Pacifism is a Naive Belief System

I will dive straight into the rebuttal.RebuttalR1) CON's discussion on whether or not pacifism is possible is baseless. CON's 200 page source is ridiculous. I could source the entire New Testament to support the assertion that "Jesus is the Son of God" or the Quran to support "Muhammad is the Last Prophet" and it would be similarly meaningless.As it stands, a refutation of her examples:a) The Indian independence of 1947 was much more a result of the British being annihilated in WWII than anything Gandhi did. Gandhi began his moral campaign in 1920, yet there was no abdication of power by the British until 27 years later, whereas independence was achieve less than 2 years after the end of WWII, i.e. pacifism was largely irrelevant to Indian independence. [1]b) There were several riots and armed insurrections stemming from Apartheid resistance, so for CON to use this as an example for advocating pacifism is contradictory and actually supports PRO's argument. In fact, Mandela frames Apartheid in the context of violent revolution, as he "described violence as the responsibility of the apartheid regime and said that with democracy there would be no need for violence," thereby justifying the violence of the oppressed. [2] Mandela clearly knew of the limitations of a pacifistic stance.c) I'm not sure how Danish Jews fleeing Denmark is a triumph of pacifism. It simply a case of refugees fleeing from death - there was no "Jewish non-violent resistance" in Denmark. This point is irrelevant to pacifism.R2) CON's discussion of power is simply inaccurate. CON asks "what is power?", yet never defines it. Joseph Nye, who coined the term "soft power," aptly defines it:"Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants, and that can be accomplished in three main ways -- by coercion, payment, [i.e. hard power] or attraction [soft power]." [3]CON believes power "might be moral, or economic, or might be a mix of the two." She is describing soft power. Soft power alone is ineffectual in enacting change...it only makes such change more palatable once enacted. For example, America's takeover of Japan following WWII was heavily reliant upon winning over the emperor of Japan in order to placate the populace (soft power). However, the emperor would have had absolutely no reason to accede to US demands had it not been for Japan's defeat in WWII (hard power).Gandhi advocated a soft power approach in India because he knew that India would lose to Britain in a hard power engagement prior to WWII. It was WWII, when Britain lost most if not all of its hard power capacity, that enabled Gandhi to achieve his goals.In the accompanying video (just the first 5 minutes), Nye describes "smart power" - an approach that combines the methods of hard power and soft power to achieve goals, and recognizes that one needs the other. As already demonstrated through Japan and India above, this theory is easily supported by historical precedent, and is a complete refutation of pacifistic theories, which eschew hard power.http://www.youtube.com...R3) CON asks "why would a non violent struggle be more effective than a violent one?" and then proffers four answers:1) CON states that "Those who threaten based on violence are relying on the fear of people," and then readily admits that "walking unarmed into a grenade mine/ machine gun system is but one of the strategy that Pacifists can use. There are other, often more effective solutions." CON refutes her own point here - people who threaten violence will indeed carry out the threat. If life is not important to you, then by all means use this "tactic".2) CON believes that "revolting using the oppressors [sic] weapon of choice...is ineffective for the obvious reasons," failing to explain why the American Revolution succeeded, the French Revolution following, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc..., even though they were using the "oppressors [sic] weapon of choice", i.e. force of arms.3) When CON says "violence begets violence" and that "it legitimates further violence", all she is talking about is setting a precedent. For example, I set a precedent for brushing my teeth in the morning whenever I brush my teeth in the morning. "Brushing my teeth begets further brushing of my teeth".The real question CON is posing is "is violence immoral?" CON has already unequivocally conceded in her opening that she will lose the moral argument, hence we have absolutely no reason to think that "violence begets violence" is in any way wrong or unacceptable. CON must first demonstrate that violence is immoral for this point to have any validity.I have already demonstrated that violence is pervasive, and that to abolish violence is to abolish life. Therefore, CON's statement "violence begets violence" is synonymous with the statement "life begets life."If