Persuasive Conflict Essay

Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect. If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support. We can gather the support of millions who have a conscience and would rather see a nonviolent resolution to problems.” (Chavez 1). Chavez compares non-violence to violence to show why non-violence is a safer and more humane way of solving problems within society.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

It is said that up to thirty thousand men may have died at the battle of Hastings, a conflict that occurred almost one thousand years ago. World War II, which lasted less than seven years, has been estimated to be responsible for up to forty million deaths. Thus, many people often ask the question why? Why does such conflict occur? Who or what is responsible? The culprit does not hide nor has it escaped scrutiny and blame. It comes in many shapes and sizes, faces and places. It is called violence and the potential for it resides in every single person on this earth. Whose violence conquers all? It is hard to measure the significance of violence, especially when it can cause so much destruction and death as well as stimulation. However,

In Conflict there are those who choose to sit on the side and ignore or turn a blind eye to the situation at hand. Bystanders that do so are often overpowered by the pressures of conflict and are forced to take part in the conflict or create another further complicating the matters involved. When a Bystanders values and opinions are challenged indirectly they generally shrug the opposing value and opinion off, ignoring the actions or words that have challenge them, but an individual can only do this for so long, quickly falling into the pit of conflict. During the Course of conflict there are also individuals that crumble to the persistent clashes, which can lead to one being so overwhelmed that they must choose a new path in order to

Throughout history, many conflicts have happened, some with resolution, and other without. We often tend to think of solving conflicts with war, since most of our history classes are based around World War I, World War II, and so forth, but many conflicts were fought, and successfully won using nonviolent resistance. Many people would use Gandhi as a well known example. Gandhi’s plan of civil disobedience revolved around this big idea called “satyagraha,” which he explains as, “a satyagrahi should always possess civility and humility, qualities that indicated self-control and an humble approach to truth” (Gandhi 50). He later explains that satyagraha is “truth-force” and that truth is soul and spirit, or “spirit-force.” “It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish” (51). He used this strategy to fight for indian independence. Many other incidents in the world have been fought using civil disobedience, including Women’s Suffrage.

Mahatma Gandhi, a renowned political and spiritual leader, once said that, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.” Presume you see two men in a heated argument and one of them is about to attack the other, you take a rock and throw it at him and knock him out. On one hand it is a good thing that you prevented the attack but on the other hand you used violence yourself, and there is no doubt that you would not hesitate to use it again. The good that came from the violence that you used lasted for a short time, but the punishment that you get for doing this lasts for a long time. Imperialism of rivalries and nationalism were two of the main reasons that most

Violence is not the answer for resolving your problems. Violence can be saved in abounding ways, but they can also end in tragic manners. Violence can cause wounds, injuries, and as well deaths. Consequently, many suffer in pain as you carry the burden of having killed someone.

The witches in Macbeth do not just predict the future; they weave a web of temptation that ensnares Macbeth, egging him on with visions of power. The witches prophecy sparked Macbeth’s ambition and made him thirsty for power. He started to believe he was destined to be king, which led him to murders and spiral into tyranny and paranoia. In Macbeth, William Shakespeare presents the idea that ambition can get out of control and corrupt power. The witches’ cryptic words ignite a spark of ambition in Macbeth, fueling his descent into treachery and tyranny.

“Who says life is fair, where is that written?” William Goldman. Life is never fair, but the solution never stems from bringing the ones more powerful down as well. This is what violence reaps. Whenever life is unfair violence tears everything down and those who fought so hard to be equal are left with nothing but brooding hatred on both sides. On the contrary, if the disenfranchised ones solve their issues through nonviolence, the ruling party has no one else to blame for what they’ve done but themselves.

In the article “Why The World Is More Peaceful”, the author, Steven Pinker (2012), argues that, over hundreds of years, violence has declined around the world. He claims that government, commerce, and literacy have encouraged people to restrain their violent impulses, empathize with others, and use reason to solve problems. This article was first published in the journal Current History. It is a continuation of an argument Pinker made in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). The article is directed toward a general but educated audience. Although Pinker’s article is relevant and logical, many of the author’s arguments are not supported with adequate

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

If someone were to slap you across your face what would you do? Would you turn your other cheek or would you return the slap back to them? The vast majority of people would not hesitate and quickly as possible slap the person back right before the person leaves. The point here is that there is more than one way we can react towards many situations. Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Greenwalt and readings about the Trump protest talk about the two possible ways people can act towards a political cause, violence or nonviolence. We, with the help of these readings, would look into both perspectives of each technique, their drawbacks & benefits, and the circumstances in which they may or may not be justified.

His main point of the essay is that violence will get you nowhere, many resort to violence or aggression believing that's the only way to get their points across, but this will just make things worst

Why spend money that is really needed for other things? Why live uncomfortably? Why be trapped in this hole called a home that belongs to another person? Why not live free and peacefully? When a person rents he or she usually throws away money that could be used to purchase something that belongs to them. Money is not easy to come by so why pay out hundreds toward something that is not benefit to the person paying it out. There is no good explanation for making a decision like this. The best option in a situation like this is to buy a house. Buying a house is a better option than renting an apartment.

Oppression and injustice have wrecked havoc on humankind for all of recorded history, and the methods people have used to battle these have varied greatly. Whether it be through world wars or marches through city streets, the attempt to achieve social change has been long and perpetual, persistent and challenging. When people’s lives are threatened, they may feel the need to act violently while others argue that non-violence is the only way to bring about lasting change. Non-violence is the preferable method of achieving social change, but violence is justifiable while it is preceded by nonviolent means, is meant to protect the security or way of life of a group, and has reasonable targets that affect opposers.