Instigator / Con
7
1646
rating
59
debates
66.1%
won
Topic

Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Undefeatable
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
4
1718
rating
41
debates
70.73%
won
Description
~ 977 / 5,000

Revolution: As a historical process, “revolution” refers to a movement, often violent, to overthrow an old regime and effect, complete change in the fundamental institutions of society -- http://www.columbia.edu/cu/weai/exeas/asian-revolutions/pdf/what-is-revolution.pdf

Violent: using force to hurt or attack, used to describe a situation or event in which people are hurt or killed -- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/violent

Political: Relating to the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/politics)

Oppression: a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom

Just: morally correct (similar to Justice: righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness)

I will be repeating none of my arguments from last time, except Uncertainty.

Round 1
Con
Thanks Ben. 

I. Uncertainty

It is near impossible to tell in a vast majority of circumstances whether the oppression is truly enough for revolutions to be just. Indeed, by the very nature of violence, people are lost in their own beliefs. They do not care about consequences. Their intentions are merely to inflict harm, and less about preserving yourself. Con may ask, what about the Nazi's? I will get to this in point II. The outliers do not justify the majority -- the cases where the citizens will use anything to justify their revolution. Take a look at the American Revolution, for example. The causes and the lack of fully informed people make the revolution morally ambiguous. A book exposes how Ben Franklin framed a horrible leader, on how the Britain king “engages savages to murder their defenseless farmers, women, and children.” [3] While in reality, the King did not murder innocents, to begin with. Now tell me, is it just to rally your people with false cause and create political oppression? Of course not. 

Even if this wasn't enough, the main justification "Taxation without representation" is extremely poorly defined. Britain had begun a war and needed to pay for the costs while being in debt. It protected the American colonies and despite no “representation” the addition of taxes was entirely acceptable. The Americans enjoyed a great amount of liberty. They claimed oppression while in reality only the negros on the plantation were in true slavery. Historians widely “criticize American Whigs for their highly inflated prattle about the "slavery" resulting from British policies” [1]. The colonists never wanted to be represented (as they would simply be outvoted), and would never agree to be taxed (as it is more practical and convenient otherwise). Therefore, oppression will usually be exaggerated as soon as any citizens are unsatisfied with various rules. The people’s judgment was biased. The colonists claimed “tax without representation” yet failed to reaffirm the right in the constitution.

People will use any excuse to justify the VR. We see this even in the modern-day. The citizens were rallied by Trump, believing his election to be oppressive -- voter fraud, Biden's lies, so on and so forth. Yet most of these claims are unfounded by expert sources -- otherwise, the Supreme Court would've overturned the election already. The people conducted a violent revolution against the capitol, only to result in deaths and unchanged policy. If we let citizens revolt under any justification, then we would have nothing but chaos, and the entire government contract is violated.

II. Moral Obligation vs Moral Allowance
The difference between justification and justness seems subtle but is significantly large. The law justifies self-defense based on preserving oneself, but this is a mere moral allowance, rather than a moral obligation. It is equally moral for the man to be forgiving, or too afraid to act and die in the process. It is extraordinarily difficult to say that the violent revolution is the correct decision to make in all cases. With regards to self-defense, it would seem odd to say the correct thing to do against a stronger attacker is to resist anyways, making their violence seem even more justified, and having the result be morally ambiguous. Similarly, even with the Nazi's, the "do or don't" policy makes it seem like we don't care about the Nazi's moral sphere. We don't care what happens to them so long as we strove to make the effort. As such, self-defense or violent revolution would result to be an immoral act. Do not confuse this with nonmoral act-- they are not unconscious while revolting, they merely do not care.

If one needs further support for this, one only needs to look at the results of violent revolution. In a similar comparison to self-defense, imagine a devious abuser was hitting his wife all the time. Of course, it seems allowed that she would strike back and killing him. However, as a result of her planned killing, she learns the power of violence and begins abusing her son. If self-defense only resulted in endless cycles of more self-defense, this society is simply unsustainable as a single abuser could lead to an entire chain of friends and families abusing and killing each other. What is the difference? Why are victims of abuse not abusing their sons? Revolutions require carefully planning, scheming, and putting together action. Self-defense is an immediate action and an immediate result. But Revolution occurs over many months, and over time the revolutionaries may think of other selfish goals.

Real-life examples highlight why this is true. Expert Mr. Weede's article notes, "Revolutions do not contribute to the promotion of liberty, they merely generate a new ruling class or oligarchy, stronger armed forces, and more war-involvement. Regardless of the evaluation method, the economic performance of post-revolutionary regimes looks unconvincing. Certainly, it cannot compensate for the extraordinary loss of life". [2] As you can see, the revolutionary's ideals lead to more VR's that ultimately destroy the country from within. 

Weed points out that VR's lead to negative economic impact. Also, they constrain men and women both, causing the same old oppression. Next, Weede lists countless examples where VR only led to more oppression, with Russia becoming worse; Castro's claim of power refusing migrants and refugees, and somehow, Khmer Rogue's rule was as bloody, if not more, than Hitler's and Stalin's. He finally concludes with Gurr's notice that revolutionaries tend to result in police states that are worse off than the original, listing more than a dozen examples.

Most importantly, on page 331, he notes that the people are ready to kill. They must support the inherent ideas of ruthlessness and cruelty. From the rationality basis, you can sympathize much better with the non-cruel side than the cruel side. As such, the leading *impact* which I forgot in R1 is that people will now be just as ruthless as before.

Once you have felt so angered that you feel you must physically act, I see no inherent barrier preventing you from doing the same to others who fail to act. The nature of violence sets the other as an enemy; you would only inflict pain on those who have seriously violated your rights. You are far more likely to see the world as a dichotomy of two views set against each other and believe that anyone NOT on your side, is on the enemy’s side. The enforcement of your belief through violence re-enforces the idea that you must not tolerate even the slightest hesitation. Through countless revolutions, we have needlessly hurt innocents and bystanders.

Next, Weede notes the numerous problems with actually sustaining a new government. The leaders are power-hungry and fail to think of constitutional laws and ideals to help the people. And once they become the actual leaders, they view themselves as those who deserve power -- a haunting similarity to the dictatorship. Despite the oligarchy in place, revolutionary regimes become what they spoke up against. They know the incredible power of violence and the temptation is difficult to resist.

Conclusion: It's very clear that Revolutions can't be the correct response against Political Oppression. There are too many unclear cases, manipulative masses that make the information impossible to judge. And even in cases where it's seemingly clear cut with genocidal regimes, not resisting seems to be just as plausible as resisting. The citizens don't care either way. They'll harm everyone related to the regime, possibly causing even more damage, and result in a government just as bad as the original, if not worse.

1.  full article is in pastebin
Pro
Thanks, Con.

It is an honor to debate you. Nevertheless, prepare to become Defeatable.


