Pacifism is a Naive Belief System

BackgroundI've issued this challenge to Cermank based upon a healthy disagreement located in the forums:. http://www.debate.org...(the relevance of this debate to the forum topic of "self-defense" is that "violence is justifiable", which is another interpretation of the root disagreement between me and Cermank)Cermank insists that pacifism, in and of itself, with no other significant factors, is a viable political strategy. I argue that it is a moral platform, and that moral platforms are invariably trumped by realist concerns, including economics and force of arms. I will focus my arguments on one specific quote from Cermank that I do believe succinctly summarizes her position:"Once you have *cause* on your side, you don't need force. "It is clear in this statement the Cermank believes that with a morally compelling stance, that force (what I label the realist considerations of politico-economy) is simply irrelevant. I argue the opposite, that Cermank has it backwards, and that it is politico-economical considerations that matter, and that a morally compelling stance, while certainly morally compelling, is largely irrelevant as a primary mover in international relations. ---I have nothing to hide in regards to how I will argue this as I have been verbose on my views on this topic on multiple threads and debates, so I will simply state exactly how I will go about arguing this now. I will be taking a realist stance on this issue, one that recognizes that force of arms is the primary instrument through which change occurs in the international system. In our modern industrial economy, economic production directly contributes to the veracity of a military force, and so economy is also extremely important to effectual use of arms. I will label this "hard power". I am also cognizant of something called "soft power" which entails much of what Cermank is advocating, but is not limited to simple moral persuasion. Any and all forms of persuasion not linked to force of arms would constitute "soft power" - this would include concepts like moral persuasion, cultural superiority, and higher standard of living. I will note that soft power is materially different than Cermank's position, as soft power does take into account economic factors, whereas Cermank's position on pacifism is purely an appeal to morality. In my view, hard power is primal, soft power is secondary. Without hard power, soft power considerations are irrelevant - one will be impotent in the international arena. Without soft power, one may still (at times very easily) enact change in the international arena. Soft power would then "soften" the innate coercive proclivities of a hard power projection incident, thus making it more palatable to outside observers. This would make power projection more cost effective, as resistance to an outside nation's powers of persuasion would be lessened. This viewpoint is debatable, I merely post it here to explain the mechanics of whatever constitutes my interpretation of realism, which will be my primary argument going forward. If Cermank finds this objectionable, that I am arguing in the first round, then I will remove these comments and reserve them for the next round. Or, she is more than welcome to state a brief overview of her own strategy for this debate in her first round. ---I will also challenge Cermank's sense of morality. I do believe morality is subjective, and that if it is so, then any position based upon a moral standard will be a false standard. ResolutionPacifism is a Naive Belief SystemDefinitionsPacifism - opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Naive - marked by unaffected simplicity; deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. http://www.merriam-webster.com... A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Realism is an international relations theory which states that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(international_relations)Hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive, and is most effective when imposed by one political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power. [1] Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, use force or give money as a means of persuasion. . http://en.wikipedia.org...--- I welcome any additional definitions Cermank may seek to define before this debate begins (i. e. please notify me in comments or in PM of any you would like to add so that we do not debate over too many semantical interpretations). RulesI will adhere to my own standard of NO SCORING on debates I initiate. The main purpose of this debate is to encourage and clarify dialogue and discussion on the matter, and of course to see which position is more compelling. I would like to keep horse-trading and fluff RFDs to a minimum, and would also like to encourage further discussion by the audience by any views they may hold on this subject.