Login/Sign Up




"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - John F. Kennedy
Politics

madcivilian
Aug 04, 2009
5 votes
12 debaters
4
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
True


accipiter
Aug 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Given the extreme words of impossible and inevitable I would side with true. The people in power will grasp and hold tight to what they worked so hard to achieve. Those who want that power for themselves will also work in desperate ways.
I can think of no revolution where there the use of violence or the threat of violence was not a key factor. As much as I would like to think a peaceful revolution could take place; I don’t believe it will.


 
accipiter
Aug 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

The no revolution at all is really not an option when a certain number of people have a major problem with the direction of the government. At times, inaction to this direction is not an option.

 
madcivilian
Aug 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

I am talking about extreme changes in the political or social establishment, standards and so on... Revolution - a new beginning. Those who rule hardly give up their power and are not afraid and have used violence to protect it. I'm not saying that a peaceful revolution is impossible but I can't remember any large ones that were peaceful.

 
madcivilian
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Damn, accidentally pressed enter before I could finish the question... I meant to ask is whether peaceful revolution is possible or the only revolution possible is the violent one.

 
debbydebates
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Sorry I don't get what you are saying in this one. Nobody said always in this one. I kind of think accipter siad was about the quote.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

Convince for you. You explained it better than i did.

 
watchman81
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think I would agree with this statement.


It is usually when non - violent means continually fail that violent revolution takes place although I suppose there are exceptions to every rule. Unfortunately, peaceful revolutions seem to be very rare. I can only think of one off the top of my head and that would be the civil rights movement in the 60's. And even in that struggle there were those such as the Black Panther who advocated a more militant stance that had less of a problem with violence (I'd actually like to know what Jonjax's view would be on this now that this struggle is over).

Of course at the end of the day, it was Martin Luther King's Jr.'s non - violent approach that eventually won out. The same could be said of Mahatma Ghandi's revolution.

My view is that peaceful revolution is always the desired course of action, but in the end, the non - effective one.

 
jonjax71
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rebirth Show

I must assume you are talking about Bay of Pigs. What JFK did was allow Cuban exiles to go to Guatemala and train themselves with aid from the CIA to invade Cuba and attempt to take over the government. This was after the speech where Fidel Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninists and nationalized all property in Cuba and confiscated the holdings of many US companies totaling several millions of US $, 1961 value, Castro also forced the removal of all US diplomats, businessmen and clergy.

JFK and his advisors told the Cuban exile troops they didn't stand much of a chance to achieve their goal but they insited on trying anway and the outcome was not surprising at all



 
watchman81
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

Hmmm. I didn't think of it that way. I think I read somewhere that Malcom X, in the end actually acknowledged that MLK's method was more effective in the end though. Do you know whether or not this is true?



 
blueclaw59
Aug 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It's just like someone who disagreed with Chuck Norris

 
buttchew
Aug 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

If the peaceful revolution has been made impossible there has already been a revolution. You cant stop a train and say theres no train. The revolution is already happened therefore there is no option of no revolution at all.

 
czar2156
Nov 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
the only way to peace is through violence, ryt?

 
+ Add Argument

1
False


swtlilsoni
Aug 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Just because peaceful revolution is impossible, doesn't mean violent revolution is inevitable. What about the option of no revolution at all? That wasn't ruled out by the question.

 
apathetic
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It kind of depends on your definition of "peaceful revolution." Are we talking voting for the opposition party or are we talking calling for the overthrough of goverment?

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

Given the extreme words of impossible and inevitable i would side with false. Mad Civilian didn't use the word "always" in the debate title but he/she just as well could have.

There are very few things in life that are absolute, and certainly very few things in politics that are "always" anything.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: debbydebates Show

"Mad Civilian didn't use the word "always" in the debate title but he/she just as well could have."

The debate title is a statement that says if you do Action X, then Consequence X will "always" happen. The "always" is implied in the statement.


 
rebirth
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Remember, this quote is from the man who authorized an unprovoked invasion of Cuba.

 
jonjax71
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

MLK's non-violent approach did not win out because it was a violent movement, there were many casualties-mostly on the righteous side, Mississippi burning, Bombingham, Montgomery, Fred Hampton etc etc

The Rev Dr would have been the first to tell you that he needed the more miltant side of things, Malcolm, SNCC, Panthers et al to make his cause more acceptable, if there was no other alternative a less violent method would have not occurred. King met with Malcolm on 2 occasions and they both knew they needed each other.

There is never a peaceful revolution or takeover because the powers that be don't turn things over and walk away




 
swtlilsoni
Aug 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

yeah but this debate is about the quote, and the quote itself is illogical.

 
jonjax71
Aug 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

After Malcom X's conversion to universal Islam when left the NOI and made his pilgramage to Medina becoming El Hajj Malik Shabazz he formed his owned organization based on more inclusiveness and less Black nationalism in the sense it wasn't about skin color but mind set. He also realized that unnecesaary violence was not the ultimate answer, but he still remained very agressive. e g he was ready to take the US to the world court in Switzerland for failure to protect its own citizens, a reference to the events of the Civil Rights Movement and the lack of equal rights for the Black citizens of the US

The US got very nervous with this development and that is when the FBI/COINTELPRO forced the issue to eliminate him and when they saw the NOI was doing the same. they assisted them and then stood on the sidelines and watched in delight at the occurence breathing a sigh of relief.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong