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

He's asked that I state my case this round, and so I will do so. First, however, I think we have to establish two things in this debate. The first thing to establish is a definition for the word "just," as this is central to the debate. Right; in accordance with law and justice. "The words "just" and "justly" do not always mean "just" and "justly" in a moral sense, but they not unfrequently, in their connection with other words iu a sentence, bear a very differeut signification. It is evident, however, that the word "just" in the statute [requiring an affidavit for an attachment to state that plaintiff's claim is just] means "just" in a moral sense; and from its isolation, being made a separate subdivision of the section, it is intended to mean "morally just" in the most emphatic terms. The claim must be morally just, as well as legally just, in order to entitle a party to an attachment. "[1] As we are discussing revolutions and the act of fighting against an oppressive system that likely utilizes oppressive laws, we are discussing what is morally just and what is legally just in the broader sense, acting beyond the legal system in which the oppression is occurring. Thus, the basis of this debate is establishing whether it is morally correct for those that are politically oppressed to engage in violence as a response to that oppression, whether those morals are made clear via a moral framework or a legal one. Now, let's establish our burdens. The resolution says "on balance," and thus what we're discussing is whether or not, in a sufficient number of instances, violence is a morally justified act. I don't think it's necessary that either of us provide instances where it was necessary, though those will come into play, but rather we must show that, within a reasonable moral framework, violence is a just response to political oppression. So our burdens in this debate are to present said moral and/or legal frameworks and provide analysis as to why violence is either just or unjust under those frameworks. So with that, I will now launch into my analysis of why violence is a just response to political oppression. 1. Retributive justice is morally justified. This position is pretty basic, but let's define what is meant by the terms: "Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return. Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards. "[2] To put it simply, the basis for this argument is that the politically oppressive society, which often will engage in physical oppression utilizing the police or military, has broken an internationally held legal tenet, and has thus forfeited their ability to engage in a non-violent, civil discourse with those who are oppressed. By engaging in violence themselves, the just response becomes one of bringing violence in return. Con is effectively limiting the actions of one group, no matter what is perpetrated against them. Should that oppressive society decide to savagely beat individuals until they are black and blue, Con suggests that they would be unjust in defending themselves, since that too would involve violence. I'm uncertain what responses Con would afford individuals who are having violence perpetrated against them, and I hope he will make this clear in R2, but no matter what may be on that list, it will not include any retributive option. To do as Con suggests is to accept an inherently unjust situation where one group perpetrates violence on the other, thus disrespecting their basic human rights, while the other group is forced to abide by the broader moral code. This is neither just nor reasonable. 2. It is just to bring intervention Violence attracts attention. The main reason why the UN and other countries choose to become involved in a given conflict " when they see not just oppression, but a violent conflict between the oppressors and the oppressed. While such a system for intervention ought to exist, the lack of such a system is easily apparent. We can see this in both Libya [3] where intervention was only considered after armed rebellion was initiated. This is all the more obvious in Syria, where "the first long phase of the revolution from mid-March 2011 to the middle of the summer was militantly nonviolent, with 'peacefully, peacefully' the continuing refrain as nonviolent protesters were mowed down by government forces. Even as the nonviolent casualties mounted, the revolutionaries themselves resisted calling for outside military intervention, partly because such intervention seemed to contravene the very nature of nonviolent resistance. Since the revolution turned violent about a year ago, the call for outside intervention, even military intervention, has multiplied several-fold. "[4] That intervention is necessary to end abuses sooner, and thus to end deaths and injuries. Without the intervention of the international community, which forces an end to conflict and requires negotiation of all parties involved, the country leadership is unlikely to listen to the will of the public. Without that pressure, the oppressors, often backed by a formidable and organized military force, have little incentive to pursue long-lasting solutions that both parties can agree to, something lost in a world where the only way to bring them to the table is to make them uncomfortable enough to. I would argue that the most just action is the one that is likeliest to ensure the best long-term stability, the least drawn-out oppression, and the fewest overall deaths/injuries. Thus, I am arguing for anything that increases the likelihood of intervention, as it brings about these results on a far more frequent basis than non-violent revolution. Summary: The basis for my points is two-fold. The first is that violence is necessary as a means, as retributive justice is the most morally just and reasonable system for responding to violent oppression. The second is that violence is necessary for achieving the most effective ends, ensuring the highest likelihood of an effective outcome. With that, I eagerly await my opponent's case and responses. 1. . http://thelawdictionary.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://jurist.org... 4. . http://jurist.org...