THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

Strategy in defense: ("Rebuttal" -Defense)Defense:1."I emphasize again that this is about War's effectiveness at "developing the state". The overlying problem with each of my opponent's examples is that while he shows how war transferred POWER, he fails to show how it implements "CHANGE" for the better and how the respective societies and peoples' lives have progressed as a result." -CON.- Yes, now if power is used in the right way, it brings change. Summary: War > Power > Used goodly > Change.2. "Whereas Egypt's current president, Abdul Fattah Asseesi used WAR against anybody who is against him, has power now (I'm against him, because he used WAR beyond limits, too. He killed innocent people... " My opponent condemns his own example here. Clearly the change is not bettering the state if it is at the expense of innocent lives. Under his rule, basic human rights and freedoms of speech, press, assembly, etc. have been crushed. In a single day, for example, he had his forces murder 1,400 and detain 16,000 protesters[1]. Clearly El-Sisi has obtained power but how actions like this have "developed the state" is beyond me and my opponent who conceded that this leader was destructive. Even if he was not supposed to "use violence this way", as my opponent argues, this proves violent movements allow corrupt leaders to obtain power that enables them to cause great destruction. El-Sisi's movement of violence has left Egypt far worse off."-CON.- Same as 1. If he used power in right way, he could have brought change. Sisi's fault, not war's. Refer to first defense argument ^.3. "Popularity doesn't justify violence and it certainly doesn't equate to effectiveness. My opponent failed to show how Hamas' movement of violence has changed Palestine for the better because it hasn't. Hamas has only succeeded in increasing tension and hostility towards Palestine and has actively blocked the progress of its own state by halting peace talks" -CON.- Not popularity. Reputation. Unless Hamas, Isreal wold have captured all of Palestine.4. "Afghanistani people supported Taliban (at that time) and WON against Russia, the owner of the largest army in the world." My opponent uses another example of a group that used violence to obtain power but then turned around to abuse that very power to DESTROY the state not DEVELOP it. The Taliban has "committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, 80% in 2011, and 80% in 2012."[3] Is this the kind of change my opponent is advocating for? If not then he's at the very least arguing for a method of change that enables this kind of destruction." -CON.- Defense argument 1. Taliban's fault.5. "By its very definition, a WAR has caused an excess of 210,000 casualties and has displaced 3,000,000 refugees [4] [5] WAR in Syria has not only failed to rid the country of an oppressive dictator, but it has also empowered groups like ISIL." -CON.- Wrong. War hasn't caused all that. Bashar Alasad killed and bombed all those. Violence. Oppression. Not war.6. " My opponent adds yet another terrorist group to his list of shining examples of how war is so effective. He can trumpet the power of ruthless terrorist groups and dictators but it's not effective unless he's arguing that war better develops states of terror, torture, and destruction than peaceful movements do, in which case I wholeheartedly agree." -CON- Refer defense argument 1 ^. ISIL'S fault.7. " This is not the kind of change any rational society wants." -CON.-Refer to source [1].I have defnded most of my arguments with just one reply, which strongly shows the weakness of my opponent's vague rebuttal.Thank you,Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://www.quora.com....