Violence is justified under some instances

I thank Con for challenging me to this debate. My opponent's opening statement consisted largely of rhetoric and contained only one clear contention. I will lay out two arguments of my own before rebutting Con's single contention.ArgumentsArgument #1 - Violence is not inherently immoralViolence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."(1) While this definition may seem largely negative, violence is itself amoral (not to be confused with immoral), meaning that it is not inherently either good or evil. Whether a particular case of violence is moral or not usually depends on the way that the force has been applied and oftentimes the motives behind it.For example, a linebacker's job is to exert force (i.e., use violence) against opposing players. Would anyone say that he is acting immorally in doing so? Of course not. And yet he is employing "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."(2) Because of the context and his motives, the linebacker is morally innocent.It is conceivable, then, that violence is also acceptable in other instances where the motives of the individual using it are pure (e.g., a parent protecting their children).Argument #2 - The principles of pacifism sometimes require violenceI consider myself to be a pacifist. However, I am not a pacifist for the sake of pacifism, but because I place a high value on human life and dignity. So, what do I do when I believe that my non-action will result in greater harm to human life than my use of violence? I intervene. To do otherwise would, ironically, fly in the face of my pacifistic principles.In the words of the famous ethicist and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "It is better to do evil than to be evil."(3) Bonhoeffer was a Christian pacifist who lived in Germany under the Nazi regime. He violated his pacifistic principles and engaged in a conspiracy to kill dictator Adolf Hitler. Although he believed that violence is evil in all cases, he believed that this one action of evil would not make him an evil person, while doing nothing to stop the genocide against the Jewish people would make him evil. Bonhoeffer's book, Ethics, is a solid rebuttal of absolute pacifism for even those who believe that all application of violence is evil.RebuttalRebuttal #1 - Violence always leads to more violenceThis is impossible to prove even with no evidence to the contrary, and it is easily disproven with any number of hypothetical or real-life cases. To give just one example, a Georgia mother defended herself and her two children against a violent intruder.(4) Would Con please explain to me how her use of deadly force led to more violence?Soures1. http://www.who.int...2. http://wgntv.com...3. http://news.psu.edu...4. http://www.examiner.com...