Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Must adhere to the Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
Keep in mind, that these debates don't reflect my personal view, I am simply trying to grow as a debater.
No new arguments in final rounds, obviously.
Because of the inclusion of the word "just" in the resolution, it forces us to consider whether violence is a just response
to oppression. This means that questions of whether violence is a moral response must relate to justice or the question of the resolution is not answered. As such, any argument my opponent makes fulfilling their Value but not the value of justice is invalid, and cannot gain them any ground in this debate.
As such, I observe that whosoever proves that they can effectively preserve the integrity and justice of society, without compromising some in the process, should win this round. Simultaneously, I also observe that whosoever proves that they can provide a moral response in any given situation to political oppression should win this round.
As such, it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that violent revolution does not in any way compromise the integrity and justice of society, while also proving that violent revolution is a moral response in any given situation of political oppression, as the resolution would imply.
“The possibility of such violent revolution has as a precondition of what I have referred to as demonization or a denial that one is fighting humans who deserve respect.” Essentially, revolutionary violence breeds a culture that undermines the civility and restraint necessary for a political community, which undermines the revolutionary goal of achieving a more just and peaceful society that, after all, demands virtues of civility and compromise.
As such, it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that violent revolution does not in any way compromise the integrity and justice of society, while also proving that violent revolution is a moral response in any given situation of political oppression, as the resolution would imply.
It is not my job to prove that violent revolution doesn't compromise the integrity and justice of society because such a resolution was not mentioned in either the description nor the title.
The end result after the revolution is irrelevant because all it sheds light on is the behavior of the people in the revolution and if they are able to transform their society to be better.
Justice is an essential component in the achievement of integrity (morality), which is the end-goal of Justice. You do not use Justice to make a less moral society. While there was no mention of integrity, the terms are fundamentally intertwined. This technicality revolving around the term is insignificant to the win/loss of this debate, however.What IS crucial, though, is that proving violent revolution does not, under any circumstance, compromise the justice of society is an integral part of proving violent revolution as a just response.
Under my opponent's, I could massacre 700 people because someone pinched my arm everyday for a week, and I didn't deem it feasible to talk to them. I had a problem and saw violence as the only means to solve it. Doesn't mean it's just, does it?
Self-defense is not justified if it devolves into hurting innocents.What cost is the Negative willing to pay for reciprocity?
Allow me to be clear. Such a resolution was not made clear in either the title nor the description. If it had been, I wouldn't have accepted. It is dishonest debating to interpolate a new claim in the middle of an argument.
I never said every violent revolution is a just response, and that isn't the resolution.
Remember that Nazi Germany controlled many of the forms of newspapers, so who knows whether the citizens were able to hear about such incidents that my opponent mentioned.
Also, many times non-violent revolutions are met with violence. Such is the case many times in slave America, where slaves had no freedom and rarely non-violently protest without severe bodily harm.
this debate is over whether it is just, not effective.
There are documented 198 different forms of nonviolent action, classified into three categories according to their strategic function.(Source 1)
Nazi Germany, etc..basically reciprocity.
It is not dishonest debating to draw parallels between justice and morality.Burdens are often used by either side of the debate (something you could very well employ yourself,) to make decision-making process by judges easier. It is not an addition to the Resolution. The burden of your proof never increased. To prove violent revolution as (in some respect,) moral, is necessary to prove violent revolution as a "fair or fitting treatment."
In my analogy (that my opponent took too literally), the resolution I gave to the problem at hand was not proportional to the cost of that resolution, making it unjust. It was also an immoral action, as I included innocents in my judgement, which is again, unjust.
Therefore, in order to be just, the blood-soaked hands of revolutionaries must be soaked only in the blood of their oppressors, who must have been proportionally brutal to the revolutionaries.
The resolution is not “violent revolution is sometimes just,” or "can be just,"it is absolute.
“Remember that Nazi Germany controlled many of the forms of newspapers, so who knows whether the citizens were able to hear about such incidents that my opponent mentioned.”
