The Instigator
JustVotingTiedDebates
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
spencercrat123
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
spencercrat123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 93589
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

I believe that change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.
Terms


1. THBT: This House Believes That.

2. Change:Development of current state.

3. Comes: Occurs.

4. Molotov cocktails:Actually home-made grenades, (HERE) war.

5. Voting ballot: (HERE) Peace.

Structure

R1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.

R2. Arguments.

R3. Rebuttals+ defence.

R4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.

We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.

Rules

1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits

2. No trolling

3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it.

4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category

5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.

8. BoP is shared in this debate.

9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.

I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!

I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
spencercrat123

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.
I, PRO, am now going to show my points.
Before starting, I would like to count off my points. I will have my points as countries.
1. Egypt.
2. Palestine.
3. Syria.
4. Turkey
Thats it.
Now I'll start with explaining my points.

1. Egypt.
On 29 Jan 2012, Egypt's president, Husni Mubarak was toppled. After toppling him, Muhammad Mursi, a member of Islamic Brotherhood, an Islamist party, was elected president by 52% of the votes.
Mursi had a very powerful belief that PEACE is more effective than WAR. The IB party's motto was 'Our peace is stronger than their bullets.'
Just after a year from his a becoming a president, he was toppled by the cheif of army who had been appointed by Mursi himself.
All that happened just because Muhammad Mursi hated war. He used peace. The judge who sentenced Mursi to jail before Mursi becoming a president was forgiven by Mursi.
What I want to say is that Muhammad Mursi was toppled, had his party crushed, party leaders sentenced or assassinated, just because he didn't use war against corrupt people. If he had used war, the political status of Egypt would have been the same of the status in Turkey (Will be mentioned later). The IB's peace motto led them to hell.
Whereas Egypt's current president, Abdul Fattah Asseesi used WAR against anybody who is against him, has power now (I'm against him, because he used WAR beyond limits, too. He killed innocent people. He has a good strategy, but used it wrong.)
2. Palestine.
Who has a better reputation in the Arab world (the West hates war) Hamas or PIA? Why?
Pamela Olson says in her book, Fast Times In Palestine, "I asked Yousef ( a Palestinian) Which is better, Hamas or PIA?. He laughed and said:" You wont believe me if I answered, so ask PIA employees! They'll answer you right "
The answer to the second question is that Hamas uses war against thier enemy, While the official government, represented by PIA, uses peace (voting ballots). Compare 'Palestine vs Israel'. with 'Afghanistan Taliban vs Russia'. Palestine used peace and got defeated. Very few people used war. On the other hand, Afghanistani people supported Taliban (at that time) and WON against Russia, the owner of the largest army in the world.

3. Syria.
All of us know what's going on in Syria, and we can clearly blame 'peace' for that. A crystal clear evidence is ISIL. ISIL knew the way to become a strong superpower, WAR, and it IS a superpower now. It brought CHANGE as per its beliefs. A coalition of over 60 countries are unable to defeat it (leave the newspaper rumors ). Compare ISIL with FSA. FSA used war in the beggining, began to get many cities, than turned to peace, and eventually drowned.

4. Turkey.
The time has come to give an example of a country who used the power of WAR.
Rajab Tayyib Erdoghan, know more famously as Erdoghan, as soon as being elected as president, hanged 20 corrupt people. He discovered a military coup plot against him and hanged all people involved in it. Now just look at his power. He criticizes U.S.' actions. He criticizes Russia's actions. He does what U.S. has prohibited for him. He has 'unguessable' power, because he used WAR. He contradicted all goalless rules. And he got POWER. He brought CHANGE in his country.

These are my points /arguments. Waiting for my worthy opponent's reply.

Thank you,
Adil Muhammad,
Qatar.

Sources:
1. http://www.aljazeera.com......
2. http://pamolson.org......
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com......
4. http://www.aljazeera.com......

