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

Throughout history, different movements have had to choose between walking down paths of violence or peace in order to achieve their goals. Keep in mind, Pro defines "change" as "development of current state", so we are talking about the advancement of societies, improvement of peoples' conditions, securing of safety and desired rights, etc. And time and time again, we see that peaceful, intellectual, strategic movements are far better at achieving these goals than movements of war and violence do. War may, at times, transfer power but it does not directly advance or develop a state, it does the opposite by taking lives and damaging the very state trying to change. To prove this, I will provide: 1. Examples of successful peaceful movements 2. Failed violent movements 3. Examples of how the "voting ballot" is ultimately behind the development of state, even in cases of war 1. After over a century of oppression, the Indian Independence Movement finally found success after it adopted Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance. Through the Salt March, boycotts, the Indian National Congress, etc. India secured its sovereignty, rights, and culture with no mass damage or casualty. Furthermore, the peaceful separation allowed India to make amends and forge strong relationships with Britain and other world powers. We can look to the leadership of Nelson Mandela and South Africa's peaceful movement to end the apartheid that oppressed non-whites in the country for decades. Academics, workers, politicians, churches, etc. boycotted, condemned and resisted apartheid. And after negotiations and expanded suffrage, millions of South Africans attained equality and rights. Not through "molotovs" but through the voting ballots on April 27, 1994, Freedom Day, were South Africans able to overturn apartheid and truly "change" for the better. We can look further to the Civil Rights Movement and leadership of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "Change" was instituted when the Civil Rights Act was passed, when the Supreme Court struck down segregation in Brown v. BOE. "Change" came to American culture when people were exposed to the grace and power of the Million Man March and the "I Have A Dream" speech. All of these movements faced external and internal violence, but it was the commitment to nonviolence that made these movements so effective and secured better rights and conditions for millions around the world. Countless further examples of successful nonviolent movements exist as well. 2. We can look to the modern Middle East to see how violence has failed to develop various states and has in fact resulted in the opposite. The "molotovs" of foreign and domestic violent conflicts have only succeeded in destabilizing and causing unprecedented damage and danger in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Libya. The choice of violence and war has given groups like ISIS the ability to capitalize on the violence and expand. The vacuum and destabilization caused by the violence has given power to groups intent on destroying society rather than "developing" it and allows them to shelter themselves and hide amidst the chaos and confusion. Statistics also stand to show nonviolent movements have been far more effective than violent ones. A study by leading American political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan "collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900. " The findings showed "nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. " They argue these findings exist because " nonviolent campaigns typically attract more participants" and "if unarmed civilians are attacked, other citizens are likely to mobilize, and the government loses support from the international community" [1] 3. War may succeed in transferring power, but it is movements of peace in the wake of war that so crucially change the state for the better. For example, the Revolutionary War may have succeeded in granting the U. S. independence from Britain, but what truly secured the rights Americans sought? It was the "ballot": the Constitutional Convention, a congregation of peaceful, intellectual, and strategic forces, that forged the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Checks and Balances, etc. that "developed the state". The Civil War may have preserved the Union, but it was the passing of the 13, 14, and 15th Amendments that cemented the "change". So even when war does succeed, a peaceful movement must ensue in order to guarantee true, lasting change. Sources: [1] . https://www.psychologytoday.com...