azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

I agree with Joecavalry. atypican your question is not clearly worded nor can you sum up justice and violence in one simple sentence. There are so many situations to consider that your sentence has no logic or body to debate. 1 Self defense2 Juvenile violence3 Road rage4 Mentally insane5 War6 This list goes on and on.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

tell me this what justice is in1 war2 road rage3 juvenile violence4 mentally insane
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

i don't believe the ambiguity is violence, I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. I think an extremely devout person, or a person who sees nonviolence as significantly more powerful than violence might see a situation where violence might be 'justified' - for example, when someone is likely to attack you, where they would refrain
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

i don't believe the ambiguity is violenceSo then if you please, in your own words define violence.I think it is what would be considered 'justified'. [that is ambiguous]What justifies the use of dangerous force is indeed too ambiguous. I assert that this is partly due to our failure to come to terms about what violence is.Question to ponder: What must violence violate in order to be considered violent?example, when someone is likely to attack youAh the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. A violence promoting doctrine methinks.atypican
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Violence can take many shapes and forms, and it can be a profound noticeable action or something that goes undetected.My first inclination is to say that violence is anything that violates a channel of communication.I'll share with you a scene I watched in a documentary about the non-verbal language of babies. The test went as follows. A female scientist picks up a baby and holds it at eye level. While maintaining eye contact, she proceeds to make cute baby sounds and silly faces. Very soon, the baby starts giggling. As the baby finds this more and more entertaining, it starts to make sounds and reaches to touch the face of the scientist. With the communication and eye contact established, this game goes on for a few more seconds. Then suddenly, the scientist, while still holding the baby in the same position, turns her face away (sideways) from the baby and becomes neutral. She no longer faces the baby, and she does not respond to anything the baby does. As this happens, the baby first thinks this is part of the game. So it keeps staring at the scientist waiting for her to turn around and play. But she doesn't. Then the baby makes louder noises and touches the scientist's head. But she gets no response. Soon the baby starts crying, and you can see from the body language that the baby is hurt. The baby has been violated. It took no "dangerous force" nor any form of physical aggression. Just a breakdown in communication. And it seems to me that every time humans resort to profound physical violence, it is because there has been a breakdown in communication. But if we were to take this further, to include living beings that may not be able to communicate with us, then I would argue that violence is anything that interrupts the natural flow of energy. Cutting a tree for example, is a violent action, because it violates the tree's natural flow of energy.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I appreciate your perspective. I agree that violating a channel of communication is a form of violence, and that violence takes many forms. I also agree that keeping channels of communication open is practically our only hope if we want our conflicts to become less and less violent. I don't however see how the female scientist/baby story demonstrates violation of a communication channel. The way I imagine it, the baby is learning how to deal with being ignored. Ignoring someone can be a violent act but it is not necessarily one.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

It's hard to describe the reaction of the baby in that test without some degree of interpretation. What I saw was a baby that went from playful, to curious, to shocked, and then to a very moving terrified state. That baby looked psychologically wounded. I don't remember the analyst mentioning the word "violence", but if we use the definition you proposed on the other side (Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries) then I am inclined to conclude that the baby was indeed violated. The scientist intentionally turned her head away, thus breaching the boundaries of communication which, to that point, did not include ignoring each other.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

interesting idea that violence evolves from miscommunication, never thought of it that way. but i have to disagree with you. ignoring the baby was a passive stance, so the baby responded in frustration. i fail to see how if some one acts neutral that it causes violence. it was not like the Doctor blatantly looked away when say, the baby was hit by an other baby. for instance a famous quote, forgot the speaker who said it but it went like this "all that needs to happen for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." so in the case that the doctor did nothing and let violence happen then i would say the Doctor in a way could be blamed, but still did no violence. hmm now back to the question of violence. violence is unfortunately necessary in specific problems. if Russia nuked America, America would have to go to respond in violence in order to save its self. if America did not nuke japan, more violence would have occurred in a amphibious assault. so when is violence right to use? well if we all had respect and empathy for each other, never. but we don't so some one causes the domino effect of violence to happen in almost every situation. so all well, violence is justified for justified reasons, of course mine will differ from yours, which in essences, can cause violence.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

