Individual Arguments
Topic: Violent protest is a viable response to governmental injustice
Contention (AI Source (Authoritative Fact- Statistic, event, person, quote, or example in detail
allowed) sources only)
Negative: Noviolence is https:// 1. Upholds human rights: Nonviolence respects the dignity and
More Ethical - Violence www.amnesty.org/ rights of all individuals, reinforcing values of justice and equality.
contradicts moral
principles and the ideals of es/what-we-do/
justice that protesters seek freedom-of-
to uphold. expression/protest/?
Peaceful means align utm_source=chatgpt.c
better with human rights
and dignity.
om
https:// 2. Reduces suffering: It prevents loss of life and physical harm,
espaciosurbanos.azc. promoting change without causing further pain.
uam.mx/index.php/
path/article/view/267?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
https://www.icip.cat/ 3. Strengthens moral legitimacy: By remaining peaceful, the
perlapau/es/articulo/ movement stays consistent with the ethical principles it
advocates.
movimientos-
sociales-contra-
violencias-que-no-se-
quieren-ver/?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
Negative : Ends Do Not https:// 1. Prevents unintended negative consequences: Avoiding unjust
Justify the Means - Even if www.elcato.org/el-fin- means reduces the risk of creating new problems or injustices.
the goal is just, using
violence undermines the no-justifica-los-
moral legitimacy of the medios?
movement and can lead to utm_source=chatgpt.c
further injustices. om
https:// 2. Encourages genuine change: Changes achieved with integrity
filosofiaenlared.com/ are more sustainable and widely accepted by society.
2022/02/el-fin-nunca-
justifica-los-medios/?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
https:// 3. Builds trust and support: Maintaining ethical methods
www.culturagenial.co strengthens the movement's credibility and attracts more
supporters.
m/es/el-fin-justifica-
los-medios/?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
Affirmative : Noviolence is https:// 1. Increased state repression: Responding with violence may lead
More Ethical - Violence news.stanford.edu/ the government to escalate repression through harsher police
contradicts moral brutality, emergency laws, or military intervention.
principles and the ideals of stories/2018/10/how-
justice that protesters seek violent-protest-can-
to uphold. backfire?
Peaceful means align utm_source=chatgpt.c
better with human rights
and dignity.
om
https:// 2. Loss of movement legitimacy: Violent resistance can allow the
news.stanford.edu/ government and media to justify crackdowns by portraying
protesters as a threat.
stories/2018/10/how-
violent-protest-can-
backfire?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
3. Risk of civil war or chaos: In extreme cases, armed resistance
https://stanfordpolitics can lead to prolonged conflicts, such as insurgencies or civil
wars, affecting the entire population.
.org/2015/05/06/viole
nt-resistance-
counterproductive/?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
Affirmative : Self-Defense https:// 1. Difficult to distinguish defense from aggression: What starts as
is Justifiable - If state scholarlycommons.la self-defense can escalate into uncontrolled violence, making it
forces attack protesters, hard to differentiate between victims and aggressors.
they have the right to w.cwsl.edu/cgi/
defend themselves, viewcontent.cgi?
including article=1454&context
using violence if =fs&utm_source=chat
necessary.
gpt.com
https:// 2. More casualties and collateral damage: Violent clashes can lead
scholarlycommons.la to the deaths of innocent protesters and destruction of public
infrastructure.
w.cwsl.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?
article=1454&context
=fs&utm_source=chat
gpt.com
https:// 3. Justification for harsher crackdowns: Governments may use
news.stanford.edu/ violent responses from protesters as an excuse to impose
stricter laws, martial law, or mass arrests.
stories/2018/10/how-
violent-protest-can-
backfire?
utm_source=chatgpt.c
om
Preparation for Role:
Highlight your role: Construction Questioner Answerer Rebuttal
Speaking Points:
Affirmative:
1. If a government uses systematic violence, how can citizens achieve justice without force?
2. If self-defense is a right for individuals, why shouldn’t oppressed groups have the same
right?
3. If violent revolutions have led to freedom before, doesn’t this prove violence is sometimes
necessary?
Negative :
1. If violence leads to more repression, isn’t nonviolence a smarter strategy?
2. How can you ensure self-defense doesn’t escalate into unjustified aggression?
3. If peaceful movements have succeeded before, why choose violence over proven methods?
Take notes DURING the debate I think the winner is…Affirmative or Negative
Construction: Cross Examinations Rebuttal
Main contentions and evidence Q/A that they did badly or we need to What arguments did they add
fix that we need to talk about?
-Violence leads to more Questions: Protestos
violence How can you French
ensure it won't revolution
- Long term effect escalate? didn't work
-Peaceful movements get -Will it affect more South
more people? Africa
support •What if criminals peaceful
take advantage movements
-Laws with human rights and attack? Governmen
-Damages public support Answers ts attack
- Hurts innocent people first
•Stress in movement Violence
always
worse
Gaining
more
support
from
people
Economic
change
Reflection: I think I should get 10 ____/10 because…
Knowledge:
I demonstrated a deep understanding of the topic by formulating challenging and thought-provoking questions. My
questions were based on historical examples, logic, and ethical arguments, making it difficult for the opposing team to
answer convincingly.
• Investigation:
I researched past social movements, both violent and nonviolent, to craft strategic questions. For example, I
questioned why violent revolutions have historically led to successful change if violence is supposedly ineffective.
This forced the opposing team to address real-world examples instead of just theoretical arguments.
• Communication:
I presented my questions clearly and confidently, ensuring that they were direct and impactful. I also adapted my
questioning strategy based on the opposing team's responses, making the debate more dynamic and engaging.
• Thinking:
My questions forced the opposing team to defend their stance with strong evidence instead of vague moral
arguments. By asking questions like "If peaceful protests always work, why do oppressive regimes still ignore
them?" , pushed them to think remail toused intel-wordiotective * rather than lust itatthe debate
rather than just ideals.
