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

My opponent talks about my opening statement. My opening statement is an important part of my argument, and I understand what he's trying to say, so I will go into MUCH more detail about my opening argument, and what I was trying to say: Justice: Giving each their due All humans are fundamentally due basic rights and liberties, the clearest which being the freedom from unjustified harm. 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. 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. By causing unnecessary harm I have fundamentally disrespected the rights and humanity of the personal attack. Respect for individuals thus requires that we attempt, as much as is humanely possible to refrain from bringing about unnecessary suffering. 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. Contention 1: The violent protesters tried to get their point across and it DIDN"T work. But when the non-violent protesters were there they succeeded. And my opponent is trying to tell me that the soldiers helped the non-violent revolution because it was "in contrast to the alternative that was being constantly thrown at the face of soldiers"? Well of course. The violent protester tired to get their point across and the soldiers saw no choice but to actually fire. Once they realized that there was another wave of non-violent protesters, their benevolence to the protesters was indeed a contrast to the alternatives that were being used. The soldiers sided with the non-violent protesters and didn't side with the violent ones, so I am not able to clearly see what type of an argument my opponent is making here. Contention 2: Regarding my second contention, pro states that it doesn't have anything to do with weather non-violence is justified. The thing is that soldiers are just regular people. So when they are shot at (or any violent method is used against them), their natural inclination is to shoot back. But 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. (if there was violence, surely some harm would have come out of it). Contention 3: Once again, non-violence poses the oppressors with a moral dilemma. If someone tried to attack the government, then the natural inclination is the fight back, and get him under control. However,, when a large protest involves nothing but words, the oppress is forced to revise his ideas. Regarding my last statement: "Revolution is justified, but violent revolution is not. We can always use non-violence, so you always prefer the negative. " 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? You always choose non-violence because it doesn't harm people in the process. If we have to choose between the harming of lives and creating unnecessary suffering or peaceful protests and the prevention of unnecessary suffering, we should always choose the latter. In the end, my opponent should not win, simply because he has not proven why violence is a just response. He has simply rebutted to my case, and stated that violence is the only way to negotiate with a government, but that does NOT prove why it is just.