ignoring the baby was a passive stance, so the baby responded in frustration. i fail to see how if some one acts neutral that it causes violenceIt's all about what was in the boundaries of communication. Being neutral towards someone is not cause for violence on its own. But suddenly turning neutral, when the communication did not include neutrality, is a violent act. It's the reason why the OFCOM regulator here in the UK has made it illegal for companies to use computers to make calls to unsuspecting citizens. What was happening is, the computer placed the calls, and if the person answered the call, then a sales agent would take over from the computer and pretend to have been the one who placed the call. But sometimes there were not enough agents to take over from the computer, so the unsuspecting citizen who picked up their phone would be met with just silence. This frightened a lot of the elderly, mothers, people living alone etc. You make call this a passive stance, but these people felt violated, because calling someone and being silent is not in the boundaries of a tele-communication. violence is unfortunately necessary in specific problems. if Russia nuked America, America would have to go to respond in violence in order to save its selfDon't you love these hypothetical circumstances in which America is always the victim of some big bad wolf? :o)Russia would never nuke America out of the blue now would they?Which is why America should never stop talking to Russia.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

my definition of violence (in this instance) is anything that causes injury, however slight.I think the case might be made that violence would be 'justified' when it is preventative of greater violence. (though I think there are still many variables - certainty, imminence, available options, etc.) One presumably non-controversial example might be to grab a child's arm even very quickly and harshly to keep them from running into traffic.(there are other definitions - for example, the storm was very violent, which seem to be outside the realm of 'justification' per se)Another example which might be in between the two is - she slammed on the brakes violently, where someone in the car might be hurt, but it avoids a crash that potentially would have caused more harm
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

drug rehabilitation may be experienced very violently by the addict, but would likely be seen as justifiable violence to inflict
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Agree

Well then, if your baby relative scratches you, you can go accuse her of being "violent".
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

yes - which is why you will eventually teach her not to scratch people. in my opinion violence itself does not require intent to harm.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Fighting violence can only be done agressively , even if that means lowering your own standards , even if that means it is required to fight dirty , even if that means agressively taking no action.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Uncommon viewpoints there!! I strongly agree with the essence of what you typed.I perhaps would only rephrase the "even if that means lowering your own standards" part.Except that I (think I) understand what you are getting at. And I wouldn't be satisfied to simply remove that portion without carefully exposing the underlying point which i strongly suspect is valid.I also appreciate how freely you blurt out what is on your mind. :)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

A combination of uncommon viewpoints and this blessed curse of my ability to freely blurt out what is on my mind , has on numerous occasions , been the trigger towards some of those hostile or violent situations ive found myself in. :)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

"even if that means lowering your own standards" - i simply mean -that personally i have done some rather horrible things in order to defend myself against violence , even getting in first with violence just to get my message accross that it is best not to fuck with me , can be a deterant from a threatening source of violence. I dont go out of my way to be a violent person , i am a happy happy joy joy person until some arsehole behaviour of some kind or another shits on my parade. I am also the sort of person who will go violently to save a person from unfair violence if i see it happening. I dont care if you are a stranger , if i saw you being attacked by thugs i would make a hostile defense for your safety. Not everyone is able to be aggressively violent in order to protect themselves , its just not in them , they may still have instincts , or flight or fight but do they have their brain in order or panic and lose it out of fear or do they try to get instantly physical as if they are in a playground brawl , or do they size up the situation , see what would best work to their advantage for ensuring their safety , and do what is abley neccesary. Sometimes trying to plead or fight is not the best solution. The thing that people often forget is that if someone is intent on hurting you , it is an insult and ought to be taken as such. I have been bashed to a pulp , raped and abused ,many times , but i will never be beaten ,unless i give up. Stooping below my preferred standards , (unfotunately too often) , is why i am alive today. I have had forgivness for most , not that they know it , but forgivness for them lets me avoid seccumbing to an irrepairable wreck hellbent on revenge. I have broken down many times because of violence , but then after time ( a long time ) i sucked it up , cracked the shits , and started sticking up for myself . And i have had less violence for it.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

