting someone is almost always worse than for failing to rescue a person in need (usually stipulated in a Good Samaritan law) (1). In fact, not all states punish a failure to rescue and Good Samaritan laws are often controversial. This just speaks to the shared moral intuition that purposefully doing evil is worse than passively witnessing evil (though in the next point, I will argue that this is not what pacifists do).2. Ignoring the possibility of non-violent resistanceMy opponent is implicitly stating that the only means to resist evil is through the use of violence. This is simply not supported by the historical evidence. Many pacifist movements have used non-violent resistance as a means of overcoming their enemies (2). What's more, non-violence has been successful in several political struggles at achieving political freedom (2).3. Not all ideologies are equalMy opponent draws a moral equivalence between all "extreme ideologies". Why should all extreme ideologies be equally bad? Perhaps some are more destructive than others. It would seem that Nazism, for example, would be more dangerous for society, than say extreme pacifism. As mentioned in my argument in round 2, there are few instances in which pacifism was associated with massive destruction whereas more militaristic cultures and ideologies abound with such examples. As such, I find it hard to believe that an equivalence can be drawn between pacifism and aggressive militarism.4. Failure to provide examples in which pacifism leads to disastrous consequencesOnce again, my opponent has failed to provide historical examples in which pacifism caused disastrous consequences. ClosureMy opponent's original argument was that pacifism is as bad as starting an unjust war. This position is untenable and despite a valiant effort by my opponent, would be very hard to defend even for the strongest debater. First, pacifism is being compared to perhaps once of the worst possible events, a war of aggression. This would mean that pacifism would have to be very bad indeed. However, when we consult the historical record, we find that pacifism has rarely, if ever, resulted in disaster and has frequently resulted in successful resolutions of conflict. In fact, pacifists have done a great deal of good in the world. Second, my opponent seems to be focused on the possibility that a pacifist could stand by and watch an atrocity without helping. With regard to this possibility, my opponent neglects the possibility of non-violent resistance. What's more, they also neglect that even if pacifism was wrong in certain instances, it would still be a large leap to say that it is just as bad as doing evil willfully. In sum, the pros and cons of pacifism can be debated and there may very well be limits to when it should be invoked. However, it is pure hyperbole to say that taking a pacifist stance is as bad starting a war of aggression. Thank you for your time.1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...