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

Because I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. that violence is not the answer, I negate the resolution, "Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression. "Since the resolution says "violence is a justresponse to political oppression", if I prove that violence is unjust, I win this debate. Justice is defined as "giving each their due"If something is creating unneccassary suffering, then it is unjust. So if I prove that violence is creating unneccassary suffering then i also have proven that it is unjust, and I will win this debateViolent revolutions produce unneccassary suffering because there is always a non-violent alternative. Contention 1: Non-Violence often gives the revolution more power and popularity. A. ) The Orange revolution in Ukraine was handled in a non-violent manner. Soldiers, if faced with violent methods, would most definately shoot at their targets. However, due to the non-violence acts used, they were faced with a moral dillema. The soldiers were persuaded by the non-violent protesters, and they overthrew an illegitamtely elected leader. a) Violence however, would have simply escalated the problem, and would have brought upon more injuries and casualtiesContention 2: In recent history, a vast majority of successful rebellions have been non-violentA) Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall explain: "In 50 of 67 transitions from authoritirianisum in the past 35 years, according to a recent study by freedom house, it was not violent rebellion, but rather non-violent civic resistence that was a pivotal force"Contention 3: violent revolutionaries are outclassedA)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. "a)This means that violent revolutions wil not be successful___________________________________________________________________________________________________________I'm not providing an alternative. I'm providing an alternative that doesn't have to harm people. If we have to choose violence or non-violence we must always choose the latter, because if we don't then we would be unnecesarily harming the rights of people. My opponent is trying to say that it is necessary to use violent revolution because it is the only response left, but that does not prove that it is justified. For example, we can agree that sometimes killing is neccessary, but we never say that killing is justified. In self defense (or in this case under oppression) it might be neccessary, but that doesn't mean it's justified. The conclusion then, is that killing is permissible [definition of permissible -Permitted; allowed]. For example, If someone were assaulted on the street they are commiting a permissible act when they try to hit their assaulter back, but that doesn't mean hitting people is justified. It means that it's permissible in certain situations. In the same way, violent revolution is permissible, so even if my opponent is winning every argument, he's not proving the burden of the reolution. He's proving that violence is permissible in certain situations, but not that it's justified. .Furthermore, if we know that violent revolution is going to produce harms, than know that its notjustified. Revolution is justified, but violent revolution is not. We can always use non-violence, so you always prefer the negative. **Good luck trying to win the debate. Because, I believe you have already lost!