“Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goal should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to the society since violent, short term solutions can lead to more serious long term problems”
The argument states that any political organization that advocates violence to achieve its goal should be prohibited from operating in our nation, since
they are deterimental to the society. The argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and fails to mention several factors on the basis of which it could further be evaluated. The conclusion relies on several assumptions for which no clear evidence is there. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing. Firstly, the argument assumes that violence can never lead to long term solutions and shall always lead to the short tern solutions. However, the argument fails to consider the situations where oppression prevails to great heights. In a dictatorship, one's peaceful protest and non-violent ways might get supressed by the mighty rulers/ones in power. Therefore, sometimes, it becomess necessary to use violence, which might lead to better and long term solutions. For example,
French Revolution, where change of state was only be possible and was achieved with the usage of power. Second, the argument assumes that any group that uses violence is detrimental to the society. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim. To illustrate, actions of the revolutionaries in Indian freedom struggle like Bhagat singh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Subahs Chandra Bose etc resulted in the integration of much separated indian society. If the
argument have provided the context, in which the argument is presented, it would have been more strengthened. Lastly, mere prohibiting/banning a group on the grounds that it preaches violence is supression of the freedom of expression, which our constitution grants to each and every citizen of the contry. Hence, prohibiting a group is unconstitutional and against human rights. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvining. It could be considerably strengthened if the author have clearly mentioned, all the relevant facts and context, in which the argument is presented. In order to access the merits of a decision/conlusion/argument it is essential to have full knowledge of all the relevant facts. In this particular case, without this particular information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
I have highlighted a couple grammatical mistakes in red. I'm sure you would have noticed that typos already. Also, you have to use line breaks to separate paragraphs.
Your argument seems structured. Although the examples you give can be a bit more fleshed out.
I felt you were onto something when you said that you cannot curb FoE by banning political organizations that are violent. But you need to present that in a more nuanced way. FoE comes with caveats, one of them quite clearly says FoE cannot be used to condone or promote violence (and I think the actions talked about here fall in that bracket). So, you might want to flesh out your arguments a bit more. But all in all, a decent piece!
close
28 Jul 2014, 10:29
