Revolution is a neccessity for "evolution" of society

Deffinition: Evolution - a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage) (. http://wordnet.princeton.edu...) Revolution - a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving (same source) I would agree with my opponent that in the context of history definition of whether or not a revolution creates a "better" society depends on what part of the world you are standing in, but I must clarify that what is being debated here is whether or not it is a neccessity for change. Certainly my opponent would agree that even though England has not experienced an innerrevolt as many countries have that he has mentioned they were revolted against by the colonists, English citizens, and experienced a change in governance even further back with the creation of the Magna Carta thus creating a change in peoples understanding of the way they should be governed. In addition the evolution of the English governance into a Parlimentary government came through self preservation that if a semblance of percieved control was not given to the people than it would most certainly revolt, eventually. The British empire also had the "luxury" of maintaining an empire that was world wide and thereby if you did not like the way your government was run you could leave and go to one of thier countless provinces, thus difusing revolution by means of options. Reduce the options and it is much like backing a dog into a corner. While it is true that certain revolutions lead oppressive and dangerous regimes this only serves to clarify my quotes further. If a society becomes complacent than they are easily subdued and controlled. One of my beliefs as to why it is so difficult for the U. S. to establish a democracy in Iraq is because it was not created through revolution of its own people and people who are not willing to lay down thier life and say I would rather die free than to live as a slave are those who are not ready or willing to create a better life for themselves. Spreading democracy is no different than spreading communism, but that is for another debate. In a war or revolution there has to be a loser and the losing side would no doubt complain at thier reversal of fortune but thus is life. I will say that revolution creates an instability that can seem uncomfortable and the societies that have longest stable governments and civilizations went thousands of years without revolt, such as Egypt, China, Rome, Greece etc. However the greatest advancements have happened when in an unstable environment. As a global society we are evolving to changing conditions however the conditions always over time without revolt lead to a seperation between those with money and those without and usually on a level that the very few control the majority. (In this country 1% control 20% of the wealth and the top 20% control 80% of the wealth) This is a powder keg waiting for a spark of disenfranchisement to create a catalyst for revolution. With the current condition of the economy that spark may have arrived as the curtain has dropped on how little control we have on our own lives. Complacency and living well has been the norm for the majority so the divide has been acceptable as we were able to progress. Now that those with the power (wealth) have destroyed that people are angry and that anger can turn to a radical movement that will precipitate a revolution whether violent or through civil disobedience.