you think "life is good", then "violence is good", which means that all CON is saying here is that "good begets good".Now, if you're a pacifist, then you think that "violence is bad", which means that "life is bad". Of course the only solution to such a quandary to life is that we all kill ourselves now and never procreate. This is absolutely and utterly ridiculous, as is the advocacy for pacifism in general.As I have asked CON countless times, is she advocating mass suicide with her ideology? If she continues to dodge the question, I will answer it myself - of course she is, she and anyone else who holds pacifism as a core belief is just too naive to realize it. I don't mean this to be insulting; this statement is the focal point of this resolution, and it was CON in the forum discussions that challenged me on the point of naivety...I did not bring it up originally.4) CON believes that "Violence excludes a lot of people from the struggle," which totally ignores my point about auto-workers switching to manufacturing humvees and tanks being intrinsically and definitionally "violent", along with the restaurants that feed them, etc. CON already agrees with PRO that people who do not fire a gun (generals, politicians, etc) are still considered violent. Thus, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be "excluded" from participatory violence.R4) a) CON's strategy and chart is reliant upon a definition of power; I addressed this in [R2].b) CON's use of Hitler's propaganda is an example of German soft power, which would have been totally and utterly ineffectual without the German war machine and the economy that fueled it. One must keep in mind that when Hitler was elected, Germany was at the brink of collapse - it had already experienced hyperinflation, and was looking at 30%+ unemployment rates. Germany was also being economically suffocated by the Treaty of Versailles, and France had invaded parts of Germany in response to German defaults on debt. [4]Hitler solved all of these economic problems, rebuilt the German military, and reasserted German national pride during a time when Germany had no pride. Had it not been for the Holocaust, Hitler would have been regarded as someone rivaling FDR in regards to the accomplishments one statesman could do for his or her country.Indeed JFK for one lauded Hitler despite JFK's awareness of rampant anti-Semitism in Germany. [5]c) I already addressed British India in my [R1] and [R2] rebuttals.R5) On violence, CON even goes so far as to say that "Just because our existence is violent, (and according to the definition provided, it is) that doesn't divide the world in a yay or nay revolution strategies. THAT would be rather naive..." This statement is a direct refutation of CON's own case. I agree that "yay or nay revolution strategies" are inherently naive, and indeed pacifism advocates a firm, unequivocal "nay" on violence. Right here, CON concedes this debate. Pacifism is indeed naive, and this according to CON.R6) On the scenario, CON does not seem to understand that people are going to die regardless of whether or not pacifism is adopted. There simply isn't enough food to feed everyone. Therefore, it is impossible to "give any of your extra produce" because there is no extra produce to give. To give at all would result in death.a) PRO/CON agree that libertarianism realizes this predicament and prioritizes the property rights of Salmonville, thus killing off all of Agri-town as well as the farming technology they may have. This is not optimal and is highly impractical.b) Realism acknowledges that both sides must make impossible decisions, and that these decisions will result in war.c) The pacifist is oblivious to this reality, and thinks that by giving food that one cannot afford to give, life will turn out just fine. This is naive.ConclusionC1) CON's case hinges on whether or not one believes that "violence is wrong". If it is, then her pacifistic solutions would bear closer examination. As it stands, CON does not make a moral case, therefore there's nothing inherently wrong with violence, and so there is no inherent reason to advocate pacifism. To do so would be naive. C2) CON largely ignores my philosophical assertion that violence is pervasive, and to live is indeed to be violent - the two are inseparable. To insist upon a separation of violent and non-violent behavior through an advocacy of pacifism demonstrates extreme naivety of this simple fact. C3) PRO does not put a moral qualifier on violence. Realism is bereft of moral judgment. For PRO, it is a simple recognition of force <-> counterforce. It's that simple. Violence is neither "good" nor "bad". [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.macrohistory.com...[3] http://www.foreignpolicy.com...[4] http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...[5] http://hnn.us...