I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
spencercrat123

Con

Thank you to Pro for creating this debate. Throughout history, different movements have had to choose between walking down paths of violence or peace in order to achieve their goals. Keep in mind, Pro defines "change" as "development of current state", so we are talking about the advancement of societies, improvement of peoples' conditions, securing of safety and desired rights, etc. And time and time again, we see that peaceful, intellectual, strategic movements are far better at achieving these goals than movements of war and violence do. War may, at times, transfer power but it does not directly advance or develop a state, it does the opposite by taking lives and damaging the very state trying to change. To prove this, I will provide:

1. Examples of successful peaceful movements
2. Failed violent movements
3. Examples of how the "voting ballot" is ultimately behind the development of state, even in cases of war

1. After over a century of oppression, the Indian Independence Movement finally found success after it adopted Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance. Through the Salt March, boycotts, the Indian National Congress, etc. India secured its sovereignty, rights, and culture with no mass damage or casualty. Furthermore, the peaceful separation allowed India to make amends and forge strong relationships with Britain and other world powers. We can look to the leadership of Nelson Mandela and South Africa's peaceful movement to end the apartheid that oppressed non-whites in the country for decades. Academics, workers, politicians, churches, etc. boycotted, condemned and resisted apartheid. And after negotiations and expanded suffrage, millions of South Africans attained equality and rights. Not through "molotovs" but through the voting ballots on April 27, 1994, Freedom Day, were South Africans able to overturn apartheid and truly "change" for the better. We can look further to the Civil Rights Movement and leadership of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "Change" was instituted when the Civil Rights Act was passed, when the Supreme Court struck down segregation in Brown v. BOE. "Change" came to American culture when people were exposed to the grace and power of the Million Man March and the "I Have A Dream" speech. All of these movements faced external and internal violence, but it was the commitment to nonviolence that made these movements so effective and secured better rights and conditions for millions around the world. Countless further examples of successful nonviolent movements exist as well.

2. We can look to the modern Middle East to see how violence has failed to develop various states and has in fact resulted in the opposite. The "molotovs" of foreign and domestic violent conflicts have only succeeded in destabilizing and causing unprecedented damage and danger in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Libya. The choice of violence and war has given groups like ISIS the ability to capitalize on the violence and expand. The vacuum and destabilization caused by the violence has given power to groups intent on destroying society rather than "developing" it and allows them to shelter themselves and hide amidst the chaos and confusion. Statistics also stand to show nonviolent movements have been far more effective than violent ones. A study by leading American political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan "collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900." The findings showed "nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time." They argue these findings exist because " nonviolent campaigns typically attract more participants" and "if unarmed civilians are attacked, other citizens are likely to mobilize, and the government loses support from the international community" [1]

3. War may succeed in transferring power, but it is movements of peace in the wake of war that so crucially change the state for the better. For example, the Revolutionary War may have succeeded in granting the U.S. independence from Britain, but what truly secured the rights Americans sought? It was the "ballot": the Constitutional Convention, a congregation of peaceful, intellectual, and strategic forces, that forged the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Checks and Balances, etc. that "developed the state". The Civil War may have preserved the Union, but it was the passing of the 13, 14, and 15th Amendments that cemented the "change". So even when war does succeed, a peaceful movement must ensue in order to guarantee true, lasting change.

Sources:
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

Hi.
I thank my opponent for showing his opinion.
I ask my worthy opponent to do rebuttal of my second round in his third round, and defend his arguments and give conclusions in the last round. I will be doing the same.
As the third round is just rebuttal, I am going to rebut my opponent's arguments.
My strategy in rebutting will be: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)

Rebuttal:

1. "After over a century of oppression, the Indian Independence Movement finally found success after it adopted Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance. Through the Salt March, boycotts, the Indian National Congress, etc. India secured its sovereignty, rights, and culture with no mass damage or casualty. Furthermore, the peaceful separation allowed India to make amends and forge strong relationships with Britain and other world powers." CON.
- Worthy opponent, this is a wrong information many people have. Indians use Ghandi's peace movement as a cover for the numerous war and rebllions India had, for example: India's First War of Independence, which 'challenged and ended the power and control of British East Indian Company in India'. [1]

2. " We can look to the leadership of Nelson Mandela and South Africa's peaceful movement to end the apartheid that oppressed non-whites in the country for decades. Academics, workers, politicians, churches, etc. boycotted, condemned and resisted apartheid. And after negotiations and expanded suffrage, millions of South Africans attained equality and rights. Not through "molotovs" but through the voting ballots on April 27, 1994, Freedom Day, were South Africans able to overturn apartheid and truly "change" for the better."CON.
- Again, a cover. A story that many people don't know was when a black child in South Africa trained a dog to steal diomand from a diamond mine, which was then sold to buy weapons. Then the 'peaceful' movement started, after having power gained by armed clashes.

