The resolution may be in itself flawed and weighted towards the negation, but I will take this opportunity to affirm this resolution which states:That where peaceful protests are met with a violent state response, protesters should respond violently.
While I am of the opinion that this resolution would be better stated as “Should have the right to respond violently we shall analyze the resolution as meticulously as possible. First of all, we must analyze that these are inherently peaceful protests. When states respond violently. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to non-violently protest for the rights and rallying of African Americans, which is what he is most well-known for (But not his many…many orgies). He was arrested and harassed as were his fellow rioters both white and black. A letter from Birmingham jail illustrates Kings meetings with violence and encouraged the nation to follow his dreams. Yes it is true that a violent response was never King’s intention, but in this day and age our citizens need to be allowed to face police brutality.
With any good intention in mind, the opposition will bring up the escalation of weapons and street violence, as well as an increase in protests, but no matter the claim it is crucial that we analyze that these are presumed to start as peaceful protests.
Granting these protesters the right to violently rebel will solve three main problems:
1. Police will use less brutality in order to avoid casualties in the field
2. Protesters will be less violent because the police would consequently be more prepared if they did.
3. The people will better serve to advertise the struggles of this nation.
First of all, Police will avoid police brutality whenever possible. No empirical evidence is necessary to state that police are humans and by nature have a tendency to self-preserve. With the threat of violence in retaliation, the police would have more incentive to avoid these conflicts. With the incredibly recent anti-police-brutality protests in NY and DC this becomes an incredible threat. Not only are the protestors and the police in danger, but so are any civilians…average men, women, children, the disabled, all in danger should chaos ensue.
Second of all protestors will be less violent by nature. People would have to understand the basic concept of militarized escalation, which would begin to apply to protests. Some may see this resolution as an opportunity to assault the police; however, the police would have to prepare through an increase in weapons and defense technologies, not only making the citizens less likely to rebel and safer, but making the police safer and more able to take on other threats saving the citizens afflicted by petty and major crimes. All in all this resolution helps the police to help the protestors to help the police to help the victims of crimes to help the criminals through advancement in technology and criminal law. If this logical progression provides confusion it is only due to our unwillingness to open our eyes to the threats of not facing the oncoming tide of civilian V. police conflicts.
Finally, advertisement will better open the eyes of our citizens. Without major motion our American citizens are threatened by ignorance to these movements. Unlike news anchors, protestors are able to communicate on a more emotional level and spread the truth across this nation. These were the movements of MLK, these were the movements of Rosa Parks, and further back still, and these were the movements of our forefathers. Without the opportunity to share knowledge with the nation, the nation suffers. The most important claim is that these protests will offer perspective and opportunity for allcitizens of America.
In foreign nations we arm their civilians to fight their own battles and in doing so we exercise our hard power and influence over the world, we need to begin exercising our soft power, and this resolution provides that precise opportunity. This brings me to my most important point.
America is the land of the free, but we are slipping, now pardon the length, but it is essential that we look at this quote from Arron Sorkin:
“Fine. Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paychecks, but he [gesturing to the conservative panelist]gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn't cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so GODDAM ALWAYS!
(The use of inappropriate language has a purpose—the filter's off.)
And with a straight face, you're going to tell students that America's so star-spangled awesome that we're the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom, Japan has freedom, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. Two hundred seven sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.
The fact-dump that's coming now serves several purposes. It backs up his argument, it reveals him to be exceptional (what normal person has these stats at their fingertips?), but mostly it's musical. This is the allegro.
And you—sorority girl—yeah—just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there are some things you should know, and one of them is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies. None of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are without a doubt, a member of the WORST-period-GENERATION-period-EVER-period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world,I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?! Yosemite?!!!
We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right! We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, and we acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one—America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.”
