I think you’re being uncharitable in the reason why myself and others are disagreeing that advocation of violence is necessarily violence. This is a problem of definitions, but not the way you’ve said: in the common case, using the word “violence” denotes a sort of harm that is not equitable with the negative effects of advocating for violence.

This is important because of accountability and nuance. If I advocate for war, it is unreasonable to try to invalidate my position by claiming that I should volunteer to go to war. You can incorporate that into your argument, but it does not on its own invalidate my argument. Similarly, my advocation of violence is not violence itself, despite how violent all war must necessarily be.

This is a matter of using the right methods of investigation and persuasion; you might end up at the rational conclusion using an irrational method, but that method will insidiously steer you wrong elsewhere. It is important to be able to posit advocation of an idea is wrong according to some set of moral axioms without trying to posit the much stronger (and untenable) stance that advocation of violence is itself violence. Rational methods of investigation generalize, and irrational ones do not.