You say that " i have done some rather horrible things in order to defend myself"At those times you knew of better standards to adhere to? and you accredit your ability to defend yourself to applying standards that were "lower" or not as good? it doesn't make sense to me.My impression is that your standards as a result of your hard knock lessons have risen higher than most. Also that following each experience that you noticed you had acted less than admirably, you were able to use that lesson to reform your standards for the better. You appear now to focus heavily on your role as protector. I don't suspect that those grievous situations you found yourself in earlier in life were arrived at as a result of understanding that role like you do today.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

If ones attempts to use justice prove futile, then the next logical step is to use force and, if necessary, violence.ORIf your efforts at justice are met with violence, then out of necessity you must use violence if only out of self-defence.Personal opinion: I asked a relative if she would kill to save her son (she's a pacifist), her answer was precisely what is to be expected 'yes.'
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I don't think I disagree with the underlying sentiment. I just don't think instances of defensive behavior (defending rights) you described should be thought of as violent. I ask you, what right is violated in the defensive action you describe?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

The debate says 'never requires violence.' If I were in such a position where I am to deliver justice, I would most assuredly reatliate OR be the cause of the violence if I were of the belief that they were going to retaliate.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

OR be the cause of the violenceYou argue that it is in some cases just to initiate or cause violence? I disagree. If you won't directly address the points I bring up (or if I ignore what you say) what is the use of dialog?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Violence is never justified...Ha. Who would bother to waste the brain power required to shit on such a naive view.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Please do .
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

there are also types of post action 'violence' which our society deems justified - like incarceration - in part as a measure to prevent repeating the offense by that person and as a societal pressure discouraging that behavior by others
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Well, let's say there's this guy (for the sake of this story, his name will be Hidler). And he hates a race of people (The Joos) and he decides to kill them all in a holocaust (about six million).We stop him with violence (War is pretty violent, right?). I would say saving all the Joos from Hidler through violent means is justified.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Then are you saying that as long as it was in self defense or in attempt to help the others (like the "great" job the US is doing in Afghanistan combating terrorists whose number increased even more after they came), violence can be justified? But then, if you are a murderer (for the sake of this scenario) and someone shoots you, wouldn't you shoot him back and think your action had been perfectly justified? As long as your argument is valid of course.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Okay, so us stopping the Nazis from killing Jews wasn't justified because we did it violently...
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Yah and the Nazis try to stop you freeing the Jews violently and you try to stop them from stopping you violently and... you get the idea.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