Sorkin only missed one thing, and that was the solution, which is exactly what this resolution provides. To not accept the new policy that will protect the nation and influence the world is to accept that America is too far gone. Step forward in protest of our failing social status. Allow the aristocrat and the beggar to unite, allow the black and the white to unite. Take the stand that can be solved in few ways. Accept ladies and gentlemen, this resolution, and accept this movement to take the American way and lead this world into a better and safer tomorrow.
Return To Top | Posted:
Motion analysis of this motion would be highly difficult to do, but from what one can infer from it, this debate motion is a value motion. Henceforth, we are discussing the value of violence, and the value of non-violence. Before we go on, we shall establish an objective measure for value. Value in context should be used as the following: that there will be more of a likelihood of success in protests if x is responded with x/y, that the usage of violence was just and moral, and had beneficial benefits towards society, and the nature of the ends will go along the presupposition of the intended ends.
The opposition’s model of argument goes along the line of the following:
Peaceful then violence → Violence → Success
Whilst mines would go along the following lines:
Peaceful then violence→ Peaceful→ Success
Henceforth via the object of value, the opposition would need to prove that (1) violent methods are more valuable than non-violent methods, (2) that violence is just and that (3) the nature of the ends (via violence) would be the ends intended, not corrupted ends.
With this, I shall like to define some terms:
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted:
Well, what a shame. A FF eh?
O1. Militarization of Mob would lead to Peace
This case is a very a faulty case, and misunderstands the notion of “violence”. All empirical evidences states the opposite of what the opposition has proposed here. A paper proposed to the 25th Congress of Psychology in 1992 studied the effects of violence on society. The subjects that were to be experimented on in this were termed “violent” and “non-violent”. After further consideration onto the study, the “violent” was also said to be “non-violent” until a complex reasoning skill led to them to another conclusion. The subjects were tested to a “moral” test, which soon indicated a marked difference between the moral reason of the “non-violent” with the moral reasoning of the “violent”. This marked difference was of 20 points (from a test in which the maximum score was 36). This might seem at first irrelevant, but upon further inspection, the "Values Test" presented in the report included questions about killing and torturing other 'beings' for one's own benefits. The militarization of the mob would lead to nothing but a degradation in moral virtues, and in the moral reasoning skills of a previously civilized and peaceful protest. 
O2. Police Avoiding Brutality
This case is another very faulty case. Self-preservation is nothing in the face of order, as confirmed by the Milgram Experiment. The assumption here is that the police will avoid brutality whenever possible, including in the defiance of order. But this assumption is not empirically supported. The Milgram Experiment was an experiment in which university students were told to make another university student memorize a set of simple words, like cat, dog etc. They were told that they were taking part in a “learning experiment”. However, Stanley Milgram was psychologically experimenting with their obedience. If the subject forgets a word, he is electrocuted, and if he forgets the word again, the charge is increased. The Milgram Experiment demonstrates this very well. In his influential paper, Dr. Milgram demonstrated that ordinary students, just like me and the opposition, can get tempted to electrocute anyone to death at the mere statements of:
Prod 1: Please continue. or Please go on.
Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on.
With these prods, 26 of the 43 participants in this experiment demonstrated that they were willing to use the maximum charge, in strict obedience to the orders. This shows that even an innocent university student could be turned into a killer in seconds, due to strict obedience to orders. The Milgram Experiment showed that orders given by even non-coercive innocent men could turn anyone into amoral subjects of depraved ideology.  There are many instances of such cases coinciding with reality. In Syria, the orders given by the president to crackdown on the protestors was an example of this; albeit some were brave and defected, most stayed in tact and ready to take new orders from the President. During the Tiannamen Square Protests, a classic example of non-violent piecemeal social engineering succeeding in authoritarian thought, the bullets of the People's Liberation Army did not stop flying even though it was clear that the People were with the protestors.
O3. Better “Persuasive Tool” Abroad
This case has more support, but yet it’s core premiss is harmful and faulty. This advocacy is only valid, I believe, for citizens of the United States of America. This seemingly looks on the verge of becoming a foreign affairs debate, when clearly it is a value debate, not a policy debate. Nevertheless, I shall attempt the core premiss of this debate: more violence, more support from abroad.
