K, I might write up a formal opening speach and shiznit later but I don't feel like it now, so I'll just ramble on about what I think.


I am against this resolution. Not all violent revolutions and rebellions are a result of political pressure. In fact, some are a result of the opposite, a way too lax political environment.

While many violent rebellions in history really are justified responses to political oppression, but many others have also occurred where there was no such cause or justification.

Well, that's true.

For example: The many countries in Africa that are going through upheavals of tyranny and oppression. The reason there are so many warlords and rebels is because of greed. Not greed on the part of the government however but greed on the side of the rebels. Many power hungry warmonger's are taking advantage of the absence of real authority to their own ends, to become powerful themselves.

But that's sort of biased. Those people may have rebellions that are useless and the rebels are unjustified and greedy, but what about rebellions such as the Black Panther movement or the Hundred Year War?

In short, my point is that rebellion is not an exclusive tool to overthrow oppressive governments but also a means of gaining and asserting power.

It's not much. In the Hundred Year War, France fought back their oppression against the British, and they won. It was a violent revolution, but they won. Violent revolutions really speed things up, I think.

I am against this resolution. Not all violent revolutions and rebellions are a result of political pressure. In fact, some are a result of the opposite, a way too lax political environment.

In short, my point is that rebellion is not an exclusive tool to overthrow oppressive governments but also a means of gaining and asserting power.

Crap, right I forgot to mention another point.

In every revolution that has happened, it is always other people who take power and often they abuse it in much the same manner as their predecessors. And even in cases that are exempt from that the leaders of the rebellion rarely actually "believe in the cause".

Example: Al Qaeda

Many say that they actually do have a just cause, but do the leaders themselves actually believe in it? Are they the ones that are blowing themselves up? No. It is always the pawns, the majority, the stupid weak-minded drones who are the tools of these powerful people.

Therefore: "On balance, violent revolution is a just response to political oppression."

Is fallacious.

I was also gonna say a lot of shiznit about how violence can never be "just" but I'm feeling real lazy today...

Ok imagine the person you care about the most. Now imagine someone behind them with a gun. Now place yourself behind that person with a knife. What do you do next? Remember violence is never "just". Basically you said that anytime anyone infringes upon your right no matter how bad, it is not justified to take "violent" action?

Ahhh but in that's completely different. That's a situation where you're forced to use violence.
Revolutions on the other hand don't always have to be violent. Take a look at how MLK changed American society.

The real changes didn't happen until he was killed, and made a martyr of.

Also the American revolution could never have been won using politics. We tried that at first

We tried that at first, Brittan (sp?) just kept [Expletive Deleted]ting on everyone. So America kicked there ass's and took the land.

In Reply To

Bloody Yankee.

Sorry, but you kinda remind me of Skanky...

The real changes didn't happen until he was killed, and made a martyr of. Also the American revolution could never have been won using politics. We tried that at first, Brittan (sp?) just kept [Expletive Deleted]ting on everyone. So America kicked there ass's and took the land. (From the Indians, and Mexicans.) Of course it's a debate in itself whether or not separation was a good thing.