It doesn't go on for ever. Eventully someone will tap out. Look at the Japanese at the end of WWII. They surrendered, unconditionally. You just have to hit hard enough and it puts an end to the violence. ;)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Is forceful response to violence necessarily violence? I don't think so.Care to give some direct scrutiny and comment on my proposed definition?atypican
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...that's a weird definition of violence.According to the dictionary definition of violence:: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)killing Nazis would be considered violent, no matter what (unless we use your non-dictionary definition, of course).
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...That's not what I'm saying at all.You will notice that a recurring theme with me is revisionism of this sort. It is understandably irritating to some. I appreciate your respect and criticism in any case.I take the position that the popular definition could use some refining.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Well if it's the definition of violence we have to debate for - Violence is any form of physical attack. If I punch my friend in the arm it is violence - but such little amount of violence. If I have a fight with someone at school it is a much larger and obvious amount of violence.Violence tends to have negative connotations.Is smacking your kid violence? If yes - then I will always agree that violence can be justified. If hitting someome to protect your pride and honour is violence again I would say it is justified. We should always look for non-violence, but there are times when violence is justified.Meat industry violent?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Do you agree that the meaning of violence is very very very closely related to the meaning of the word violate?if so we might logically progress to:What can be violated? A Law? nope, true laws cannot be violated. An agreement? Ding! Ding! Ding! agreements CAN be violated. care to offer another example of something that can be violated?if you draw a blank there you might be soft minded enough to be persuaded that All violence is violation of an agreement. An integral and necessary component part of the philosophy of non-violence is to develop clearly understood agreements. If we are not working diligently on that, any commitment to non-violence we claim to have is in vain.ramblings of a rambler known to trail off into nonsense at times :)atypican
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you're saying but I'll try.I don't see how violence is a violation of an agreement. Sometimes violence IS an agreement. Let's say for example I lent somebody money. I made it clear that I will use violence if that money was not paid back. It was not paid back. I used violence. That is an example of how violence is in no form a violation of an agreement. Infact lack of violence would be.Violence is the last and most effective means to get a point across (generally although there are many circumstances where it is not).If I have completely missed the point I apologise and ask you to explain to me as simply as possible what you're trying to get. Thanks
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

I'm finding it difficult to understand what you're saying but I'll try.I am not as artful in my presentation of ideas as I would prefer to be. Respect such as you offer is rare and I am thankful to have you as an opponent. How else can I refine my thoughts but by having them challenged?The point about how not violating an agreement might cause violation of more fundamental agreements is well taken. You have convinced me here and now I disagree with the title of this debate because I can see also that it takes only one person to justify it [violence] and that's what justified means justified by whomever.Violence is justified all the time....unfortunatelyViolence is the last and most effective means to get a point acrossYou really believe that?If I have completely missed the point I apologise and ask you to explain to me as simply as possible what you're trying to get.I don't know to what extent you did or didn't miss my point. I think you compared mine to yours, or by responding at least allow for comparison which is cool..your welcome and thanks back.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Cool :)Violence is justified all the time....unfortunatelyViolence is the last and most effective means to get a point acrossYou really believe that?I feel violence should always be the last action to take - because it has the most obvious destructive effects. However it should never be disregarded completely. It should always be the last move taking into consideration the situation...
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

So you've been there, where the apex at the heart of this debate is. And you came to the conclusion you would do anything for your kids. Interesting, yet easily understood. This is my character flaw, the story you've entailed holds it. I wouldn't know what to do in the situation, but I do feel this drive to protect my kin, as you do. This drive is very prlimal, as you would know. Need I sacrifice my own standards of humanity to protect what I love? Is that not an irony of great vexation?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I feel I should apologize, though I know not why. I did not harm you. Is it that I am concious of the actions of humanity collectively? I do not know. I simply cannot compare my simple day-to-day life to all the other lives of recurring hardship and constant dissonance. It makes me sick that I can, and do, just sit by while life goes on this way. I just don't know what I could do.-These things should never occur, yet they do. I have come to the conclusion that everyone knows in their own eyes what violence is, everyone knows that it is occuring, yet everyone feels powerless to stop it, possibly because they are as foolish as myself. Well, I would try and say "Lets end all the violence once and for all!", but if it didnt work in the 70's, why should it now when we are even more divided?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

"I feel I should apologize, though I know not why. I did not harm you." ....... huh , no no, you didnt do anything to me :) As for the rest of your post i think the same things. But i dont completely feel its because of foolishess , i think most times people are just scared. To fix an entire world , thats a big battle.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

i would do whatever it took to protect myself and my child , even if that resulted in the death of the other personI would too. and I am arguing on the agree side. How can this be? Am I a hypocrite?I would justify it to myself in that my intent was purely focused on protecting (if I was stronger I would have more options) and I was forced into the behaviorThanx for the post