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

I shall now examine Con's case bit-by-bit and shall do it in the following manner: CA = Con's argument CD = Con's defense CR = Con's rebuttal The same is flipped for Pro with PA, PD and PR respectively. #1 CA: All humans are fundamentally due basic rights and liberties, the clearest which being the freedom from unjustified harm. PR: Oppression is an unjustified harm and so if someone does this to you, you should 'give them their due' and give them harm back. CD: Humans are intrinsically due dignity and respect. This is why it is permissible for me to use violence to fend off a dangerous mugger,but I'm not justified in torturing her after she has been subdued. PD: Humans are not intrinsically due and Con has failed to prove this throughout the debate. If they are due dignity and respect then maybe Con should realize that torturing those who have committed crimes is actually how oppression works, not how fighting it works. Fighting oppression is much more analogous to the mugger scenario where you are preventing one who is doing wrong from doing any more wrong. #2 PA: Oppression = violence against it. CR: We would never condone that an innocent person be subjugated to a violation for freedom's just as we would object to excessive sanctions meted out for petty crimes. PD: You have actually supported my argument. You first stated that the innocent should not be subjugated to violence any more or less than excessive sanctions should be dished out for petty mes. the former is violence, the latter is oppression. #3 CA: By causing unnecessary harm I have fundamentally disrespected the rights and humanity of the personal attack. PR: Oppression is unnecessary harm and thus the same applies to the rights of the victims of it. CD: Thus, in order to achieve justice, we must prevent unnecessary suffering. Thus, in order to be unjust, we must have unnecessary suffering. Violent revolutions produce unnecessary suffering because of the existence of non-violent alternatives. PD: I already proved how non-violent alternatives are impossible if there are not violent revolutions on the side of them. Non-violent revolutions only work because the violent revolutionaries become a common enemy of the non-violent protesters and the oppressors. This is actually how chess works, you sacrifice the pawn (violent protestor) that the bishop (non-violent protestor) can have a smooth entry to infiltrate the opposition. There has never, throughout history, been a non-violent oppression that succeeded without the common enemy of violent protestors being present at the time. Even the Ukrainian protest, supplied by Con, supports this claim of mine. #4 CA: The violent protesters tried to get their point across and it DIDN"T work. But when the non-violent protesters were there they succeeded. PR: the violent protesters hadn't been a common enemy,t he soldiers would never had seen reason to have mercy on the non-violent protesters. Instead, due to the existence of violent protesters, the soldiers now had reason to think "at least they aren't like the violent ones" and have mercy on them. As I stated in PD#3, there has never once been a successful non-violent revolution without violent protesters being present as a prevalent common enemy throughout. #5 CA: Non-violence presents the military a moral dilemma. This particular non violent protest has prevented any unnecessary suffering from occurring. Once again, if it prevents unnecessary suffering it is just. PR: Oppression is unnecessary suffering, thus violent revolution to it is just. Soldiers are there to follow the orders of their superiors, they are not taught to question it on moral grounds. If their orders are to shoot unarmed protesters, they will do it without question (and have indeed done so throughout history). Examples: (1) Kent State massacre https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) Bloody Sunday https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) Troops killed six unarmed people in temple during Thai 'Red Shirt' protests, court rules http://www.independent.co.uk... (4) Israeli troops kill unarmed Palestinian protesters on borders https://www.wsws.org... That's not even half of it. #6 CA: Ok, so first I think we both agree that a revolution is justified. Would you rather have peace or brutality and harms in order to pursue the revolution? PR: A violent one. PD: A non-violent one cannot work without a violent one at the side and has never done so throughout mankind's entire recorded history. #7 CA: You always choose non-violence because it doesn't harm people in the process. PR: You can only choose that if there is a violent one posing a greater threat at the time. Otherwise the non-violent one is completely ignored. #8 CA: In the end, my opponent should not win, simply because he has not proven why violence is a just response. PR: In the end, my opponent should not win, simply because he has not proven why non-violence is a viable response without a violent one supporting its cause. #9 CA: You should VOTE CON! PR: Please oppress this young man's right to use caps lock.