Resolved: On balance, violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
In the coming days, I'll start posting detailed thoughts, making this the go-to resource for the topic like it's been in the past.
Initially, as always, definitions matter greatly. How violent the revolution? What is the meaning of "just?" What constitutes "political" oppression, as opposed to other kinds?
Stay tuned. Should be interesting.
Added: Obviously social contract theory comes into play, and will be quite popular on either side. (Hobbes vs. Locke, with Rousseau shouting from the sidelines.) Curiously, this is where leftist and conservative ideologies can point in similar directions. Jeffersonian contractism justified the American revolution; Marxist historicism justified the Russian revolution.
Some other philosophers or thinkers to consider: Thoreau. Gandhi. Camus (who quarreled with Sartre over the necessity of violence). Kant.
Update 5/2: Speaking of Kant, I outline one way the Neg might use Kant to burden the Aff.
Update 5/3: William T. Vollman is the new Rousseau. I show how this makes for a potential Aff case structure.
Update 5/8: Blogging neighbor Josh has all the answers when it comes to Hobbes. Well, not all the answers, but some. And they're good answers. (Josh and I go back and forth on Hobbes here, too.)
Update 5/17: I offer some preliminary thoughts on the definition of "political oppression."