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

Hi.I thank my opponent for showing his opinion.I ask my worthy opponent to do rebuttal of my second round in his third round, and defend his arguments and give conclusions in the last round. I will be doing the same.As the third round is just rebuttal, I am going to rebut my opponent's arguments.My strategy in rebutting will be: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal: 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." CON.- Worthy opponent, this is a wrong information many people have. Indians use Ghandi's peace movement as a cover for the numerous war and rebllions India had, for example: India's First War of Independence, which 'challenged and ended the power and control of British East Indian Company in India'. [1]2. " 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."CON. - Again, a cover. A story that many people don't know was when a black child in South Africa trained a dog to steal diomand from a diamond mine, which was then sold to buy weapons. Then the 'peaceful' movement started, after having power gained by armed clashes.3. "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." CON.- What was Martin's position? A Baptist minister! So he did have power! People actually liked him and followed him even before his ' civil rights movement. What my opponent has hidden about Martin Luther is that he led an unsuccessful 1962 struggle against segregation in Albany, Georgia (the Albany Movement). Why was it unsuccesful? Because he used peace instead of power. And the last thing that shows he was unsuccesful in his 'peaceful movements', his death was followed by riots in many U.S. cities! So when he was there, people showed him that they too like peace. As soon as he died, people started riots! That shows the unsuccesfulness of his peaceful movement. Then again, did any change come to America after his 'peaceful movement'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.4. "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" CON.- When the 'peaceful revolution' started in Syria, it achieved nothing. Nothing! Until ISIL, at that time ISI, only in Iraq, sent armed cells to Syria, to help the victims of the Syrian genocide by having WAR. As for what you said about ISIL, please read my argument in round 2. ISIL is now powerful as it left peace and used WAR. FSA, on the other hand, used war in the beggining, began to get many cities, than turned to peace, and eventually drowned.5.1. " 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" CON.-Wow! We are talking about war and peace, and my opponent is talking about political campaigns! Of course, in countries that don't have war, like America, people will refuse violence. Then again, we aren't debating violence. We are debating WAR. You may ask me, what is the difference between war and violence. My answer is :The one thing common to war and violence is hostility.War is hostility on a large scale, over a long duration of time. It may involve violence, it may involve cold shouldering, it may involve economic sanctions, it may involve social alienation. It is usually between large, powerful entities whose differences have so far outweighed their commonalities as to lead to such hostility. Violence is hostility expressed through physical force. It does not have to be large scale. It does not even need a scale. Two ants beating each other up over a piece of sugar, two dogs fighting over a bone, a man beating up his wife, right upto a nuclear bombing, it's all violence. Wars may or may not include violence. Violence may or may not mean war. [2] If I go to the street and kill all blacks, it is violence. But it is NOT war.5.2. From my opponent's source, I quote: "Government security forces don’t want to fire on unarmed civilians, especially when the crowd might include their mothers, daughters, friends, and neighbors." [3]- What about the countries in which the governments don't see who they are firing at, like Egypt? In Egypt, policemen and even armed forces shoot at everybody, armed and un-armed, children and elderlies, neighbours or cousins. So we can say that change very very seldom comes by peace. But MOSTLY, nearly always, change comes by WAR. [4] I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION. VOTE PRO.Thank you,Adil Muhammad,Qatar.Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(term)[2] https://www.quora.com...[3] https://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.cbc.ca...