Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

4
4
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:8
Arguments:8
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (4)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (3)

Debate Creator

Bettyjoe(399) pic



The only ture power is violence.

True.

Side Score: 4
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 4
1 point

This depends upon the view of violence we take

If we are talking about the "violence of natural forces" i.e earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, cyclones, tsunami then the answer has to be yes

If we are talking about the "destructive nature of human behaviour" then we would say no because that is only a temporal dimension of human interference and other behaviours always intercede.

It is in the measure of the outcome that usually decides the degree of power that is achieved.

Side: True.
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

If we are talking about the "violence of natural forces" i.e earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, cyclones, tsunami then the answer has to be yes

Good one, natures violence dwarfs anything we can do

that is only a temporal dimension of human interference and other behaviors always intercede.

By interceding those other behaviors are most often compelled to employ violence as well. This still leads to the establishment of power in the end.

It is in the measure of the outcome that usually decides the degree of power that is achieved.

Its the measure of violence that usually decides the outcome. The outcome at the end of the violence is always a retention, exchange or creation of power.

Don't ya think?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
DKCairns(868) Disputed
1 point

You obviously do not consider the power of conciliation or negotiation to resolve violent events.

The measure of non-violent resolution is in the outcome.

Ne c'est pas

Side: True.

Even if violence was the sole measure of power, it would still not be 'true power' in and of itself, which is always a meta level above the measure of power. True power would lie in influence and manipulation, as it doesn't take many people at all to top the maximum amount of violence one person could output.

Compare this to a hypothetical scenario where money, rather than violence, is power. Would the true power be held by the entity with the most money at the moment? Or would it be held by the entity with the best positioning and means for manipulating the system to his or her own profit and his or her oppositions detriment? I vote the latter, for the same reasons, and I cite Bill Gates and Goldman Sachs as just one small example for each, reflecting total assets (advantage: Bill Gates), direct/indirect market influence (advantage: Goldman Sachs), and political influence (advantage: Goldman Sachs).

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
0 points

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing satire from direct statements. The point made in South Park was that violence is not power.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Nomoturtle(848) Disputed
1 point

the satire was that people were using violence to get their way rather childishly, and that it is wrong. the sad thing is that it is true, try to talk away death and you will certainly lose. it is too bad things cant be resolved in a way that does not involve death, even if it still means people must fight.

Side: True.
1 point

I agree with all of that.

Side: True.