outline

1) Introduction

a) Definition of violence:

illegitimate use of excessive power to:
i) fulfill one's unjust motives
ii) get control over others' territory
iii) promote one's beliefs
iv) maintain the hegemony
b) violence is an innate human trait
c) knowledge and wisdom are shields against violence
d) once the doors of knowledge and wisdom are closed, violence creeps in

2) Traits of incompetence in individual, society or nation:
a) inability to negotiate
b) intolerance for others' point of view
c) egotism leading to self aggrandizement
d) lagging behind educationally, economically and socially
e) dictatorial attitude

3) Reasons for violence being the last refuge of incompetence:
a) inability to influence others logically(examples of extremist organizations)
b) fear as a potent tool of incompetence to make others subservient(beheading, suicide bombing)
c) engaging the defense forces of target entity to divert the attention( operations in WANA, N.W.A)
d) tarnishing the reputation of target entity at international level( agitation by India at L.O.C)
e) a tool for dictators to maintain their undemocratic regimes( Zia era, al.SISI in Egypt, military coup in Thailand etc)
f) tool to exploit the minorities by extremist religious organizations( buddu bala sena, buddist in myanmar etc)
g) tool to suppress exploited separatists ( Ukraine, Hong Kong etc)
h) tactic to ignite feelings of hatred within a nation ( sectarianism in Pakistan)

4) policy suggestions

5) conclusion

Good one!

__________________
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
Helen Keller

thanks alot.kindly point out the flaws as well

A commendable effort! How ever, thinking differently, the notion - otherwise to the contrary, struck me that WHY is it that we have to accept the statement of the essay? The statement makes an assertion - Violence IS the last refuge of the INCOMPETENT?. Given that reference is made to an ''Incompetent'', it should be plausible to guess that violence may as well be the FIRST than be LAST;

Giving us space to argue against the statement wherein all points raised in the question's context would make more sense in an essay against the assertion. Won't it also be plausible to suggest that Violence is more likely to be the LAST refuge of the COMPETENT? Because it only comes to the LAST point after having exhausted all efforts and avenues. It would be unfair nay, not completely fair to assume an "INCOMPETENT" to consider ALL options.

I would like views from all members who see this.

Violence is a worst form of terror,its create fear and a situation of distrust,chaos and anarchy among the masses.Violence didn't have a ability to change the regime its only for limited time span but its impact on society are worst.
Intellectual defict occur in nation and universities become barren like in Naizi Germany,when Hitler Showed power.
Nice attempt!

__________________
Few words are best.

If you want me to point out flaws then you would have to write a little more for me. There isn't much margin of flaws in outline itself. Write an intro and 2 to 3 paras based on arguments from your outline.

__________________
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
Helen Keller

i will not recommend doing such a mistake. Going against a saying/quote is risky.You âre required to be a scholar of equal caliber to go against one like Isaac Asimov. strong arguments are required to deny this.
2ndly yöur stance is wrong. lndeed violence is last thing an incompetent person do to find refuge for his ego..he opts to violence when he is defeated by knowledge(logic).his sole purpose of doing so is not accepting his defeat thus satisfying his ego through violence.
i am terribly sorry for those connectiñg this statement with current wave of terrorism in pakistan.i dont find any connection between these as terrorism is not a refuge rather a challenge put forward...

Well attempted dear, what did you mention in policy suggestions?

doesn't LAST here mean Final and the Only way that a eunuch resorts to ?

in policy suggestions, all those measures would be included which can help eradicate the menace of violence.for example, a consensus at international as well as national level to follow the UNO charter, to teach ethics at all levels and to take measures for rehabilitating and naturalizing those who are prone to adopt violence due to multiple reasons


kindly tell me why can the terrorists not be included in this category? Are not they those who can not logically convince others about their ideology? presently they are trying to promote their religious stance by the brutal use of force thereby finding the refuge to preserve their views. kindly give your point of view in detail