Arguments for :
1. Psychologically speaking if a person is incapable of accepting the challenge of the opponent, he starts taking the help of ideals like non-violence. He thinks that by becoming non-violent he would be able to test the opponents power to do harm because they believe that man is not basically wicked so at one or the other stage, opponent will give up violence.
2. A strong person will tolerate any type of insult because his physical strength or his social status, or backing makes him a self respecting person so the moment he finds that a person is adopting violent methods, he reacts sharply. Only the weak will not do so.
3. Weak people take help of non-violence because they want to give a cover to their weaknesses. No person wants that he should become weak in his own eyes and so he wants to satisfy himself by thinking that he is peace loving and does not want to adopt violence.
Arguments against :
1. Non-violence needs great moral and physical strength. Moral strength is needed because the persons will start wavering after sometime ; physical strength is needed to stand the onslaught of the opponent. So a person should be strong if he wants to become nonviolent.
2. Non-violence needs a lot of patience and also a complete control over emotions. This is possible if a person has a strong determination and also a strong intellectual power to think that there is no humiliation even if he is badly treated.
3. Non-violence requires proper mustering of one’s mental and physical resources. Without mental resources, man is bound to judge his own actions according to the standards available in the society, if he does so his animal nature becomes strong and he starts, becoming violent.