Is political violence the suitable way for the public to express the opinion to the government?

I attempt to show that political violence, defined as protect, is not a suitable way for the public to express feeling and opinion to the government. We may discuss global situation. My opponent will argue that political violence is the suitable way for the public to express the opinion to the government.

Good luck! Looking for a good debate

This is a topic that I would enjoy to further knowledge on. I accept your debate.

I notice that you are located within China, I am from the United States. Global examples I am OK with. I suggest that both of us cite our examples since we are from different areas to know property what the point is.

I would like to further elaborate on your definitions and see if you approve.

Political Violence - Armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war, and other such causes that can result in injury or loss of property. [1]

Protect - to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc. [2]

If you accept those definitions continue you position, if not state yours and I will abide by them to not waste any rounds.

As Con I will argue that Political Violence is a acceptable respond to express opinion in the government.

Political Violence is a suitable response to a fair amount of choices the government makes that hurt the people.

A suitable response to;

Economic hardships.
Political trickery.
Unfair trials.
Imbalance of status.

I will leave it at that for the time being since my opponent has not fully stated his stance.

[1]http://www.businessdictionary.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you for joining the debate.

First off, in my definitions, I wrongly said that political violence, defined as protect. I would like to make minor amendments to this, political violence, defined as protest. It is also reasonable that political violence include armed revolution, civil strife and etc.

Secondly, it is acceptable that we response to the four area the opponent mentioned above.

The debate is now to begin.

First off, I will attempt to argue that political violence is not a viable way for expression of opinion. The economic cost that protests incur are significant. Consider just the issue of protest at Egypt and the armed revolution at Libyan Arab .It caused a huge lost of local economy and the fuel crisis. The investment bank Credit Agricole estimated that the protests are costing Egypt $310 million a day ().And this figure reveals that protest is a blow to the local economy, and an even bigger blow to the whole world economy under globalization. My position stands that the economic cost is so huge that the protest is not a suitable way for expression.

The social impact of protest is often hidden from the people who decide to participate in protest. Later these costs show up in the Political status of the country. Ai Weiwei, as one of the crucial examples in this connection. He plays a crucial role in fighting for the so called justice and democracy. Even, some people in China support his action and protest in the street.As such, he has been arrested and the foreign countries criticize our local government . China. Their action seems like fighting for democracy, but in fact, It Is a Flap. It impact the stable of the country. This surface protest will form the unstable of country and political trickery.

Now I will hand this over to my opponent.

I would like to thank my opponent for clearing up his definition and for accepting my proposed ideas.

"It caused a huge lost of local economy and the fuel crisis."

The crisis going on in Egypt is effecting a vast amount of people and even other country's in various ways. We are outsiders and must remain that way in this problem. The interventions that have been made violate what the people are attempting to do, which brings me to my point. The price of liberation at the will of the people is infinite. My opponents stance is "that the economic cost is so huge that the protest is not a suitable way for expression." Putting money before people is unethical.

"Grievances of Egyptian protesters were focused on legal and political issues including police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections and freedom of speech, uncontrollable corruption, and economic issues including high unemployment, food price inflation, and low minimum wages." [1]

The reason for the protests in Egypt are above, how could one put money before the needs of the people. People are starving and poor which is a good enough of a reason to start a protest but add in the rest you have a need for revolution.

As for my opponents second point about Ai Weiwei. You say "It Is a Flap." Before I am able to move on I would like this elaborated upon. I am concerned that since I do not know what you mean by that I will argue the wrong point.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument carries over.

Vote for me!