BASIC SETUP:

I need to clarify a few things. 

Freedom cannot be given, only taken. The same principle applies to law and morality. An act is not immoral or illegal unless proven as such. Con has the burden of proof since he wants to remove the possibility of revolution from the toolkit an oppressed population can use or threaten to use. In other words, Con advocates for the adding of a new moral rule, "do not revolt". I regret that Con's argument implies that we talk about revolutions in a general sense, which is not the case. We only discuss those that are against an oppressive regime. Even still, the way Con presented the topic is misleading. He talks about the impracticality of performing a revolution and the problems associated with building a functional post-revolution society. But we are not going to discuss the practicality but rather the justification for a revolution. 

I want to lay the groundwork for this debate.

A. The question:

Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression
Let us apply Cons definitions to this sentence and we get this:

If a population is governed in an unfair and cruel way - while not enjoying basic human rights -  people can justify forming a movement and use force to overthrow the regime.

This implies that the group of revolutions we are discussing have the following criteria:
  • The people are being governed in a cruel and unfair way
  • A movement of people take to arms solely as a result of the oppression
  • The conflict between the movement and the government becomes violent
I see that all Cons arguments critique revolutions that do not fit all of these criteria.



B. The social contract:

The social contract is an unwritten law that people agree on. Human society relies on everyone's consent to abandon a part of their freedom in order to gain protection and social life. Humans exchange freedom for responsibility in order to function as a society. I assume we will use the modern social contract - the one which is the basis for democracy:
The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the people[1]
The government has no real authority or legitimacy without the consent of the people.



C. Justice:

Let me present the correct definition for this debate.

Just: (of treatment) deserved or appropriate in the circumstances (1.1) [2]

We are not talking about religion or ethics, but politics. I do not think that Con wants to debate the religious or philosophical objectivity of morality. Therefore he cannot use our Judeo-Christian "morality" as evidence. At most he can use it as an emotional weight to back his arguments. We use the social contract and not morality when talking about objective justice. Con must explain why the social contract is still binding the people when the state has broken it multiple times. Yet he fails to even mention the relationship between the people, the state, and morality.


D. The state:

State: a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”[4]

Legitimacy: Conforming to the law or to rules.[3]

We can assume that fighting against a legitimate state with the support of the people is undoubtedly not a just action. The legitimacy of the state prevents any violent resistance from being justifiable. However, if a state is not legitimate the same argument falls apart. Fighting an illegitimate force of violence like a mafia empire is undoubtedly justifiable. Therefore an illegitimate authority can justifiably be revolted against.

The question then becomes "what is an illegitimate state?". Unless Con can prove that no states are illegitimate - some revolutions will always be justifiable.

I have now established a solid foundation for our debate. I will proceed.



ARGUMENT:

P1: A revolution is only unjustifiable if fighting against a legitimate state
P2: An oppressing regime is necessarily illegitimate
C: A revolution with proper motivations and support is a justifiable response to an illegitimate oppressive state

This argument cannot be refuted without ignoring the foundation of society: consent and free will. A state's Legitimacy comes from the support of the people and the social contract. If a regime is oppressing a population it is breaking the social contract and losing the support of the population. Since it has lost the support of the people and broken the social contract, it is no longer legitimate in its use of authority and force. An oppressive regime is actually a false state. It is not supported by the people and is therefore not a real community, neither is their use of violence legitimate as it breaks the social contract. Since the state is illegitimate and cruel there is no "morality" preventing the people from exercising their freedom and right to self-defense - unless Con wants to refer to religion. When the social contract is broken by the state the people are no longer bound by said contract. Therefore, a revolution can be seen as equally just to a person defending his family from a mafia slave dealer. A revolution supported by the people is just like a guerilla war: a military power that occupies the country fighting against a resistance supported by the people. It is not the revolution that is unjust, but the regime. The result, in this case, does not matter. Justice is about the action, not the result.




REBUTTALS:

I. Uncertainty
We have as a basic assumption that the government oppresses the people by treating them in an unfair and cruel way. The idea that "ENOUGH" objectively exists is a fundamental misunderstanding on Cons. Nobody can say what amount is enough, so in theory, nobody should be able to do anything, ever. If the people consider themselves oppressed, they can protest against the regime in a peaceful way. If the government refuses to change they need to use more force to keep their power, thus intensifying the oppression. If a group supported by the people goes to arms, the ruling power must respect the will of the people and change their policy or resign. The government must bend or break - it cannot continue to oppress the people. If the government refuses to stop then a revolution is the last resort - a just response to a neglected social contract and a violation of both human freedom and human rights.


They do not care about consequences. Their intentions are merely to inflict harm, and less about preserving yourself.
These are some bold claims. Con has nothing to support these assertions.  


Indeed, by the very nature of violence, people are lost in their own beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that many revolutions are staged by an ideological group like the communists. They do not fit our criteria for motivation, and I do not defend them.


The outliers do not justify the majority ... People will use any excuse to justify the VR.
This is a straw man of the argument. Under a cruel, unfair regime that takes away basic freedoms and human rights - ONLY in that case is a revolution just.
The British Empire does not fit our criteria: "Oppressive" - as he admitted himself.


revolutionaries tend to result in police states
Those revolutions are often fueled by the wrong intentions and do not fit our second criteria. Humans have a right to self-defense, even if one might die in the fight.


It is extraordinarily difficult to say that the violent revolution is the correct decision to make in all cases.
I simply don't. I claim that the people have a just right to self-defense against oppressive, illegitimate regimes.
 

The leaders are power-hungry and fail to think of constitutional laws and ideals to help the people.
Think about Con's own example, the American revolution.


Revolutions do not contribute to the promotion of liberty
Neither does personal self-defense. Con tries to assert as a hidden premise that justice = the promotion of liberty. This is not correct, therefore the argument is invalid.


Weed points out that VR's lead to negative economic impact.
A fair judicial and prison system also negatively affect the economy - but we still find them justifiable. The economy has nothing to do with what's justice.


Revolutions can't be the correct response against Political Oppression.
Con's conclusion does not even grant him the victory if taken as a fact. "Just" does not imply good, smart, or even correct. Just just means just. Cons rhetoric hides this fact for obvious reasons. He argues that a revolution, in most cases, is not a smart decision. I would agree. Still, a revolution is a justifiable action to take in those circumstances.


this is a mere moral allowance, rather than a moral obligation.
Con has admitted defeat: a revolution is at least morally justifiable - but maybe not a moral duty. 




CONCLUSION:

If a regime is oppressive and illegitimate, a revolution supported by the people is a totally justified last resort. But it is not necessarily practical, wise, and beneficial.

For some political authority backing this view I want to quote the American declaration of independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.[5]
Clearly, the western position is that revolutions are justifiable. Risk has nothing to do with justice.

Con must prove that a revolution is always unjustifiable, which he has failed to do.

Back to you, Con.



SOURCES:



Round 2
Con
Framework

Notice how Con uses the government contract, but it works both ways. If the people unfairly step out of line despite other methods available to them, then they are in the wrong rather than the government. The examples I gave all highlight how people use ridiculous justifications, claiming to be governed unfairly, but resulting in a severely unfair result.

Con claims:  Unless Con can prove that no states are illegitimate - some revolutions will always be justifiable.

To which I answer back: 1. Do all illegitimate states justify revolutions? 2. Do the minority of illegitimate states justify the majority of legitimate states?

The answer is no. Why?

Con claims that the action itself is what matters, rather than the result. This is already looking bad for him. If we apply the same logic to the state, then *any* oppression would mean the state is unjust, and the people must revolt. After all, Con claims here it's not about the impacts, not about how *bad* the oppression is, just the fact that *any* oppression exists at all. This means that the state's final result would be an anarchy! All laws oppress or restrict the people in some manner. His logic supports my idea that people would have to violently revolt under any and all circumstances. They would not be willing to form any government, because they would have to enforce further laws, which is the action of oppression -- even if with idea of protecting people's rights. Clearly, the government contract must enforce *some* sort of oppression, against malicious men intending to do bad actions. Con then must either accept a chaotic anarchy where criminals are free to roam free -- due to lack of restrictions -- or, he must accept that oppression's impact actually matters. There is severe difference between a regime killing innocent people, and jailing a criminal. Both cases, someone is oppressed, but Con implies the second is just as fatal as the first. 

Defense

Con has essentially conceded the argument. He admits: "If the government refuses to stop then a revolution is the last resort ..."

Why must we say the last resort is the just response? There are so many other ways. Non-violent revolutions have worked out relatively well. International pressure and warfare was precisely what stopped the Nazi's, not a handful of untrained Jews. Consider this, if other methods will work, then why must we harm others? In fact, Con's previous argument also supports my ideal. If results do not matter, only the action, then the more peaceful action displaying your intentions would be far superior! Violence inherently harms others and makes the morality ambiguous, as Con has pointed out. On the other hand, peaceful strikes still highlight the unfair oppression of the government. Ghandi seems far more appealing than your rock-throwing rioter here. 

Con claims that I have no support that the revolutionaries do not care about results of getting a better world. I already backed this up, and Con's credibility drops as a result of not reading my argument.

Recall: 
The colonists never wanted to be represented (as they would simply be outvoted), and would never agree to be taxed (as it is more practical and convenient otherwise). The colonists kept slaves, the truly oppressed -- highlighting their negligence of equality. 

The citizens were rallied by Trump, believing his election to be oppressive -- voter fraud, Biden's lies, so on and so forth. Yet most of these claims are unfounded by expert sources -- otherwise, the Supreme Court would've overturned the election already. The people conducted a violent revolution against the capitol, only to result in deaths and unchanged policy.

Expert Mr. Weede's article notes, "Revolutions do not contribute to the promotion of liberty, they merely generate a new ruling class or oligarchy, stronger armed forces, and more war-involvement. Regardless of the evaluation method, the economic performance of post-revolutionary regimes looks unconvincing. Certainly, it cannot compensate for the extraordinary loss of life". 
These numerous examples display that even the revolutionaries' intentions were tainted and unjustified. They claimed there was oppression, but all of these societies were morally ambiguous rather than obvious. It's definite that people would never be able to know for sure whether they can harm the government or not. Therefore the only choice is to ask for international help, or use nonviolent methods to protest.

Con has admitted: Under a cruel, unfair regime that takes away basic freedoms and human rights - ONLY in that case is a revolution just.

He has conceded his entire case. Oppression exists in many scenarios: whether it be the "Voter fraud", the "taxation without representation", or other vague ideas that make little sense. There are many ways to oppress without taking away basic freedoms and human rights. With even American Revolution justified based on something other than a basic freedom, it's clear that he has already lost his big argument.

Pro claims that moral allowance (Justifiable) means that the revolution is Just (morally obligated). This is obviously incorrect. One PhD author at Princeton notes the difference, stating "To call an action “just” is to say that this action contributes to justice—i.e., something positive is ascribed to this action. A just act is one that contributes to the right ordering of the world; it moves society towards a positive, peaceful telos. To call an action “justified,” however, is to affirm that there is a legitimate reason for carrying out this action. A “justified” action is not a positive contribution to the world but rather, at best, a necessary action. Such an action may be negative, in fact, though still necessary according to the particular historical circumstances.” [1] In other words, Con has only proved that violent revolutions are justified, rather than Just. 

Conclusion: Con has given an arbitrary standard for oppression and tried to have the minority justify the majority. But clearly, even the Nazi's is difficult to tell due to an impossible decision. Under even more absurd justifications, Violent Revolutions are insane and only lead to bloodshed. To support the government contract we have methods set up in place. Just why must we harm those that we allowed to serve us?

Pro
Thank you, Con.
 

DEFENSE:



Justice
One PhD author at Princeton notes the difference,
Sorry - but you should have put that difference in the description, it's too late now. You have provided no less than 4 contradictory definitions of justice.

Pro claims that moral allowance (Justifiable) means Just (morally obligated)
Con tries to hide his weak argument by finding a way to separate two terms that mean the exact same thing. Remember the definition in the description:
 
Just: morally correct (similar to Justice: righteousness,equitableness, or moral rightness)
 
A just action is A morally correct option - not THE morally obligated action. "Justify" in this context means to show that an action is just. They mean the same in this context.

Con claims that the action itself is what matters, rather than theresult.
Con claims that if an act has a negative result the action itself is not just. But this logic is inconsistent. Let's say I accidentally saved a life by raping someone. Con would need to admit that my rape was a just act as the ultimate result was positive. This undermines morality. How can we call any type of action, like rape or murder, immoral if the result is what matters? Con thinks that the end is what matters, not the action -- but this undermines his entire position. Peaceful revolutions are almost never beneficial - people die without achieving much. In most cases, the government feels treathened and the end result is only more intense oppression of civilians within the country.
 
If the end justifies the means then more extreme groups like the communists would have the moral high ground - as they provide grand promises for a utopian future. It doesn't matter that communism needs to oppress people and take away their basic human rights. This basis for justice is incoherent, inconsistent, vague and makes Con's argument self-contradictory. Con wants justice to be dictated by a pseudoreligious "morality" that is not connected to our harsh reality. The social contract as a standard for justice is superior in every way - it allows people to freely shape their society as they see fit. This is the difference between free  America and theocratic Iran.
 
Conclusion:
  • The social contract is the correct standard for justice 
  • Justice is about the action rather than the result
Having completely recked Cons argument regarding justice, I will proceed.
 
