Introduction
Culturally and economically marginalized groups endure constant injustice and inequality that stem from limited access to basic health services, education, food, and job opportunities. As such, oppression persists in constructing new realities in a world where the complexities and dynamics of socioeconomic and political change have been interwoven throughout societies. A comprehensive analysis of political oppression and violent revolution emerges from the Nationals 2019 – Lincoln-Douglas Debate Final Round that integrates controversial perspectives. In the affirmative, Nehal Chigurupati offers his renovations that support violent revolution as a just response to political oppression. Nehal argues that the needs of the politically oppressed must be addressed, which requires the resistance and voice of the oppressed. Proceeding cautiously, Grace Johannes rebuts the arguments presented by Nehal. Both speakers approach the debate topic with a critical eye and express their ideas in higher order to deploy rational and well-reasoned arguments.
Themes
Nehal prepared his shred of evidence with a strong opening statement, “If you’re not ready to die for it put the word freedom out your vocabulary… Freedom requires a fight, and because this fight realistically requires violence…” (National Speech & Debate Association, 1:56-2:10). For his first supporting point, Nehal posited on the intrinsic worth shared by humans, giving them entitlement to certain dues, including justice. On the other hand, Grace argued that the “Recognition of the inherent dignity and equal in alliable rights of all is the rights of justice… including safety, preservation of self, and life” (National Speech & Debate Association, 16:24-16:40). For political justice to be justice at all, people should be able to voice their concerns, challenge inequality, and exercise their rights. Thus, Nehal affirmed that structural oppression should be mitigated for three reasons. One, “… excluding voices allows ideologies of privilege to be deemed as universal and true. Second, structural oppression creates skewed unjust power disparities in citizens-citizen relationships and citizen-government relationships” (National Speech & Debate Association, 2:27-2:44). Power imbalance places accountability on a politically stronger party and as a consequence, the oppressed employ holistic tactics to strike a balance and maintain their dignity. Grace challenged Nehal’s assertions by affirming that “We don’t value a right if it erodes the rights of all others” (National Speech & Debate Association, 16:01-16:02).
Nehal proceeded by asserting that only his criterion “… can address real-world issues. Absolutists’ conceptions of justice fail to apply to real-world conditions” (National Speech & Debate Association, 2:58-3:05). Nehal cited Lane (2009) to support his claim that the competing vision of justice comparatively examines the lives of people. The search for a common set of rules distracts society from tacking real issues, thus, “The perfect becomes the enemy of the good” (National Speech & Debate Association, 3:20-3:21). In place of violent revolution, Grace gave two just choices that the oppressed can use: Non-violent revolutions or protests; and escaping oppression (National Speech & Debate Association, 16:37-19:59). As such, Nehal contended earlier that the resolution does not force the affirmative to defend violent revolutions as a response in the majority of cases. In his first contention, Nehal argued from Locke’s perspective, who pioneered the right to revolution and natural law, which prove essential in contemporary society. But Grace asserted that “The 16th and 17th-century philosophy is ill-equipped to prescribe justice a violent revolution because it isn’t shaped by risks, means of violence, or outcomes that a modern-day revolution requires” (National Speech & Debate Association, 16:37-16:44).
Nehal gave substantive reasons as to why alternatives to violence have proven ineffective at mitigating structural oppression, which is supported by previous research: The increasingly savvy nature of regimes at dealing with nonviolent protests, which Grace negates by stating that “It only justifies endless violence” (National Speech & Debate Association, 22:58-23:00); the Internet contributes to the failure in nonviolent revolutions; government only makes cosmetic changes; non-violence often works due to underlying threat of the violence (National Speech & Debate Association, 4:19-6:12). As a counter-argument, Grace stated that “When we have violent revolution, we perpetuate structural oppression forever. Because the people coming in power use structural means of violence… to gain and maintain that power and will continue to use it in their rule” (National Speech & Debate Association, 36:54-37:09).
In contrast to Nehal, Grace used a value criterion of maximizing human rights since respecting human rights is key to achieving justice. Nehal negates this criterion by articulating that a society cannot maximize human rights if it structurally oppresses people. Grace contended that “violent revolutions allow legitimate leaders to consolidate power… and… avoiding violent revolution maximizes human rights” (National Speech & Debate Association, 16:37-19:56). Grace further affirmed that violent evolution incites violent crackdown from the oppressor and creates a cycle of violence “… but justifying morally and abhorrent actions” (National Speech & Debate Association, 21:52-23:00). In contrast, Nehal asserted that one variable cannot definitively cause a more or less oppressive government (National Speech & Debate Association, 10:24-10:26). As examples of non-violent revolutions, Nehal cited guerilla warfare, how the Free Syrian Army countered Assad, and the way the U.S. military responded to the American Revolution. However, Grace argued that these revolutions perpetuate mass killings and lead to chaos. As a response, Nehal stated that “Non-violence is dependent upon the oppressors’ willingness to recognize the rights of the oppressed…” and that “… violence unifies the unit oppressed, allowing them to overcome historic rivalries” (National Speech & Debate Association, 6:45-7:00). He further asserted that in the short term, violence can cause instability and suffering, but in the long-term it creates less violence and less instability (National Speech & Debate Association, 31:35-31:37). Grace negated this claim by asserting that oppression continues indefinitely.
Delivery Style
The delivery style of bosh speakers was generally effective. For one, Nehal and Grace had strong opening statements, creating the first impression of their case and shaping the audience’s impression. The use of gestures to emphasize key points made the speakers more natural while delivering their case. Grace particularly used variations in force to avoid monotony and her assertion “… at what cost are we willing to have this cause” seized the day (National Speech & Debate Association, 40:12-40:13). However, Nehal had appropriate loudness and speed making it easier to comprehend his message. While both used their voices expressively, they mumbled words in some instances. Nonetheless, the techniques used by the speakers gave them high control for spontaneity and freedom to adapt to different contexts.
Conclusion
Violent revolutions in response to political oppression can have positive and negative consequences on society. Nehal argued that through violent revolutions, people can voice their concerns and exercise their civic duty. However, the effectiveness of violent revolutions and their impact on society is heavily challenged. Grace asserted that violent revolutions are not justified given the rippling effects such as sexual coercion, child slavery, and the death toll they leave behind. Consequently, the risks of violent revolutions outweigh the benefits. Nehal attacked Grace’s claim to a free point but failed to provide substantive evidence for some of his arguments and made contradictory attacks, giving Grace the upper hand. Overall, the speakers effectively presented their arguments with much confidence and passion.
Reference
National Speech & Debate Association (2018). Nationals 2019 – Lincoln-Douglas Debate Final Round [Video]. YouTube. Web.