3. "We can look further to the Civil Rights Movement and leadership of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "Change" was instituted when the Civil Rights Act was passed, when the Supreme Court struck down segregation in Brown v. BOE. "Change" came to American culture when people were exposed to the grace and power of the Million Man March and the "I Have A Dream" speech. All of these movements faced external and internal violence, but it was the commitment to nonviolence that made these movements so effective and secured better rights and conditions for millions around the world. Countless further examples of successful nonviolent movements exist as well." CON.
- What was Martin's position? A Baptist minister! So he did have power! People actually liked him and followed him even before his ' civil rights movement. What my opponent has hidden about Martin Luther is that he led an unsuccessful 1962 struggle against segregation in Albany, Georgia (the Albany Movement). Why was it unsuccesful? Because he used peace instead of power. And the last thing that shows he was unsuccesful in his 'peaceful movements', his death was followed by riots in many U.S. cities! So when he was there, people showed him that they too like peace. As soon as he died, people started riots! That shows the unsuccesfulness of his peaceful movement. Then again, did any change come to America after his 'peaceful movement'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

4. "We can look to the modern Middle East to see how violence has failed to develop various states and has in fact resulted in the opposite. The "molotovs" of foreign and domestic violent conflicts have only succeeded in destabilizing and causing unprecedented damage and danger in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Libya. The choice of violence and war has given groups like ISIS the ability to capitalize on the violence and expand" CON.
- When the 'peaceful revolution' started in Syria, it achieved nothing. Nothing! Until ISIL, at that time ISI, only in Iraq, sent armed cells to Syria, to help the victims of the Syrian genocide by having WAR. As for what you said about ISIL, please read my argument in round 2. ISIL is now powerful as it left peace and used WAR. FSA, on the other hand, used war in the beggining, began to get many cities, than turned to peace, and eventually drowned.

5.1. " A study by leading American political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan "collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900." The findings showed "nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time." They argue these findings exist because " nonviolent campaigns typically attract more participants" and "if unarmed civilians are attacked, other citizens are likely to mobilize, and the government loses support from the international community" CON.
-Wow! We are talking about war and peace, and my opponent is talking about political campaigns! Of course, in countries that don't have war, like America, people will refuse violence. Then again, we aren't debating violence. We are debating WAR. You may ask me, what is the difference between war and violence. My answer is :The one thing common to war and violence is hostility.
War is hostility on a large scale, over a long duration of time. It may involve violence, it may involve cold shouldering, it may involve economic sanctions, it may involve social alienation. It is usually between large, powerful entities whose differences have so far outweighed their commonalities as to lead to such hostility. Violence is hostility expressed through physical force. It does not have to be large scale. It does not even need a scale. Two ants beating each other up over a piece of sugar, two dogs fighting over a bone, a man beating up his wife, right upto a nuclear bombing, it's all violence. Wars may or may not include violence. Violence may or may not mean war. [2] If I go to the street and kill all blacks, it is violence. But it is NOT war.

5.2. From my opponent's source, I quote: "Government security forces don’t want to fire on unarmed civilians, especially when the crowd might include their mothers, daughters, friends, and neighbors." [3]
- What about the countries in which the governments don't see who they are firing at, like Egypt? In Egypt, policemen and even armed forces shoot at everybody, armed and un-armed, children and elderlies, neighbours or cousins. So we can say that change very very seldom comes by peace. But MOSTLY, nearly always, change comes by WAR. [4]


I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.


VOTE PRO.


Thank you,
Adil Muhammad,
Qatar.



Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(term)

[2] https://www.quora.com...

[3] https://www.psychologytoday.com...

[4] http://www.cbc.ca...
spencercrat123

Con

Per the rules defined by my opponent, I will use this round only to rebut his Round 2 arguments.

I emphasize again that this is about War's effectiveness at "developing the state". The overlying problem with each of my opponent's examples is that while he shows how war transferred POWER, he fails to show how it implements "CHANGE" for the better and how the respective societies and peoples' lives have progressed as a result.

1. "Whereas Egypt's current president, Abdul Fattah Asseesi used WAR against anybody who is against him, has power now (I'm against him, because he used WAR beyond limits, too. He killed innocent people... "

My opponent condemns his own example here. Clearly the change is not bettering the state if it is at the expense of innocent lives. Under his rule, basic human rights and freedoms of speech, press, assembly, etc. have been crushed. In a single day, for example, he had his forces murder 1,400 and detain 16,000 protesters[1]. Clearly El-Sisi has obtained power but how actions like this have "developed the state" is beyond me and my opponent who conceded that this leader was destructive. Even if he was not supposed to "use violence this way", as my opponent argues, this proves violent movements allow corrupt leaders to obtain power that enables them to cause great destruction. El-Sisi's movement of violence has left Egypt far worse off.