 

Oppression:
Con has failed to prove that a revolution is inherently unjust. I have used the social contract to prove that a revolution is unjust ONLY IF fighting against an illegitimate state. My opponent has argued that people use any oppression as justification. But his argument is based on an incorrect understanding of oppression.

the government contract must enforce *some* sort of oppression
Con forgets his own definition  --  Oppression: a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom
 
Cruel means to be willfully causing pain [1]. Con ignores the real definition of oppression in order to claim that any law is inherently oppressive. He says that the final state would be anarchy, this is not the case. The final result would be a non-cruel state. If we use the correct definition, your entire argument falls apart




The government contract
I must clarify a few things.
Con uses the government contract, but it works both ways.
Let me restate the government contract: "The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the people" - how does that work both ways? I clearly said that a revolution against a legitimate government is unjustifiable. When the government has the support of the people it cannot justly be revolted against. But this is not the case when the state is cruel and illegitimate. If the government breaks the contract by being oppressive the social contract is broken. A revolution is just, even though they use violence. Why? Because the social contract has been broken. The same principle lets the police use violence against criminals. Violence is unjust, but criminals break the standard first - therefore the police can JUSTLY break morality by arresting them.

Revolutions are a right of the people - a point which Con could not deny seeing as his 3000 leftover characters could not be put to use. I have already proved that an oppressive government is a false state - and that revolting against a false state is a just action to take. I regret that none of my challenges to Con were answered or rebutted. I take this as an admission that he has no sufficient explanation for what a state is, why it exists and why its legitimacy prevents a revolution. I conclude that Con has given up on trying to critique the social contract.
 

Timing
Cons rhetoric suggests that I support a revolution before all other measures have been tried and failed. But in my first argument, I clearly stated that revolutions happen AFTER other measures have been tested and found useless. This entire argument is a null point from Con, he must prove that a revolution is unjust even as a last resort. Con tries to appeal to morality by asking why they do not just organize peaceful protests. But Gandhi lived in India, a country with more people than Britain had bullets. It was a far better approach as the Indians had no way to even get proper weapons. It happened after they had tried to revolt multiple times, not to mention the fact that his country was a colony, not a state. In states, there is a serious chance of getting weapons and organizing a forceful revolution. We conclude that both peaceful and violent revolutions are justified under an illegitimate regime, but different situations require different solutions. Con critiqued revolutionaries for their dichotomous view of the world, but it is clear that he falls short of the same dichotomous view when it comes to state justice.
 

Summary
All of Con's rebuttals are based on false assumptions or wrong definitions. His reply is one big straw man. I, therefore, declare his entire first reply invalidated.
 
 
 
OFFENCE:
Since Con has not debunked any of my arguments, I will add 3 new ones in order to further strengthen my position.
 

Self-defense
If a criminal much stronger than me came to me every day to beat me up or take my food, I would have the right to defend myself. Let's say I had a gun, I could justly use it to threaten him. If the aggressor ignores my threat I can justify shooting him in the leg, then in his arm, until he surrenders. I see no moral rule that would prevent me from using the means at my disposal to defend myself, my family, or my people. Only under the social contract do we allow some people to perform violence without fear of retaliation - namely the police. But when the social contract is broken, this is no longer the case. You have a right to defend yourself against any illegitimate force of violence - be it a mafia empire or an oppressive regime with KGB-police. Self-defense against the Nazis would be a just response from the Jews. Obviously, there is a risk associated with self-defense. Maybe you end up worse of than before, but that does not make the act of self-defense unjust.  By defending yourself against oppression, you defend the defenseless from said oppression.

P1: Self defense is a just act
P2: Revolutions are self-defense [my post 1]
C: Revolution against oppression is a just act
 
 


Oppression
Oppression can have an extremely negative impact. I will debunk Con's claim that revolutions are never worth the cost. I quote Washington Post:

But both Hitler and Stalin were outdone by Mao Zedong. From 1958 to1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 millionpeople – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded.[2]
Jung Chang, a respected writer of Chinese history, describes the horrible oppression [3]:
  • People were tortured for political wrongdoings
  • The economy collapsed
  • Culture was destroyed
  • Basic human joy and happiness was prevented by strict discipline at all times
  • People were controlled through countless meetings, rations, and protocols
  • People lost their basic human rights
If 30 million people had died in a revolution against Mao, the country would STILL have been better of in every way: population, culture, happiness, freedom, and economy. I cannot see how Con would justify the claim that the Chinese people should have sat down, accepted their fate, and died. In such a situation the only option is a revolution. After all, everyone that publicly spoke up against Mao was instantly "removed". In such cases, a revolution is both just and the only realistic response.
 

 Fear of revolution
This should be quite clear - an armed population cannot be oppressed. The so-called "trump revolution" is evidence that Americans are not willing to be messed around with by the government. Obviously, they are mistaken, but still, the message is clear: the USA has never and will never become a dictatorship as long as people are allowed to defend themselves from oppression. The fear of a revolution keeps any government in check. In countries where violent revolutions are not even possible, that is where the oppression is worst. If people cannot revolt - peaceful revolutions lose their impact as warnings. Revolutions, at least their possibility, benefit society.
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION:
 
Most of my arguments were never addressed -- none were debunked. Con has not fulfilled his BoP. 

A revolution is a just option for an oppressed population.
 
Back to you, Con.
 
 
SOURCES:





Round 3
Con
Framework

Con dismisses my argument merely upon "being too late", but how was I supposed to know that Con would be mistaken to think that Justice and Justification is the same thing? There are many things that have justification. But justice is completely different. With Justification, some killings may be allowed. But many argue that only other killers deserve the death penalty -- a form of justice. Similarly, we are obligated to perform justice -- take a look at the judicial system. To enforce unjustness results in chaos and contradictory rules. Therefore Justness, correctness, and obligation are still synonymous all around.

Success of Non-VR

I'm terribly sorry to bring up my past argument, but Con has zero sources to back him up. Con had previously dismissed results but is now considering the possibility that results may matter. I will copy my previous idea as it is relevant to this debate now:  

 Nonviolence is well renowned to trump violence in the vast majority of cases. Chenoweth is a famous researcher who analyzed 323 different violent and nonviolent revolutions since 1900. The results? Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure, while violent campaigns were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. [2] Even looking only at partial successes, nonviolent campaigns still won out in the end (20% vs 10%).
      The logical reasoning is that it “enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation...recognition … can translate into greater internal and external support for that group… undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.” [4, p9] Now, at last, you see the core of my argument. If you agree with Arg 1, then you can see how the unnecessary amount of deaths are ridiculous. Other countries are crucial nowadays for survival, whether it be through trade, through immigrants, among countless other factors.
         In Chenoweth’s own words, the forcible unjust acts of political oppression may become obvious if they are forced into the realm of violence first. While violent revolution often requires us to act first, the subtle nature of nonviolent revolution allows for greater power shifts. Unlike being able to label the violent revolution response as terrorism, the nonviolent nature of the people are harder to destroy inherently, and therefore just. The empirical evidence combines with logic reasoning and upholds the burden.
Next, Con claims of the social contract, but fails to address that government has implied consent of the governed, and may restrict specific liberties in order to enforce protection. Extend this dropped argument.

Con claims that willfully causing negative issues is the problem, but all my examples prove the people believe that the government cruelly and unfairly treated them. Taxation without representation. Voter fraud in the election. I could go on. This almost semantic argument has zero impact on my main idea.

Government Contract

Con claims that in every case of oppression the contract has been broken first, but fails to address the examples I have gave. They are extremely morally ambiguous and may have other ways to resolve them, especially in the non-violent sphere. You could argue that the people's revolting is the true reversal of the contract, justifying the state response. Remember that oppression is not always physical, making it even harder to determine when to strike. Con claims that revolution is the right of the people, and tries to say I dropped the argument, but remember that I also support non-violent revolutions, a subset of revolutions. The full resolution is *violent revolutions*. In order for Con to win, he must fulfill why the people have the right to harm the government rather than resorting to protest, strikes, letters to governors, etc.

Con flips the burden of proof on me by saying that I must prove revolutions are unjust even in the last resort. This is clearly absurd. As I repeatedly say: The minority do not justify the majority. Why is this? Not only are powerful regimes barely affected by this, the vast majority of "oppressive governments" lie in the realm of ambiguousness. I already stated that it is impossible to decide when to use your violence. And if the government is actually truly powerful, then it makes no difference whether you are violent or not. Remember that con admitted results don't matter. So you don't care if you actually take down the government. You only care if you showed your resistance. And if both Ghandi and a Rioter can demonstrate this, then it seems to me that the one that inherently does less harm will be more justified (or more just, directly speaking). In fact, you could argue that the non-violent nature is even stronger. It says: No matter what you do, even if you hurt me, I will not be like you. I will show my view my own way, standing strong, without inflicting violence. The fact that Non-violent revolutions are more successful in general show that they are inherently better, and hence more moral.

Con brings up self-defense. This seems like a good point, until you realize you rarely battle the perpetrator directly. Imagine a man forces a mercenary to kill you, otherwise the mercenary cannot live off financially. Many times there are multiple levels of relation separating you from the man truly doing harm. It is far more difficult to battle another oppressor who is ironically being oppressed. Look at our riots: we battle the police, or in developing countries, we battle the military. We almost never directly kill the rulers. But you can't just kill someone through association. Imagine they were mind controlled instead to kill you, deprived of their freedom. And now you also deprive them of their life. In contrast, with protest and demonstration, you can release them from their bonds and convince them otherwise. In order for this self defense argument to succeed, you would have to only harm those directly giving the orders, which is very difficult. Many revolutions kill innocents by mistake, or any non-combatants related to the perpetrator. Kill by association is a dangerous rule that differs from self-defense, and makes revolutions unjustified in vast majority of circumstances.

Con claims that Mao's dangerous regime was brought to a miraculous end by revolutionaries, resulting in a world much better without him. But Mao was not killed by revolutionaries. He died of natural causes. [1] As such, you can tell the revolution was completely useless and you had to even wait for the dictator to die normally. I have flipped this point over.

Fear of revolution

Con brings up an interesting point. He claims that the violent revolution is a good way to keep the government in check. But in reality, I argue that US will never become a dictatorship solely based on checks and balances of power, revolutions or not. And non-violent revolutions also have devastating effects, especially with thousands going on strike bringing the economy to stagnate or lose man power. He admits that it is especially the worst case scenario, the strongest regimes, where revolution is not possible. He has essentially conceded the debate at this point. How can an action be Just when it is not even possible?

Pro
DEFENCE:



Justice vs Morality
Con dismisses my argument merely upon "being too late"
Incorrect. I proved why the definition of "Just" in the description and the word "justifiable" according to your new source, they have the same meaning. As he uses the word, "just" is synonymous with "beneficial", but he calls it a moral obligation. I have clearly debunked that claim. Con cannot even explain in a consistent way what he means by justice. As I said earlier, the view that there is always a "moral obligation" is wrong - there are only free will and moral allowances. "Justice" references the social contract, not any of Con's definitions.

Con's use of the word "justice" makes no sense. Here are his claims:

  • justice is about the long term results, not the action or the situation. If that is the case then the American revolution was just.
  • justice is about the moral law. If that is the case then the American Revolution was not just.
  • justice is about moral obligation - and there is only one in every situation. If that is the case then free will is immoral, and liberty should not be pursued.
  • justice is about promoting liberty - which means that free will is moral and should be pursued.
Con's perception of Justice is neither consistent nor concise. It's internally contradictory and It cannot lead our actions today, only evaluate actions from the past. This makes it useless and thereby invalid. 

Since Con used a professor of theology [a] to reinforce his wrong definition of justice, he could have just quoted the Bible instead of debating me:
whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [Romans 13.2]
Con's claim about justice and morality are almost indistinguishable from religious claims. Con must address this accusation or admit defeat without objections.

He cannot hide his moral standard behind anti-logic.




Peaceful revolutions
When I said that "peaceful demonstrations don't work", I did not mean in all cases. But in many cases, they just make things worse [b]. My real challenge is this: if Con wants to call VR's unjust because they sometimes make things worse, why does he not apply that same logic to a PR? Inconsistency! Con has successfully rebutted his own position:

Non-violent revolutions also have devastating effects, especially with thousands going on strike bringing the economy to stagnate or lose man power.
I want to ask Con: why would a population go to strike? Weakening the economy hurts the population worst and hardly affects the leaders. According to Con's standard of justice, a PR should be considered unjust as it has almost the same results as a VR: people die, the government becomes more oppressive and the economy plummets. This just goes to show how unreasonable his perception of justice is. One cannot discuss justice by trying to predict the future.

nonviolent campaigns still won out in the end (20% vs 10%).
Then the difference between a VR and a PR would simply be a numbers game. Con is just reinforcing MY argument that different situations require different solutions.

I conclude that Con has accepted my point: both VR's and PR's are Just, the difference between them is the situations in which they fit.




The government contract
I have not ignored the other side of the government contract as Con claims. Throughout the entire debate, I have stated again and again that a violent revolution is not fitting or just in most cases - because the legitimate state has the support of the people. Con's rhetoric is deceptive. Consider this statement:

Just why must we harm those that we allowed to serve us?
If I answer it I would undermine my own cause. The question implies that:

1. The government has the support of the people
2. The government serves the people
3. We must harm them

The fact of the matter is that I only defend the revolutions in a state were:

1. The government does not have the support of the people
2. The government is cruel and it willfully causes pain to the population
3. The government serves themselves rather than the people
4. All peaceful attempts at negotiations with the government has failed

Con tries to straw man my argument - implying that I want every government to be taken down with violent force. I simply do not. The social contract states that when the government loses the support of the people they lose their legitimate power. If they refuse to do that they are illegitimate. They could use the military as a substitute for the people's consent. The government in that case would be an aggressor, using military might to control and exploit the population. In that case, a revolution is JUST.




