Pacifism is a Naive Belief System

It was enjoyable for me. I'll go through the select contentions Pro contested, and then go on to provide a summary of the debate. R7) I'm sorry Pro couldn't comprehend the argument. In layman terms, the point was that the war relied on dynamics that the Pacifist position already recognizes- and could have achieved without killing the millions of people. And afflicting them with cancer to date. The mechanisms that could have been used to counter Japan had been outlined in all the previous two rounds. Then there was questioning of the entire premise of the war, which could have been easily avoided had people responded to the killing of the archduke in a different way. Just because something happened in the history in a certain way doesn't mean that was the best course of action. R8) Mandela was a person. His opinions weren't infallible. Responding to an analysis of the entire dynamics of the Apartheid revolution by forwarding the opinions of a person is just an appeal to authority. It is equivalent to me saying that because Gandhi said independence can be achieved through non violence, it is true. Even when you provide me with the facts to the contrary. R9) Pro here merely reiterates his point. When British came to India, it was an asset to them. Had there been no non-violent movement, British would have used India as a balancing stick. Pro could have (and I was certainly expecting him to) argue that the same could have been achieved through violence- but violence would have lead to scores of death, brutal clampdowns, and extinguishing of the economic powerhouse of India, making it all the more difficult for India to stand up after British left. It would have left India like Pakistan, to draw a parallel. Pakistan WAS a result of a violent uprising to secure the interests of the Muslim population. R10) Again, I'm a little let down that Pro resorted to merely repeating his points rather than engaging. One of the defining powers of a non violent movement is that it encompasses a larger population into the struggle. It WASN'T about Jews vs Nazis in Denmark, it was Denmark against the Nazis, which is exactly the power of adding people's conscience into the revolution. Jews were a small minority, they could never have won even a violent revolution. [Something Pro did accept in the discussion which started the debate]. R11) Not sure which starvation Pro is referring to here, but I'm going to assume he is referring to the scenerio. I that, Pacifist solution does NOT lead to killing of people, whereas the realist would. Since the war that started with being a fight for food would almost definitely transform to a fight for revenge. Pacifist solution leads to availing of fuds from a third party and sustaing themselves for a short while till the flood subsides- and then going back to how things were before. Then he goes on a bit about morality, which I'll address in the summary. R12) A little pot- kettle thing here, but I'll let the audience decide this one. SummaryThe debate started with Pro asserting that since our existence is inherently violent, any belief system based on us eschewing violence is inherantly contradictory and hence, naive. I contended the violence, as described, was all encompassing, and so stating that all types of violence were justified just because our existence it violent (according to a broad definition) was what was naive. It is similar to saying that just because we are omnivores, being against cannibalism is naive. There are different degrees of violence, and Pacifism recognizes that. Pro also in the last round accuses the defence of not defining violence. Which was perplexing, since I have defined violence in context of Pacifism in both the rounds: Round 3: ". .. What violence entails in Pacifism is any action carried out with the intention of killing/ injuring. aka taking up weapons and going on a rampage. .. ", Round 2: ". .. Pacifism ensures that their strategies do not kill their opponents, there are no weapons used that'd aim to kill their opponents, or injure them. .. ". There needs to be a gradation of violent behavior in order to have a rational discussion about Pacifism, something that is severely lacking in Pro's case. Pacifism is a firm NO to the violent strategies that have a negative impact on a revolution. Saying that because we are inherantly violent, we should not be averse to any kind of violence regardless of its impact on the revolution is what is naive. If violence leads to a negative impact on a revolution, and a non violent action could have complemented the power struggle more efectively, it should deinitely be discarded as a possible revolution tool. This brings me to substantiation of the last line. I explained four reasons why violence (as defined by CON) negatively impacted a revolution. Paraphrasing, the reasons are- Violence being a tool of oppressors choice for the oppressed- thus increasing the chances of failure, violent oppressor relying on fear of people (which when overcame, renders the enemy powerless), violence legitimizing further violence AND a violent struggle being selective, which increses the chances of it being not representative of people's wants and rather just two power blocks fighting. Non violence on the other hand, relies on people power. Pro completely dropped the contentions in the fourth round, (after engaging with them in the third) chosing to go back to the fact that since I am not holding up the immorality of murders, any argument delegitimizing murders is useless. And naive. Before going over the morality, I'd reiterate that a Pacifist case would be woefully incomplete if we do not recognize the strategies of Pacifism and have a particular objective in mind. The strategies were briely outlined in the second round. The basic reiterating theme remains recognizing the source of the power and weakening it. Why violence is often poor in weakening the source of power was already explained. Now the morality. The entire premise relies on 'effectiveness' of a belief system. Morality has no role to play in it. Death, even in a realist scenerio, is a collateral damage. As long as the objective is fulfilled, the lesser deaths the better. If killing leads to a worsening of the revolution and delay in attainment of the objective, that is ineffectiveness. And thus is not desirable. There is no reason to bring morality into the picture when we are talking of eectiveness. And I already explained how violence does indeed lead to worsening the revolution. Even explaining it within the context of apartheid and other revolutions. Pro did address some of the arguments regarding the supporting examples, but almost completely dropped the defence of the examples in this round. The basic premise of the defence is- just because something happened in history in a certain way does not mean it was the most effective way to handle the situation. That IS how an alternative course of action is proposed, we argue why our course of action would have been better with dealing with the situation, rather than the solution used till date. We explain the problems with the present course o action, and go about explaining how our method overcome those problems. Regarding Power, I really don't understand how bringing up the credentials of a person help with the analysis of a definition. Power IS "the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one wants". I agree. But going about the definition stating HOW to achieve this power is the entire contention of the debate. I explained how my definition collaborated with the first part of his definition. I don't understand how bringing up a person of " . .. close to being as credible as the dean of public policy at Harvard" would help the case in any way, credibility being as subjective as it is. Would Mahatma Gandhi count? He was the 'father of the nation' (of India). Would that be credible enough? In closing, I explained HOW exactly a Pacifist solution is inherantly better than a violent revolution, outlining the deficiencies of violence as a revolution tool, both theoritically and by engaging in examples. Thereby explaining that it is DEFINITELY not Naive.