2. "Who has a better reputation in the Arab world (the West hates war) Hamas or PIA?"

Popularity doesn't justify violence and it certainly doesn't equate to effectiveness. My opponent failed to show how Hamas' movement of violence has changed Palestine for the better because it hasn't. Hamas has only succeeded in increasing tension and hostility towards Palestine and has actively blocked the progress of its own state by halting peace talks [2].

2. "Afghanistani people supported Taliban (at that time) and WON against Russia, the owner of the largest army in the world."

My opponent uses another example of a group that used violence to obtain power but then turned around to abuse that very power to DESTROY the state not DEVELOP it. The Taliban has "committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, 80% in 2011, and 80% in 2012."[3] Is this the kind of change my opponent is advocating for? If not then he's at the very least arguing for a method of change that enables this kind of destruction.

3. "All of us know what's going on in Syria, and we can clearly blame 'peace' for that."

By its very definition, a WAR has caused an excess of 210,000 casualties and has displaced 3,000,000 refugees [4] [5] WAR in Syria has not only failed to rid the country of an oppressive dictator, but it has also empowered groups like ISIL.

3."ISIL knew the way to become a strong superpower, WAR, and it IS a superpower now."

My opponent adds yet another terrorist group to his list of shining examples of how war is so effective. He can trumpet the power of ruthless terrorist groups and dictators but it's not effective unless he's arguing that war better develops states of terror, torture, and destruction than peaceful movements do, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

4. "Erdoghan, as soon as being elected as president, hanged 20 corrupt people. He discovered a military coup plot against him and hanged all people involved in it. Now just look at his power."

Are these supposed to be some sort of sick achievements? Violence has brought power to this one man, not the state, and my opponent fails again to show how society has benefited as a result. This is not the kind of change any rational society wants.

I look forward to addressing my opponent's rebuttals and providing concluding arguments next round.

Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://www.jpost.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.reuters.com...
[5] http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
JustVotingTiedDebates

Pro

Strategy in defense: ("Rebuttal" -Defense)

Defense:

1."I emphasize again that this is about War's effectiveness at "developing the state". The overlying problem with each of my opponent's examples is that while he shows how war transferred POWER, he fails to show how it implements "CHANGE" for the better and how the respective societies and peoples' lives have progressed as a result." -CON.
- Yes, now if power is used in the right way, it brings change. Summary: War > Power > Used goodly > Change.

2. "Whereas Egypt's current president, Abdul Fattah Asseesi used WAR against anybody who is against him, has power now (I'm against him, because he used WAR beyond limits, too. He killed innocent people... " My opponent condemns his own example here. Clearly the change is not bettering the state if it is at the expense of innocent lives. Under his rule, basic human rights and freedoms of speech, press, assembly, etc. have been crushed. In a single day, for example, he had his forces murder 1,400 and detain 16,000 protesters[1]. Clearly El-Sisi has obtained power but how actions like this have "developed the state" is beyond me and my opponent who conceded that this leader was destructive. Even if he was not supposed to "use violence this way", as my opponent argues, this proves violent movements allow corrupt leaders to obtain power that enables them to cause great destruction. El-Sisi's movement of violence has left Egypt far worse off."
-CON.
- Same as 1. If he used power in right way, he could have brought change. Sisi's fault, not war's. Refer to first defense argument ^.

3. "Popularity doesn't justify violence and it certainly doesn't equate to effectiveness. My opponent failed to show how Hamas' movement of violence has changed Palestine for the better because it hasn't. Hamas has only succeeded in increasing tension and hostility towards Palestine and has actively blocked the progress of its own state by halting peace talks" -CON.
- Not popularity. Reputation. Unless Hamas, Isreal wold have captured all of Palestine.

4. "Afghanistani people supported Taliban (at that time) and WON against Russia, the owner of the largest army in the world." My opponent uses another example of a group that used violence to obtain power but then turned around to abuse that very power to DESTROY the state not DEVELOP it. The Taliban has "committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, 80% in 2011, and 80% in 2012."[3] Is this the kind of change my opponent is advocating for? If not then he's at the very least arguing for a method of change that enables this kind of destruction." -CON.
- Defense argument 1. Taliban's fault.

