A violent overthrow of the government is never acceptable
Debate Rounds (3)
A violent overthrow of the government is never acceptable as violence should never be a means to change something. If a dictator is in charge and the country under them violently attempt to overthrow the leader, the country would be stooping down to the same level as their leader.
Secondly, a violent overthrow of the government doesn't solve issues unless you are able to restore into a democracy. This is difficult when a whole group of people are trying to be the leader. After a revolt, how do you possibly as a group without a leader, choose the right one?
Any help with the other side of this debate would be greatly appreciated!
Since no set road map for the debate is established, I will respond with what I see as logical, and let my opponent object if he wishes to.
1. Burden of proof shall lie on my opponent, since this is the most likely scenario of his in class debate. This means he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resolution is correct, and I merely have to show how his reasoning is fallacious, not how the diametric opposite of the claim is correct.
2. Inferring from his reason for proposing this debate, he would like for an immediate start to this debate, since he would like as much of a chance to argue as possible. As such, my case will begin after this list is concluded.
3. The reason he is debating also leads me to infer that he would like for my case to be based around possible issues in his debate, so I will begin my rebuttal right away.
If my opponent has any problems, he is free to challenge any of these assertions. However, we will need to reach a consensus if any dialogue of value is to be derived
On to my opponent's case.
My opponent claims that a violent overthrow would place the common man on the same level as their government. However, there are numerous cases in which this comparison rings hollow. If people are being executed, their lives destroyed, their livelihoods placed in jeopardy, a violent overthrow would not place us on their level. To do so would remove any sense of morality in intent from the discussion, as their intent was to stop the suffering of a group of people, as opposed to a lust for power*. In the same way a starving man may be considered justified for stealing food, the group of people would be justified in their actions if it establishes a better future. If the government will not listen to diplomacy and the suffering of a people is continually occurring, the good outweighs the con because all alternative means have been exhausted.
* Because of the phrasing of the resolution, the pro side must prove every possible case of a violent overthrow of the government. As such, I chose an intent that would create an upper bound, showing the bar that my opponent can cross to prove his case.
Pro's second contention is irrelevant to the resolution because it only concludes that violent overthrows in which the rebels have no leader are unacceptable, and he must conclude that, essentially, there is no conceivable violent overthrow of the government that is acceptable.
I will let my case stand for now. Good luck to Pro on his debate in English.
Kalebsklips forfeited this round.
Kalebsklips forfeited this round.
I thank my opponent for this debate. I hope his in class debate went well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.