Irrelevant.
Also, many times non-violent revolutions are met with violence. Such is the case many times in slave America, where slaves had no freedom and rarely non-violently protest without severe bodily harm.
The repression against those in non-violent revolutions is perhaps the most valuable aspect of them.
this debate is over whether it is just, not effective.Under Just War Theory, the effectiveness of the method matters.
It may not be the deciding factor, but if a lack of effectiveness makes the method immoral or unjust, then it can be.
Self-defense is not justified if it devolves into hurting innocents. A lack of effectiveness will exponentially increase this probability.
If the loss of innocent life at the hands of revolutionaries is avoidable, it would be unjust not to avoid it.
Sorry for the delay in posting - I normally favorited unvoted debates and missed this one
This argument mostly ended up as an argument over what the resolution meant.
The resolution here seems to indicate that violent revolution is to be considered just. If I take the reasonable interpretation of this, the idea is that the resolution requires the violent overthrow or uprising to be a fair and legitimate response to oppression. I think that would be how I would interpret the resolution as a contender.
Pro is arguing more a type of justice that is a measure of an appropriate reaction.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the contender here; as they don’t know the subtleties of the resolution as well as the instigate
The case is essentially, that violent revolution often appears to be bloody, sprawling affairs that kill innocent people; what was excellent about cons case, is that he tied in the justification that it is inherent in violent revolution based upon what it is and how they operate.
Pros case is that they are the only means of eliminating existing oppression - even if they do end up causing more oppression. His case is that it’s also fair due to the government having the oppression visited upon them returned.
Pros rebuttal didn’t fully cover cons case here. I would have liked to see more of an explanation concerning deaths of innocents and the disproportionate violence towards part players that con elaborated on
Con continues by pointing out the benefit of non violent protest at effecting change over violent revolution - and again reiterates the harm.
I have issues with pros response - while I buy the concept that there’s not necessarily a way of overthrowing the government non violently, pro doesn’t really address the issue of loss of innocent life, and associated untargetted violence that comes with it. I’d be willing to agree if pro provided a weighting of the harms of the revolution against civilians, or to show examples of broadly fair revolutions.
Con provides a great contrast in the final round with non violent protest. While I don’t necessarily fully agree on the practicalities, this is a pretty well rounded point.
Pro mostly reiterated his underlying response.
So, let’s weigh this all up. I’m afraid I mostly side with pro in terms of the resolution in general: If a fair and reasonable revolution violently overthrew a government, this would meet the criteria, even if the end result ended up leading to worse. Cons case to explain the resolution wasn’t intuitive enough for me to accept. This is probably a formal vs online debate thing (so please bear that in mind!)
What I side with pro on - again, but only a little - is that pro must show the inherent justice in violent revolutions in general: I wouldn’t go so far as to say all, but I felt there was an onus to argue why many were fair. I would have accepted a theoretical argument (they could be just if done right) but things never went this way.
Pros issue is that while I would be prepared to buy that particular revolutions are or were just, the issue of the deaths and punishment of innocents that come with them was never weighted: while I would accept that punching a bully in the face is just - punching three innocent people and a bully needs justification - that was not forthcoming from pro, and for that reason I must award the debate to con.
Please not, con: some of the arguments for the resolution and meaning felt as if they were trying to make the debate harder for pro - without imo good reason, you had an excellent argument for innocents that could have won regardless of the resolution arguments.
Good luck! They've used this topic before at NSDA nationals, so they're should be plenty of material out there for you.
Anytime, dude, lol
This is actually the LD topic that I will be having to debate at the NSDA Nationals in Dallas this coming week. That's why I practiced some argumentation here, to get a feel for what others would say in response to my Con :)
A good, old-fashioned LD topic...They don't make 'em like they used to. I'll think about voting on this.
Good debate! Gave me proper run for my money! We will see who is the victor during judging :)