5. "By its very definition, a WAR has caused an excess of 210,000 casualties and has displaced 3,000,000 refugees [4] [5] WAR in Syria has not only failed to rid the country of an oppressive dictator, but it has also empowered groups like ISIL." -CON.
- Wrong. War hasn't caused all that. Bashar Alasad killed and bombed all those. Violence. Oppression. Not war.

6. " My opponent adds yet another terrorist group to his list of shining examples of how war is so effective. He can trumpet the power of ruthless terrorist groups and dictators but it's not effective unless he's arguing that war better develops states of terror, torture, and destruction than peaceful movements do, in which case I wholeheartedly agree." -CON
- Refer defense argument 1 ^. ISIL'S fault.

7. " This is not the kind of change any rational society wants." -CON.
-Refer to source [1].

I have defnded most of my arguments with just one reply, which strongly shows the weakness of my opponent's vague rebuttal.

Thank you,
Adil,
Qatar.


Sources:


[1] https://www.quora.com....


spencercrat123

Con

Defense:

First I'd like to point out my opponent failed to rebut Point 3 of my argument, which I feel is my most crucial point. Even when war transfers power, a "voting ballot" movement is needed after to ensure and secure true change (i.e. Bill of Rights, writing of new constitutions, electing new leaders). If these type of events don't happen, we see the results of my opponent's disastrous examples.

"War is hostility on a large scale, over a long duration of time... Violence is hostility expressed through physical force."

By this distinction provided by my opponent, 2 of his 4 examples don't even qualify as war. Coups and dictators are not wars. El-Sisi and Ergodahn's preference to simply murder and oppress civilians who disagree with them is by his definition just violence. Furthermore, the study I cited required "the movements to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement", far from "two ants beating each other up over a piece of sugar."

"Indians use Ghandi's peace movement as a cover for the numerous war and rebllions India had, for example: India's First War of Independence, which 'challenged and ended the power and control of British East Indian Company in India'".

Power over India was just transferred to the British Crown, and as a result of the War, Britain cracked down harder than ever. From his source: "As well as hanging mutineers, the British had some "blown from cannon," in which sentenced rebels were tied over the mouths of cannons and blown to pieces when the cannons were fired." It would be 90 years until Indians gained independence as a result of Ghandi's nonviolent revolution.

"A story that many people don't know was when a black child in South Africa trained a dog to steal diomand from a diamond mine, which was then sold to buy weapons."

Does this ridiculous, unsubstantiated story really deserve more credit for ending apartheid than the life's work of Nelson Mandela and the ANC?

"As soon as he died, people started riots! That shows the unsuccesfulness of his peaceful movement. Then again, did any change come to America after his 'peaceful movement'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

Riots did not nullify King's peaceful movement and life work. His movement inspired the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ENDED SEGREGATION, far from nothing. Furthermore, he is viewed as a champion of change across the world over 50 years later, the same cannot be said for any of my opponent's examples.

Conclusion:

My opponent argues that, when used "correctly", war brings better change than peaceful movements do. Why then did he not provide a single example of an entity using war "correctly"? Why did, in each of his examples, did the entity using war end up using war to murder and oppress civilians of their own states? War enables this kind of abuse.

In the end, voters, ask yourself if movements should walk the path of the dictators, ISIS, the Taliban cited by my opponent or Ghandi, Martin Luther King J., and Nelson Mandela. Which group has enacted the change we want? The choice is simple.

Thank you for reading. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 4 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
I have three debates going on, all arguments due !!!
Posted by spencercrat123 5 months ago
spencercrat123
I'd like to debate this too if you clarify what CharlesGrey asked.
Posted by CharlesGrey 5 months ago
CharlesGrey
So are you arguing

a) change can only come through revolution
b) change is preferable through revolution

I'll debate either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 4 months ago
BackCommander
JustVotingTiedDebatesspencercrat123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with Pro in the fact that change comes from force, not protest, their choice to define "change" the way they did changed the entire dynamic of this debate. Pro points out that many peaceful movements involved moments of violence, and uses this to undermine the movements as a whole. Con gets my vote because they correctly pointed out that in almost every instance of bloody revolution or violent protest change only came after pacts, treaties, or laws were written up to enforce the ideals of the victors. Violence cannot write a document for the development of the current state, it can only destroy.