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

He is a very very good debater and I'm privileged to be facing him. Hopefully I will be a decent challenge. In this round I will present my case and rebut to my opponent. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Definitions: Balance - with all things considered Justice - giving each their due Political Oppression - this one is by far the hardest to define. However, oppression is defined as: Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority. Since the political part of the resolution is referring to the government it should be defined as: The government prolonging cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority. Ok, so now that we have our definitions, let' move onto to my case: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The most important thing to consider in this case is weather violence is a just response, when faced with political oppression. If we look at violence itself, we will see that it is not justified. I would never say that killing is justified. However, the resolution is asking about violence, when faced with political oppression, which is a completely different scenario. And in this particular scenario I would say that violence is permissible and not justified . Let me clarify this point:Let's say that someone is walking down the street, and a mugger comes up, trying to mug the person. The person has no other option but to use violence and try his best to fend off the mugger, or even try to kill the mugger, depending on the severity of the case. Does that mean violence is justified? No. It simply means that violence is permissible in certain situations. In this particular case, the person is committing a permissible act. Like I stated, killing (which is violence) is never justified, but it is permissible in certain situations. In the same way, violence is permissible the case of political oppression but it is never justified. So this means that even if my opponent is winning every argument on his side of the flow, he will never be proving the burden of the resolution. He will always be proving to you that violence is permissible in certain situations, but he can never state that violence is justified. 1. Killing is unjust The use of violence will often involve killing. I think it is self explanatory that killing itself is unjust. The reason for this is simple - if justice gives each their due, then killing is defiantly not giving people what they are due. Since violent revolutions use killing as a key part of the revolution, then they are unjust as well 2. I would also like to point out the fact that violent revolutions never provide equality, liberty, and political freedoms to all of their citizens immediately after the revolution. For example, my opponent might argue that the United States of America was a successful violent revolution. However, this is argument is completely flawed. The reason being, after the American Revolution: 1. Women weren't allowed to vote 2. African americans were denied the rights of even being citizens 3. African Americans couldn't vote 4. If you didn't have property you weren't allowed to vote. All of the things that are on this list are today no longer applicable. But why are they no longer applicable? Because non-violent methods were used to get them repealed. I will now move onto the Affirmative Case: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Retributive Retributive Justice: Rebuttal 1: I must point out that my opponent's definition of retributive justice is unfair, and is very biased to suit his case. Furthermore, his source is from Wikapedia, which is not the most trustworthy source. Also, when reading the wikepedia article, it states that their needs to be a better citation for the definition given, meaning that the definition is very poor. The reason I say this definition is biased is because it states, "Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards. " Now in this definition it says that there is no vengeance involved, but I have found a reliable source that state otherwise. Because my source is more reliable I believe that we should use my definition instead of his:"The idea is that one who does harm deserves to suffer, that punishment is just and even necessary to 'right the wrong' and restore the moral balance. .. often linked with the popularly expressed goals of retribution, revenge, vengeance, an eye for an eye. " [1] Rebuttal 2: The problem with retributive justice, is the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. In the case of political oppression, violence simply escalates the problem instead of actually solving anything. It leads to harm and bloodshed. Furthermore, the biggest problem with retributive justice is that it is often linked to vengeance. Despite the fact that the idea of retribution justice is to provide proportional punishment, often times this doesn't end up being the case. But there must be proportionality in order for it to be justified. For example, if I steal a dollar from someone, they are not justified in breaking my arm. The punishment is not proportional. Since there needs to be proportionality, and retributive justice is often linked with vengeance, and is not proportional, it is not just. Self-Defense: Rebuttal: As I stated in my case, violence is permissible in certain situations but it is never justified. I would never want to tell my children that killing is justified. I would tell them that killing is permissible in certain situations which is what my opponent brings up in his case, but I would never tell them that killing is justified. My opponent specifically says, "Should that oppressive society decide to savagely beat individuals until they are black and blue, Con suggests that they would be unjust in defending themselves, since that too would involve violence. " Similar to the example I used with the mugger earlier in my case, it is permissible for me to be using self-defense against the oppressive society, but it's not justified. Intervention come sooner: Rebuttal 1: First of all, my opponent states that intervention is necessary because it ends abuses, deaths and injuries sooner. If violent revolution causes abuses deaths and injuries, how is it justified in the first place? Rebuttal 2: So the key argument from my opponent is that violence allows for their to be intervention from other organizations or countries that will stop the oppression. That's fine - but how does that make violence just? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Wow. . what a great argument my opponent had. .. . It took me almost 4 hours to write the rebuttal. My opponent's case was very good. I apologize for a very weak case. I tried to put a lot of effort into it, but it proved to be a rather difficult topic. Anyways, I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Vote CON! _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ sources: [1] . http://ethics.sandiego.edu...