The first thing to understand is:

1. What is "violence against violence"? Does his definition tend to be positive or negative? Is the state machine "violent"?

2. What is "terrorism" and what are its characteristics? What are the existing international counter-measures theories?

3. What is an "effective way"? "Effective" includes "effect" and "cost", right?

4. Real cases, ways and methods of international response to terrorism and their evaluation.

After understanding, you can begin to discuss the argument:

1. Give criteria: there must be criteria to judge whether it is an effective way. Of course, the advantages and disadvantages are necessarily different, and concept definition skills are involved here;

2. Give an argument around the standard and prove that the argument should correspond to the standard one by one. For example, if your criteria include "feasibility", it is necessary to discuss that "fighting violence with violence" is indeed feasible;

3. Sublimate topic: It is best to transition to the main theme of peaceful development and build a harmonious world.

Please take this out and start to enrich and debate freely:

1. The topic itself is not a philosophical category, but a very practical content, so the first argument is the concept, especially the problem mentioned in the first part, and the second is the fact, so be sure to fasten your concept when preparing, and find examples or famous sayings around 10 to support your point of view.

It's a little difficult for the party who says "no" The important thing is never to let the other person push you. If violence is not the most effective, please give me a way:) This should be solved by debating skills, especially if the opponent must be blocked in the first debate.

It will take several days to prepare this topic correctly. I think it's a little difficult for the landlord to reply to 1 ~ 4:) I have nothing to look up, I can only talk about these theoretical viewpoints:)