Violence allows arousal. A study on the same topic showed that the mere prospect of arousal of violence leads to the release of adrenaline. TV violence can be used as a model for this. Studies show that intuitively aggressive individuals are much more subjected to “violence” and is more “tempted” than non-violent subjects. As has been demonstrated, violence only prolongs the conflict. It does nothing to put it to an end. This explains the many cases of Americans and British citizens going to fight in Syria and Iraq for various militant groups. If this is what is meant by “a more persuasive tool”, then perhaps the opposition has affirmed and fully demonstrated that violence is a more persuasive tool. But this tool only serves to prolonged the conflict, not to bring it to an end. [3,4]
O4. A Case against Rebel Armament
I would like to BRIEFLY present a case against rebel armament by international powers. As we can see, the world is in a largely dire state of situation. But for us (the United States of America, lol) to arm "them" is indeed a very false case. Those who support the armaments in Syria are now facing a huge backlash after the Syrian Revolutionary's Front, the "moderate Islamists" that John McCain (very falsely, very ignorantly) called "freedom fighters" and are receiving huge amounts of American weaponry, defected and pledged allegiance to the barbaric fighters of the Islamic State. Why are we to arm a country whose future is undeclared? The words "secular democracy" in Syria have become mere insults. A two-way demagogue battle between the Free "Syrian" Army and the Islamic State seemingly shows why. "Do you really fight for the implementation of Allah's Shari'ah, or do you fight for secularism and democracy?" Would these words, used as insults, seemingly not shock anyone? The United States has spoon-fed weapons into the mouths of the terrorists. But why is this?
This is because of the mere contradiction between freedom and fighters. If I take something from you, I stole it from you. If I plead for something, it becomes a donation. If one country were to take sovereignty from another country, one would de facto have stolen sovereignty. This is then accompanied with a lack of moral reasoning skills as demonstrated in O1, which leads to ultimately more violence. Is this just? We have seen this happen in China, where sovereignty was stolen and given to the hands of the merciless communists. Gandhi saw this, and he was astonished by the nature of violence. We, us, call the subject whatever you may; the subject may support freedom, but how one gets to that freedom is another problem. The United States of America was never a violent country. As Machiavelli notes, a republic who has lost it's freedom will do anything to regain it. "As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation, which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we were" Thomas Paine said in his call to defense in Common Sense. Freedom, or at lest, change, must be a given, not stolen. For why would a man who has stolen freedom ever relinquish it to his subjects? As Hitler said in an attempt to justify his totalitarian reign, "the worthy who has acquired power will never relinquish it!"
O5. Against "Be Everywhere" Mindset
Another brief point that is apart from the debate, but needs to be presented as addenda. The philosophy of the interventionist thoughts of the opposition is to "be everywhere, at once". To promote violence, while go to the international stage as if one were defending peace. How can peace come from violence? How can moral degradation create harmony and tolerance? When one has fought hard for something, would one ever relinquish control of it? The United States of America has acted mindlessly in this policy of global policing. Why is the world to accept America? Why, I ask? American Intervention caused al-Qaida to come into Iraq and Syria. American Intervention has been the foremost enemy of peace in the world. American intervention in Iran caused the Islamist Regime of Iran to come to power, in which Americans have been in huge hassle whilst attempting to oppose this government. It was America who caused the wars in Lebanon in 1958. It was the United States of America which caused the defeat of all attempts to create a Free Vietnam, and a Free Laos. Why does America still, with this deplorable record, want to be everywhere at once? To support protests? What protests? Why does America not support the protests by the Shi'ite minorities in Saudi Arabia, or by the Palestinian Resistance in the Occupied Territories? The United States of America does not go to war for moral reasons. They go to war for their jingoistic economic interests, and they are not willing to withdraw from this mindset.
I hold the resolution, as well as few other unrelated motions, to be supported and wholly negated. Please vote con! C:
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted: