America had the right to revolt against the British Empire
Hello and good luck.
I will be taking the Con position, believing that America was not justified in starting a revolution
Round 1 will be acceptence
Round 2 will be Main argument
Round 3 will be Rebuttal and conclusion
Justify- Show or prove to be right or reasonable:
Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable:
-Best or most appropriate for a particular situation:
-Restore to a normal or correct state:
Therefore, I, Pro, have resolved that I have to prove the moral obligation of the Independence movement to be justified.
Con has the burdan of proof that the Independence Revolution was in no way morally correct, Justified, or reasonable.
Thank you for offering this exxelant debate and I am looking forward to your arguments.
At the time of the American Revolution Britain had just fought a war with several nations, and most importantly, France. With North America serving as their battleground the Seven Years War (French and Indian War for fellow Americans) raged throughout the region. Started due to Americans making incursions into French territory, this was a tough and expensive war, fought to protect the colonies from French domination. After the victory, Britain needed to earn more money to pay its war debt. So the monarch looked to the Thirteen Colonies, and issued the Stamp Act. Americans up until this time had enjoyed little to no British involvement in politics, including taxation, and upon hearing this new law, were outraged. They were outraged that they had been given a great gift of automatous government for decades and now England has the audacity to....do what every country does with its colonies?
This is where the American logic is flawed. Britain had been a gracious protector and now that it wanted something in return Americans felt they had the right to refuse? America was greedy, unwilling to pay their share into the Empire, while still expecting all the perks. Colonists felt that they had the privilege to choose whether or not to assist the British Monarch. But they did not, for they were colonist, British citizens who lived abroad, avoiding tax for decades. But when they are requested to do their part as a citizen in the Empire, they rebel.
The moral reasoning is also non existent. A moral person would humble themselves, not be greedy and refuse their duty as a Englishman (or Scot, or Welshman(?), or whatever) to give back to the nation to pay a debt created by them. A moral person would also not tar and feather a man who is only doing his job to put food on the table back in England.
Viel Gluck! Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, Ich habe ein zweijährig Klasse (It has been a while, so my grammar is terrible, I take Latin in school now. I really do wish to learn German and visit some time however!)
The American revolution was justified due to these reasons:
Con talks of Rights, and that the Revolution broke laws. But since the 13 colonies where not represented in the English Parliament, they argued any law passed such as the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act where direct assaults on their rights as Englishmen. (From the English Bill of Rights in 1689) "no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes". So since the 13 colonies where not present in parliament, that tax was deemed unlawful. " It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm." (http://www.u-s-history.com..., http://avalon.law.yale.edu...)
The British government has always pursued a doctrine of not getting involved with the Americas, and therefore had let them to their own devices for much of a century. But the as soon as the British need something, namely money, due to the wars they where pursuing, they promptly turned to the Americans. Clearly a "commonwealth" can not turn to people just for the sake of gaining something. In the definition of a commonwealth, it says "a political community founded for the common good." clearly if the commonwealth fails to address he common good, i.e. in this case the good for the 13 colonies, they have the right to revolt. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. The Americans where not contend in how they where being governed, they had the endowed right to govern themselves and seek independence. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...)
By definition, it is an illegal act of sedition until it succeeds, when it immediately becomes a noble struggle of the people for liberty. So therefore the American Revolution was justified since it succeeded.
During the Enlighment, the Idea of Natural rights where developed. these ideas where major inspirations for the Insigaters of the rebellion, and a major inspiration was John Locke. He said "
So therefore, from the moral, natural and human rights perspective, the Revolutionaries had the right to fight for their independence due to certain rights endowed to the as members of the human race, the right of liberty. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Spec10 forfeited this round.
I extend my argument.
I was really looking forward to CON's rebuttal, but I guess not.
|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|