Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression

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

2. journals-sagepub-com.mutex.gmu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/104346397009003004

3. newswise.com/articles/founding-fathers-used-fake-news-racial-fear-mongering-to-unite-colonies-during-american-revolution-new-book-reveals

Thanks, Con.

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

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.

Let us apply Cons definitions to this sentence and we get this:

This implies that the group of revolutions we are discussing have the following criteria:

I see that all Cons arguments critique revolutions that do not fit all of these criteria.

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 government has no real authority or legitimacy without the consent of the people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These are some bold claims. Con has nothing to support these assertions.  

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.

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.

I simply don't. I claim that the people have a just right to self-defense against oppressive, illegitimate regimes.

 

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.

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.

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.

Con has admitted defeat: a revolution is at least morally justifiable - but maybe not a moral duty. 

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:

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.

[1]:https://mspolicy.org/the-legitimate-power-of-government-begins-and-ends-with-the-people-while-its-authority-comes-from-the-creator/

[2]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/just

[3]:https://www.lexico.com/definition/legitimate

[4]:https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence

[5]:https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

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. 

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.

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.

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?

1. fireandrose.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-vs-justified-war.html

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.

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.

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:  

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.

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.

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?

1 history.com/topics/china/cultural-revolution#section_3

Con's claim about justice and morality are almost indistinguishable from religious claims. Con must address this accusation or admit defeat without objections.

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:

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.