Occupy Movements: Stop Protesting, Revolutionize the Proper Way.

My argument why we should be using non-violent political is simple: because it is more effective. I shall split my argument into three main points: precedence, society and effectiveness.PrecedenceThis is simple: we look at historical precedence, and we see which actions have resulted in the best results. Violence or non-violence. We'll take the most prominent in history.The suffragettes in the UK is the primary example here, because there are both the violent late 19th century suffragettes, and the early 20th century suffragers, who both fought for women's rights. In history, the earlier suffragettes are seen as badly, as causing many problems and as making little progress. They attacked people, and caused many vandalous acts, doing thigns such as setting property on fire. However, the non-violent protestors were most well known for filling in for the war effort, stopping all protests and helping fight the Germans, all the while petitioning Parliament. This method was much more successful: by 1918 women could vote, by 1928 they had roughly the same voting rights as men at the time.Another example is the rIRA. The Irish nationalist group fought endlessly with the UK government, killing, terrorising, bombing and generally destroying property, as my opponent wants us to do with the Occupy movement. They failed. Badly. The rIRA itself is seen as an extremist group, of which people prefer to be associated with Sinn Féin, a political party aiming for the Mitchell Principles, meaning they renounce violence. Finally, the examples of M.L.King, and others show non-violence is many times more effective. King won the Nobel peace prize for his work to end racial segregation: his work towards civil rights is phenomenal. He famously is known for using non-violent methods such as civil disobedience. Non-violence is the most effective means of protest: history has taught us that, and we should learn from it, and not be doomed to repeat the failures my opponent is advocating a return to.SocietyMy opponent states that in modern times, words no longer works (and fails to give examples of them). I wish to state that in a modern society, words are more important than ever. Now, we have means of mass communication. I can bring a message across the entire country - across the world - in a matter of seconds now. The success of the Occupy movement has been a great example of this. The peaceful message involved, and the lack of riots anywhere is something which has made the message popular, made it viral, and made it spread.Riots make causes, in a modern society, unpopular. Looking at the London Riots, the whole thing was seen negatively because of the damage being done. Everyone now forgets the original message: I wonder how many people know what the London Riots were about here now? If anyone remembers about the Tottenham policeman killing Mark Duggan? The message is obscured by rioting. It is less popular.Pressure groups in society such as the Occupy movement work best when they are in accordance with the government. If the majority of people want something, the government reacts, time and time again. We know this from Martin Luther King to the Suffragettes. Society works best when we work in accordance with the government. Experience and logic teaches us this.Society is also a pluralist system. Pluralism is how "politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence"[http://en.wikipedia.org...(political_theory)]. We can use our resources to exert influence. But resources is not simply money. Politicians have influence due to their status. Likewise, the working class, or the 99%, has power due to it being the labour in a system. By not using violent means, it unifies the 99%. If the group started using less well recieved methods such as vandalism, the group would split and fracture, making itself less powerful. To retain power, it is best by far to use non-violent means.effectivenessThis is my final point. What is more effective? As my opponent says, violence angers the taxpayers. It alienates them from the group. But this goes farther: violent means alienates everyone who is outside the group. No-one is sympathetic to any cause when it uses violence as the solution. If Greenpeace started bombing Florida, people would just be annoyed and disenfranchised and less wanting to support them, not more wanting to support them. A group which wants to exert pressure needs numbers to get the advantage.Separately, non-violent means are seen a lot more positively. In the media, when a 'million man march' is reported, it is seen positively, when people are simply stating their views: exercising their rights. And when the police get violent, then all hell breaks loose and the people protesting are supported even more. By contrast, if we look at, say, the greek riots, when the people fought back, and was violent, we lost sympathy, and they lost power. It is more effective to use non-violent, politically smart moves than brute force. To conclude, I have presented three of my own reasons in favour of political protest, and reasons against riots. I shall address my opponent's arguments in the next round.