Self-Defence
Con says that you cannot defend yourself if you are attacked by a soldier that is oppressed in the same way you are. I say that you can justly defend yourself against anyone. The reason why you are allowed to shoot a murderer trying to kill you is not inherent in the motivation, but the intentions of the murderer. If a person is forced to kill you - you still have a right to defend yourself using any means. The dictator is not the one trying to shoot you, the soldier is. You are not defending yourself against the dictator, but the soldier - thus you are attacking the perpetrator. Con is confusing self-defence with revenge. Revenge would be an act of violence out of anger and without any purpose other than to harm - revenge MUST hit the responsible person, while self-defence must hit the de-facto aggressor. Con did not even explain why it's immoral to defend yourself against a robot. Yes, he does not like a revolution, but that does not make them unjust. Con's moral objections against self-defence on a national scale have no weight.




Oppression:
I said that a revolution would have been beneficial - had it happened. I explained why any solution, even a VR that could kill millions, would have benefitted China if it removed Mao. A revolution never happened, but from a historical perspective, we see that the Chinese SHOULD have revolted violently. They would have prevented a century of oppression, economic recession, and mass starvation. The Chinese would have created many problems by revolting - but the oppression killed and hurt way more than any VR could have done. The government continued to oppress future generations for more than a century. Con has not denied my point - he merely pointed out what he thought was a factual mistake on my part. The American revolution is evidence that even in a liberal state like Britain, a revolution can make the country more liberal and be beneficial in the long run. Con has not rebutted this argument either. Con did not try to debunk my claims - so he has accepted my point. A VR is sometimes SUPER beneficial.




Fear of revolution
Con's confidence in democracy is based on blind trust. Hitler was elected democratically, which proves that no country is safe from potential oppression. After all, what will prevent a new Hitler from emerging in the face of a new great depression? Nothing but a population that is ready to defend themselves. The possibility of revolution is enough to prevent someone like Hitler from pressing the population. The possibility of revolution is a good thing, even in democracies. 




OFFENSE:


Foreign help
History teaches us that foreign countries are more willing to supply a VR with weapons and supplies than they are willing to invade the country. We can also see that oppressive regimes are quite good at dodging sanctions and international pressure [1]. If anything, such international efforts only make the country poorer. Foreign pressure hurts the citizens, not the leaders, according to a UN expert [2]. Therefore, unless the government is liberal enough to care about peaceful demonstrations - a VR is the ONLY way to stoping the oppression. Since we have a moral obligation to fight for liberty (according to Con) - a VR is a just action when all other means have failed.


Slavery
In an oppressive regime, the people serve the state, not the other way around. In that case, the population is merely a slave to the government, a slave that is mistreated in a cruel, unfair way. The slaves were not bound by the social contract, but by brute force. They could have justly rebelled. The social contract no longer exists, which makes any action by the slaves just - until they form their own social contract. Imagine telling the slaves that escaping through violence would be immoral, unjust. Saying so just makes no sense to us that value human value and dignity. In the same way, one cannot tell an oppressed population that they are morally obligated to accept their role as slaves. They can justly revolt if they want to take the risk. What we can do, however, is explain to them how a revolution is too risky. But the risk does not make the just action unjust.


Police and Mafia
Con has rejected the idea that the same action can be justified under different circumstances.

My syllogism:
  1. The nature of the mafia is inherent in their actions
  2. Oppressive police can act like the mafia, if not worse. (A brilliant example is the prisons in the Soviet Union [3])
  3. Therefore, what is just to do against the mafia is just to do against an oppressive police
Con's moral claims force him to pick one of these conclusions:
  • Defending oneself against an oppressive police force is always just
  • Defending oneself against a mafia is never just
Con's argument forces him to make a conclusion that undermines his arguments and justice in general.



It is a quick and just response
When a government is starting to become oppressive, the population can use peaceful resistance. If the government surrenders you have won peacefully. However, if it starts shooting down peaceful demonstrators - that is when a revolution is just. You have a situation where your grand grand grand grand grandchildren will live in poverty and oppression UNLESS you stop the regime with any means possible. The question then becomes: are you willing to sacrifice your life in order to take down the regime? If you are a military-capable young person, you are one of the few ones that can take to arms and defend your family and your people. Since your action of self-defence will benefit the country in the long run, joining a revolution is a just action to take EVEN if we use Con's claim that "the end justifies the means".


They DO promote liberty
Revolutions, or the threat of them, were necessary for most major jumps towards liberty. It was the threat of revolution that forced through the Magna Carta - justice for British people. How came democracy to this world? Answer: The french revolution inspired the American one, which inspired the world to become democratic and free.

Revolutions are the reason why freedom exists today. This is a quote regarding modern revolutions:
"A world without revolution would be one where exploitation had no end" [4]
    David Andress, Professor of Modern History, University of Portsmouth



CONCLUSION:
Con's position is incoherent and his argument internally contradictory. His justice-claims are based on religious authority. Con's attempts at rebuttals just strengthens my arguments. My point still stands: a VR is a just response to oppression! This is his last chance to try to fulfil his BoP using logic rather than religious morality or emotion.

I challenge Con to at least present a coherent view of justice.
Back to you, Con. 


SOURCES:
[b]: See my opponents statistics

Round 4
Con
Con claims that my idea is self-contradictory and vague, however, this is not the case. My vouching for justice is that the impact and the justifications must both be consistent in order to have a good result. If only justification matters, then Con's ideals are problematic because he has no unique benefit of violence over non violence, as both demonstrate a rebellion, a highlight that the government has violated the contract and must reconsider their actions. If only impact matters, then Con defeats himself because violent revolutions have not resulted well the vast majority of the time, and we must also consider the impact that the state had on the people.

Con summarizes my argument within four straw man representations:

  • justice is about the long term results, not the action or the situation. If that is the case then the American revolution was just.
  • justice is about the moral law. If that is the case then the American Revolution was not just.
  • justice is about moral obligation - and there is only one in every situation. If that is the case then free will is immoral, and liberty should not be pursued.
  • justice is about promoting liberty - which means that free will is moral and should be pursued.
I argue that Justice is about all of these combined. The American Revolution was arbitrary and ambiguous, because the long term result still had slaves owned by Whigs, and even now Black Lives Matter has revolted against the government formed from the basis of the founding fathers. As for moral obligation, he argues that we have to force people to enact Justice, but obviously this is not true. Obligation merely means one should do it whenever possible. You are free to do absolutely nothing, but it would be immoral to do so. It is not immoral to exercise free will-- only to fail to execute a just action. If Violent Revolution was not just, then people would be free to also be non-violent, and Con argues this is a horrible idea to have the Chinese people sit by and do nothing. Well then, Con agrees that if he wins his case, then people must show the government is wrong in some form or another. Pacifism is definitely not the solution. But Non violent revolution goes beyond pacifism, it acts in a way that protests and damage the government indirectly. Just as Governments' oppression does not have to be physical, neither do revolutions. I hope voters can see that Con has not displayed why *VIOLENT* revolution is necessary, only that Revolutions are Just overall. 

