Hello everyone. The topic ot today’s debates is Violent and Non-violent protests.

And to get deeper

we need to define, what is protest in general is. Protest is a strong complaint expressing
disagreement, disapproval, or opposition. It can exist in two ways: violent and non-violent. That’s
clear, that both of them have its own pros and cons, but our team is going to persuade you, that in a
violent way it’s easier to reach an agreement.
All of us will give you some undeniable reasons why and how it works, but my main task is to
define its advantages and disadvantages in general.
First of all, there are a lot of people who claim that violence is an instrument of politics. It’s like key
to the hardest questions without solutions. Even Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher who is best
known for his influential formulation of social contract theory., described violence as "a rational
means to achieve such political goals as territory, safety, and glory." Moreover, Resolutions often
end quicker with violence.
That’s not my task to deal with minuses of violence, but just to provide equal food for mind, I will
underline them.
Firstly, the failure percent of them is high.
They often lose control of their followers which can lead to destruction of property, fires and even
death. And the last mentioned thing is the most terrible disadvantage of it.