Topic Analysis - LD NSDA - Violent Revolutions
By: Alexandra Mork
The new LD topic for the NSDA tournament is… Resolved: Violent Revolution is a just response to political oppression.
In terms of definitions, there will probably be several core areas of contestation. One area is the term “violent”. What draws the distinction between violent revolution and non-violent revolution? For example, some revolutions may have unintentionally violent consequences even if violence isn’t constitutive to the revolution. Another area of potential contestation is “revolution”. What distinguishes revolutions from resistance? According to the Merriam Webster dictionary definition, a revolution involves a forcible overthrow of a government or a social order. This begs the question of what constitutes a social order. If institutions within society are altered to become more just is that a revolution against the social order, or merely a reform to it? In addition, there will probably be debate over what constitutes political oppression. Where is the line drawn between political oppression and social oppression?
AFF Ideas:
In terms of philosophy affs, some debaters may read arguments about social contracts because if a government is oppressive, it is not acting according to the will of the people.
In terms of soft left affs, many debaters may specify one particularly oppressive political regime. This will allow them to avoid general criticisms of the futility or ethical issues of violent revolution in the abstract by narrowing the debate.
Although there is some ground for philosophy or soft left affs, there is by far the most ground for critical affs. Many debaters will probably read criticisms of colonialist or oppressive regimes as a justification for using violence. In fact, an aff that includes some afro-pessimist theory would probably be topical and could defend that violent revolution against the United States Federal Government is just.
NEG Ideas:
In terms of phil NCs, some debaters will probably read arguments about why violence and murder are absolute moral evils and can never be justified. In addition, some debaters may read Hobbes NCs to justify why absolute respect of the sovereign is critical in a functional society.
In terms of policy strategies, one option is to read arguments about ceding the political. Debaters can argue that working within the state is a preferable alternative to overthrowing it entirely because revolutions have often been empirically ineffective.
Debaters may also read critiques of affs that argue that idealistic justifications are sufficient to justify revolution because doing so abstracts from the material consequences, such as widespread casualties, of revolution.
A lot of the best neg ground will be reactive to the particular aff plan and subject area. So, when prepping you should anticipate common affirmatives and craft case negs based on those.
Fem Ideas:
On the affirmative, one option is to read a fem aff that focuses on how gender minorities have the right to overthrow oppressive governments. Some debaters may also specify one country in which gender minorities are currently repressed as an example for their aff.
On the negative, one option is to read a feminist criticism of violence by arguing that the affirmative replicates masculine norms by viewing death and brutality as the only option in an unjust status quo.
I hope you enjoyed the article! As always, if you have any questions, feel free to message GirlsDebate!