Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression

Contention 1: Non-Violence often gives the revolution more power and popularity. Rebuttal 1: My opponent uses an example of a non-violent revolution that occurred in Ukraine. Well, guess why it worked so well? Why do you think the soldiers were there to begin with? It occurred amongst very violent protests surrounding it [http://www.foreignaffairs.com...]. In fact, the only reason that the non-violent protesters were greeted with open arms was because the soldiers could finally relax for a bit not having to look out for any violent protesters for a while. In essence, the violent protesters helped the non-violent ones get their point across because if no one had used violence, the non-violent ones wouldn't have seemed as angelic as they did. Thus, the apparent benevolence of the protesters was merely in contrast to the alternative that was being constantly thrown in the face of the soldiers. Contention 2: In recent history, a vast majority of successful rebellions have been non-violent. Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall explain: "In 50 of 67 transitions from authoritarianism in the past 35 years, according to a recent study by freedom house, it was not violent rebellion, but rather non-violent civic resistance that was a pivotal force". Rebuttal: This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not violence is a just response to oppression, only that in certain cases of rebellion, the non-violent form of it can work. Contention 3: Violent revolutionaries are outclassed. Once again, Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall explain: "because of the nature of the stake, violent revolution is unlikely to succeed. In a contest of violence against violence, the superiority of the government has always been absolute people who choose guns and bombs as the way to rise up will find that the regimes they attack will have far more experience in such context." Rebuttal: Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall are not gospel truth and can be incorrect. Also, the fact that the violent protesters are outclassed only assists the non-violent ones form seeming angelic in comparison. It's called sacrifice in a chess match. You sacrifice the violent ones to make the non-violent ones get into far better positions of power and influence than they ever would have if the violent ones weren't there to compare them with. I shall now rebut the opening to Con's argument: My opponent claims that Justice is defined as "giving each their due" He then goes onto state that if something creates unnecessary suffering, then it is unjust. He neither offers a basis to asses the necessity of suffering nor is he capable of proving that people suffer from violence to begin with. What is apparent, however, is that the very nature of oppression makes the oppressed suffer unnecessarily and thus oppression is unjustified. Thus if i justice is defined as giving each their due then if the unjust oppressor is continuing to oppress the 'due' thing to give them is an equally unjust counter-attack. Inf act it would be unjust to be non-violent in return as this would not be giving them their due and would be underpaying them the suffering that they are most certainly 'due'. Now I shall rebut the latter case of Con: "Revolution is justified, but violent revolution is not. We can always use non-violence, so you always prefer the negative." He never explains why non-violence is preferable to violence at all. In fact, Con's definition of justice is 'giving each their due' and this indicates that being non-violent is not giving the oppressor the amount of pain that they are due. Underpayment is just as unjust as overpayment.