Violence is an effective strategy. One of many. It's not stable but it has been used successfully in human history. The thing is you can't have a society that's constantly violent all the time forever and ever. Those tend to self select via natural selection.

You can have societies be temporarily violent like how Americans slaughtered and killed Native Americans and took over the continent. The formation of the USA comes from this type of effective violence. Who would be the alphas in this case? the native americans? Or the ones that invaded? I know I'm a bit on the nose here, but this is just reality.

You still seem to confuse concepts of dominance and leadership, similarly how your opponents in the debate confuse dominance and violence.

But I would agree with them that leadership does not require dominance.

Citation needed. Such a vast generalization seems obviously false.

I don't even think the concept of violence makes sense when the being causing it has sufficient cognition.

Strange take.

Violence is like a key on a piano. You were born with it. You can choose not to play that note, but it is always there, it is never not there.

You can choose to play great melodies without the violence note. You can choose to play melodies with the violence note. You can be forced in a corner and have no option but to hammer the violence key until the strings scream.