Is Violent Revolution a just response to political oppresion

"Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression"

Discuss.

If you're politically oppressed, what other form of revolution could you imagine to work?

Civil disobedience? Seemed to work well for Ghandi(sp?) and Martin L. King Jr.

Civil disobedience? Seemed to work well for Ghandi(sp?) and Martin L. King Jr.

I guess it depends on the degree of oppression we're speaking of. If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, it'd be quite a bit different of a situation than if you were a Native American in the U.S. (as both were, though to different extents).

Are you doing a report on something?

Writing Cases for Speech and Debate. :| Was hoping SP might have ideas.

Writing Cases for Speech and Debate. :| Was hoping SP might have ideas.

Yes It is due to the response of previous violent revolutions...
-American ()
-Russian
-American Civil War

Violence is never just - it is never right to harm another human being. However, it is necessary in some situations if change is to occur.

Yes It is due to the response of previous violent revolutions...
-Russian

A monarchy(?) was over thrown for a communist dictatorship which lead to mass murder under Stalin.
All that shows is violence causes more violence. :[

Depends on your definition of "just".

Only as much as is needed to overturn the oppressive party.

Not a reign of terror.

In almost all circumstances I would say never; achieve change, no matter how difficult and timely, through peace and nonviolence.

However the are some rare instances in which *SOME* form of violence or destruction may be necessary...it's the notion of Chaotic Good, as represented by characters like V from V for Vendetta. In some cases the act of blowing up a building or coercing the deaths of prominent party members is necessary to awaken a people to their rights.

Political change Ghandi or King style is only possible when dealing with a 1st world democracy that has an elected government. Ghandi said during WWII that Europe should surrender to Hitler and protest him peacefully. Obviously, Ghandi would not have succeeded if that had happened. The vast majority of the time, only violence can bring about new government. Whether the resultant government is "good," (such as Ireland or the American Colonies breaking away from Britain,) or "bad," (Bolshevik revolution in Russia,) is dependent on the people leading the revolution.

Imma argue good oppressive leaders get rid of the ability for being overthrown.

Pol Pot had the right idea. He just messed it up a bit.
...
On topic though-
Before we define justice can we define oppressed?
Because you can have democracy and oppression (infact if its not a civil democracy then mob rule fucks things up)
So what is oppression?

I am going to assume that you mean if "violent revolution is the right thing to do against a political oppresioion".
It depends on the degree/extent of oppression really, let's say China's oppression for their opposition results in jailing and maybe execution. In that case, if all people in China are as sane and properly educated and have the right ideas, a violent revolution to overthrow the government maybe justified. But with that many people in the country, maybe it doesn't have to be violent. Perhaps they can do a Ghandi and just refuse to do anything the government asks them to, as if the government can control 1 billion people if they decide to revolt?

http://www.nflonline.org/community/node/82

Something tells me your teacher didnt give you that. Listen to the whole vid. They tackle the argument there.

[url]http://www.nflonline.org/community/node/82[/url]

Something tells me your teacher didnt give you that. Listen to the whole vid. They tackle the argument there.

Great hidden joke.

Violent revolution is sometimes necessary, but more often it's a bunch of charismatic murderers with a gang of crooks with guns that kills their opponents and sets up a dictatorship at the people's expense.