Pacifism

My first debate after getting back from my suspension! =D Oh Joy! I thank J.Kenyon for suggesting we debate this topic and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll probably lose seeing as I'm in a very small minority on this one. I gladly accept the burden of proof in this debate. I am arguing in favor of Pacifism and my opponent is arguing against it. I'm going to go right ahead and start. === DEFINITIONS === 1. Pacifism: paciï¿½fism . noun Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. [1] 2. Violence: viï¿½oï¿½lence . noun Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence. [2] Note: I shall also add that this is violence specifically towards humans. Not in-animate objects or animals. The "why" shall not be a discussion point. === ARGUMENTS === 1. Violence usually causes more violence. Whether you believe a certain act of violence to be propagated righteously or not, there is no denying that it is likely to be both caused by aggression from at-least one party and also to in-sight more of such on both sides. I contend that this anger, more often than not, leads to further violence and it would be better to institute pacifism in such a scenario in-order to prevent this disastrous chain-effect which is so often repeated. I have come to the realization that cool-headed and rational negotiation is a more effective tool in disputes that would other-wise unfold into such a mess. Which leads into my next argument. 2. Negotiation would be more effective at solving disputes than violence. It's more effective for a few reasons. Firstly, as I've described, it would be less likely to lead to an outcome that would increase the harm done to both sides than would other-wise be if no violence(or no further violence) was inflicted. If violence is initiated and someone does not stop escalating the violence then we will have exactly that; a continued escalation of violence and thus more harm to everyone involved. Secondly, it should actually be more effective at resolving the conflict. I think it's fair to assume that this debate will be largely about whether there is larger justification for retaliatory violence than Pacifism. So lets assume you're being attacked by someone; a mugger. If this mugger has consciously chosen to to attack you then the chances are they are larger, stronger and/or better armed. This means it is more likely that they will win in a fight. So let me ask; what is your best bet for resisting the mugging? Violence or negotiation? 3. Compassion can turn an enemy into a friend. Your enemy is usually expecting you to fight back. To meet them with compassion would be shocking. And the shock value is part of what can get them. To decide not stoop down to their level by returning the mindless violence they perpetuate toward you and rather meet them with soft words or even an act of kindness will be very likely to change most people. There are few who would continue to harm someone who meets them with kindness and make themselves a villain in their own minds. You see, the average criminal does not see themselves as the bad-guy, as any criminal-psychologist will tell you. They just see themselves as someone trying to get by, like everyone else, possibly trying to sustain a family. Sure, this may be a very distorted view, but it matters what they think. Because once you open their eyes to their own evil, they will be very open to having mercy on you. Fighting back will actually only justify their actions in their own minds. They will think "it's just survival of the fittest". And this feeds into the never ending cycle of self-perpetuating violence in the pathetic social order we seem to have. 4. The attitude of Pacifism brings happiness. Since I've became a pacifist I've felt really good about myself, better than usual. And I'm not the only one, nor is this by any off chance. It is because becoming Pacifist has pumped my brain full of awesome stuff, one of the most important things being Oxytocin. Oxytocin is "the togetherness hormone". Which neurologists believe promotes trust, social-bonding, nurturing, relaxation, comfort and feelings of love. I contend that if Pacifism became a larger social-movement we would see a lot less crime. We are now discovering that are brains are hard-wired for Altruism. We are definitely social animals and the act of changing you're attitude to say you shall harm no one will really make a positive mark on how you feel, I assure you. And lets face it, chances are you're actually NOT going to run into a mugger. Most people don't. I'd say it's definitely in your rational self-interest to be a pacifist. [3,4,5,6,7,8,9] Please see sources. === SOURCES === 1. http://education.yahoo.com... 2. http://education.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 4. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 5. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 6. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 7. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.moodraiser.com...