Con argues that non violent revolutions are just as bad as violent revolutions. He says: According to Con's standard of justice, a PR should be considered unjust as it has almost the same results as a VR: people die, the government becomes more oppressive and the economy plummets. This just goes to show how unreasonable his perception of justice is. 

Con is being absurd here, clearly not reading my sources. I noted that over 50% of non-violent are successful, while only half as many violent revolutions are successful. He says there are almost same results, yet I have shown that the enemy is able to be swayed better, the international intervention is more common, and the economical dangers are imposed upon the government, rather than the government imposing on the people. Con's interpretation of my statistics is laughable at best. 

Con once again chooses the most extreme of governments, yet does not prove that this is the majority of the cases, and willfully ignores my argument that if the government is so powerful, then violence or no violence has little to no difference. In fact, you justify the government slaughtering even more innocents, because they can portray you as a terrorist to justify violence against revolution. Con is not standing upon anything here. 

Self Defense: Con brings up an interesting idea where because the soldier was the aggressor, you can attack the perpetrator. He claims that the difference is that only "revenge" must attack the government. But we've already seen many cases in my examples where the people were tricked into attacking people completely unrelated to the crimes. Recall that, the colonists claimed that the Britain king oppressed and killed innocent farmers, while this did not happen. As revenge for their friends, they begun the revolution. Recall that, the protestors believed that the US government was unfairly accepting voter fraud, and oppressing our right to choose the president. As revenge for Trump's lost, they rioted the Capitol, thinking that they are attacking those responsible, while in reality, Trump lied about Biden faking election results. It is impossible to differentiate the revenge and the self-defense. Certainly, Con says it's very clear when you see a soldier kill your friend, and you think you are next, so you attack the soldier. But Con has failed to demonstrate that the majority of oppression happens this way. It's too easy for international pressure to disallow and scrutinize this problem. The government is encouraged to make the oppression as vague and arbitrary as possible so that you will never even get to the point of "self defense". In addition, people are so angered that they rally together against everyone related to the oppressors, rather than just the inflictor. For example, the Black Lives Matter was directed against *all* cops, believing them each to oppress the minority, while a significant number of cops did not execute any harm against people. There is always unavoidable collateral damage in a revolution due to the sheer size of the violence, and Con has failed this entire debate to defeat this idea.

Mao Zedong: Con misses the point that Mao was so powerful that it was impossible to use violent revolutions to prevent his damage, much less succeed in bringing him down. I extend my argument that truly powerful regimes prevent violent revolutions in the first place.

Fear of Revolution: Con thinks that the oppressors would fear revolutions, but Hitler continued his conquest despite many US allies joined against him. It wasn't until his own ally Stalin betrayed him that he actually killed himself. With truly power hungry oppressors, would revolutions even do anything? Remember that Hitler and other communists often had secret police to protect himself behind the scene and able to keep his power, regardless of violent responses or not. The stronger the administration is, the harder it is to gather the people together and plan for the violent revolution.

International intervention: Con claims "We can also see that oppressive regimes are quite good at dodging sanctions and international pressure", but his article only talks about economic sanctions. Also, his source is talking about sanctions on third world countries, where resources are more limited, and the revolutions would inherently be more difficult anyways. You could barely even get money, food or water, don't even talk about fighting enemy soldiers.

Mafia and police: Con compares police to the mafia, but this is once again absurd. Recall the Black Lives Matter example. Imagine the mafia actually protected the people and was sanctioned by the government. Only one mafia member unfairly killed a black man in public. Now the whole mafia is in trouble. You can't just compare the soviets' secret police to be equivalent than general police overall in the US. By Con's logic, we should defund the police completely, and allow all criminals to run rampant.

Promotion of liberty: Con claims that the revolutions have promoted liberty, but fail to counter my results of lacking economic growth and no true increased liberties. Slavery was not abolished after American Revolution until hundred years later. You can't call that "democracy".

Conclusion: It is near impossible to tell when the government has truly broken the contract or not. Con agrees that there are countless hurdles you must step across before you can even call a government oppressive. He says people will only use it as a last resort, but clearly they are not rational. They attack innocents and bystanders unrelated to the oppressors. They think everyone related to the oppressor is evil and will not care if they get hurt. Most importantly, they do not achieve their desired results. The revolutionaries almost never come up with a government better than the original. And in the most extreme cases, violent revolution is downright impossible to organize and cannot be just, because it would be snuffed out instantly with needless deaths. Vote for pro.
Pro
DEFENSE:


Self-defence
Systematic cruelty requires systematic justice. In a systematically cruel country, some people do not care about the oppression and become loyal to the evil regime. If these people are willing to shoot down peacefully protesters, I do not understand your moral objections against fighting them. Remember that I said that we can measure oppression. When peaceful protesters are shot down without excuses, that is when a violent revolution is just, not before that point. So yes, it's sad, but remember we talk about justice. Yes, criminals must be punished, it does not matter that he has family and friends. If one cannot fight an oppressive regime then punishing criminals is also unjust. Justice is not the same as "morality", morality should control the individual while justice should control the state. When the state fails to uphold justice the people must take responsibility.


Justice
Justice is inherently about having a consistent standard on which one can judge actions. I have provided A SINGLE standard of justice, the social contract. I have backed it up multiple times with official political and professional statements. My standard of justice is the official basis for democracy [se round 1-2]. My definition of justice is coherent, in official use and it proves my case beyond doubt. 

Con provided no official definition of state justice. When I pointed out that his definitions of justice were internally contradictory, this was his answer:
I argue that Justice is about all of these combined.
It's impossible, one cannot combine contradictory definitions. So by claiming this, he has admitted defeat. His perception of justice is also vague and unclear. The definition carries no specific meaning - people can interpret them however they want, according to their beliefs. He also dropped my point that revolutions are the reasons why democracy and freedom exist today - backed up by historical evidence. His confusing Biblical perception of justice cannot possibly be applied to the real world. Maybe it will work in his imagination, but the real world requires a simple, objective, and clear-cut definition of practical justice. The world cannot base its judgments on Con's idea of justice

Con needed 4 definitions of justice in order to prove his point - but they are incompatible and internally contradictory. EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION OF JUSTICE FROM CON WOULD DEEM SOME REVOLUTIONS "JUST". Therefore, Con has not successfully proved that any revolution is unjust. He has only proved that some revolutions are unjust, which ones depend on your standard of choice.


