The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

America had the right to revolt against the British Empire

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 55905
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




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


I accept your challenge and would like to lay down some defenitions.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


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 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:

  1. Taxation without Representation

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." (,

  1. Too much interference

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. (

  1. Right for self-determination.

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. (

  1. How can you "really" make a revolution right?

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.

  1. Natural rights

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 "

  • Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.

  • Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right."

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. (

Debate Round No. 2


Spec10 forfeited this round.


I extend my argument.
I was really looking forward to CON's rebuttal, but I guess not.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Spec10 2 years ago
Greatest apologies friend. It was my mothers birthday, as well as a full day of school, swim practice, and work. I really intended to have my argument in by 3 o'clock, but that never happened!
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
I'm unsure who will win. This is going to be very interesting. I live in the US, but the US was fierce and hot-headed back then. But, they did have a right. I'm unsure.
Posted by Tore_Mihror 2 years ago
I am living on the East coast too, but only temporarily for a few years. You where correct though guessing that I live outsie the US, I normally live in Germany. So that wont be a Problem then!
Posted by Spec10 2 years ago
Tore Mihor,
my post will be late (relative to you-or rather I assume so) I live on the East Coast of the States. I was awake to very late times last night when I issued the debate. Sorry it will affect my ability to respond on time
Posted by Tore_Mihror 2 years ago
I excuse myself for mispelling two words in the first round. I was on mobile, but wanted to get this debate started.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
The big question is lawfully or morally right? They sure weren't allowed by law and morally a revolution for freedom and separation should be easy to claim as sound.
Looking forward to reading this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Debate_Czar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The con started out with a clearly traceable logical pattern, but his failure to rebut really hindered his chances at receiving my vote. The Pro's argument was well organized and convincing as well, which is why I awarded it with the points.