Peaceful revolution vs Violent revolution
Remember what Con said: non-violent revolutions also have devastating effects.  I know that his statistics show a higher rate of success from a PR, but justice is not a numbers game. What I meant was that a peaceful revolution would also be unjust if the VR is unjust - in any given case. They have the same motivation and the same result: a massive economic recession, with a possibility of long term benefits and the promotion of liberty.

Recall:
 You could barely even get money, food or water, don't even talk about fighting enemy soldiers.
If the country is so poor, is a peaceful revolution just?

Con's definitions of justice give different answers:
  • Yes it is just because it would promote liberty
  • No, it is unjust because the long term results would be negative.
  • Moral obligation: ???
  • Yes it is just because the motivation is good
As you can clearly see, readers, Con has no way to avoid this dilemma. Con had to use different standards of justice in order to disprove different revolution. But now his words are backfiring. His own definitions of justice disagree regarding the justness of a Peaceful Revolution in this poor oppressed country. But according to Con, a PR is indeed just.

How does that translate into a VR? A VR would not require all the poor people to stop working and starve to death. A violent revolution can steal from the oppressive regime, solving the "logistics" problem Con proposed. Additionally, foreign pressure would be to supply the revolutionaries instead of ripping the country of their little economy through sanctions. In that way, the country can fight the government by hurting the government instead of hurting themselves. I cannot see how Con's justice would deem a better option unjust. In this case of a poor country with rich oppressive leaders, a VR is better in every way - so Con would need to call it "just" - THE moral obligation.

Conclusion: my point that different situations require different means is stronger than ever before. Con's words backfired, they have disproved his position that a VR is unjust.


Powerful regimes
truly powerful regimes prevent violent revolutions in the first place.
Yes, therefore a revolution must happen before the regime becomes truly powerful. A peaceful revolution cannot stop a truly powerful regime either. You are just strengthening my argument that a VR has one unique benefit: speed and power. As I said, had Mao been taken down in a revolution China would have never become a POWERFULL oppressive regime. However, a peaceful revolution would have starved countless more and still not succeed. Stop hurting your own cause, Con.


Police and Mafia
You can't just compare the soviets' secret police to be equivalent than general police overall in the US.
I said the KGB, not the American police, and I never compared them. STOP LYING ABOUT MY POSITION. By my own standard a new American revolution today would be unjust.





Summary:

ARGUMENTS FROM CON:

I. Uncertainty
Con claims that the confusion and disinformation surrounding a revolution make the action of revolution unjust. This is the equivalent of saying that you should let yourself be beaten because you cannot know the intentions of whoever is hurting you. Con ignored my argument that many oppressive regimes were clearly visible as such by the international community as well as the population. He also ignored his own definition of "oppression". I have debunked his entire argument.

II. Moral Obligation vs Moral Allowance
Con claims that there exists such a thing as a "moral obligation". In other words, he claims that in any situation there is only a single right thing to do. This undermines free will. Con has never added any authority behind his claim. Since he never told me what "morality" means to him his argument has no weight whatsoever. This is a null-point.



ARGUMENTS FROM PRO:

Self-defence
I argued using a propper syllogism:
P1: Self defense is a just act
P2: Revolutions are self-defense [my post 1]
C: Revolution against oppression is a just act
Con had some personal objections. However, Con could not deny any of my premises - my point is correct.

Oppression is worse than a VR
I used legitimate sources to prove that in some cases any solution, even a VR, would be beneficial. Con never rebutted this point. My point is correct.

Fear of revolution
I explained why the possibility of a revolution helps the government not to be to confident to dare oppress the population. Con's only counterargument was his personal trust in the governmental system, which I showed was false. My point was not rebutted. Con also showed us that he failed in history class:
Hitler ...  It wasn't until his own ally Stalin betrayed him that he actually killed himself.

Foreign help
I proved using reliable sources that foreign pressure hurts the people more than the government - if they work at all. Con did not disprove my point. He instead pointed out that the countries were poor regardless of sanctions. But why should we starve those already starving?

Slavery
I claimed that fighting oppression is just the same way as trying to escape from slavery is just. Con ignores this argument. My point is correct.

Police and mafia
I explained that if the police act like the mafia then fighting against them is just. Con rebutted by pointing at the American police, ignoring my KGB example. I won this point.

Promotion of liberty
I proved that revolutions are the reason why democracy, freedom, and human rights exist. Con never denied my argument or my sources. I won this point.

VR's are faster than PR's
Con ignored this argument. He claimed that a PR is always better, but he never actually proved that a PR made a government resign or surrender. But this is exactly the point: since only a VR can successfully REMOVE a government it cannot be compared to a PR, which tries to change the policy. A violent revolution comes after all other measures have failed and when its the only solution left. I won this point.



I have won every argument that was not a stagnation. 


FINAL WORDS:

Con has only proved that a revolution is risky and that it's hard to judge when to perform one. He could not explain what justice means. Only in the Bible is a similar position to Con's argument found. However, my argument was directly from the US declaration of independence, the document that created the freest country in the world:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
My position is supported by a multitude of sources and universities - it's the official position of international justice. Con could only find a professor in theology to support his definition of justice. He fails to understand what the terms mean - he contradicts his own definitions and uses inconsistent logic and rhetoric in order not to debunk his own claim instantly, but he still did eventually. Con failed to understand his own terms. He provided a definition of oppression but later contradicted it multiple times. I cannot understand why Con continued to call any law or government oppressive. He did this on purpose to straw man my argument - that or he is just ignorant (I think he's not). My


Con knew that logic would be his defeat, so his arguments are constructed without formal logic, rather he used emotionally charged sentences. I used a syllogism:
P1: A revolution is only unjustifiable if fighting against a legitimate state
P2: An oppressing regime is necessarily illegitimate
C: A revolution with proper motivations and support is a justifiable response to an illegitimate oppressive state
None of the premises was rebutted - thus my syllogism must be considered correct. 

My many arguments were never properly rebutted by Con. He ignored their real weight in favour of repeating the same arguments over and over again. 

 I successfully defend every one of my many arguments. 


CONCLUSION:
I agreed that a PR is smarter in most cases. But both VR and PR are equally just alternatives, they just fit different situations.

Con's argument:
  • is self-contradictory
  • is based on feelings rather than logic
  • undermines the foundations of democracy - the social contract
  • is based on twisting definitions
  • cannot be applied to the real world

My argument:
  • is THE official position of the west
  • is coherent
  • is consistent
  • has been proved logically
  • is based on official sources and backed up by important institutions of society
  • is precise in its evaluations
  • can be applied to the real world
Since Con provided no official definition of justice, his arguments are based on what feels right, not what actually is right.


If you believe that justice should be based on theology and emotion -- Vote Con!
If you believe that justice should be based on the official definitions and actual logic -- Vote Pro!


Thank you, everyone - especially Mr Defeatable.

Sources:
Read the previous rounds.