The Instigator
Ruid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is another revolutionary war about to occur in the United States

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...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,416 times Debate No: 29679
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Ruid

Pro

The answer, of course, is yes. But why do I believe this? Because history repeats itself, and that is exactly what is going on today as we speak. Let me explain further.

You see, in 1775, Great Britain decided to implement a thing called the Stamp Act, which many Americans at the time consider it to be unconstitutional. This feeling was also fueled by the fact that they, the Americans, felt as if they were already paying their fair share of taxes and enough was enough. This as you may know eventually lead to the American Revolution.

With that said, take look at what has been happing more and more over the last few years. If you said more and more taxation without true representation, then you have it right.
But, hold on a second sir. You said without true representation. We have true representation, don't we? But do we? Do you really feel that the government has been a true representing us, and I'm not just talking about our economical situation. Really think about that. I don't think so. In fact, it seems as if our government has become an entity of its own, feeling that it no longer needs to listen to us at all.
In any case, I believe that too much taxation without true representation, coupled with a government that wishes to control the populous instead of work for it or with it, is indeed an act that will lead to civil unrest followed by another American Revolution if left unresolved.
Heineken

Con

Pro stated: Is another revolutionary war about to occur in the United States? The answer, of course, is yes.
But why do I believe this? Because history repeats itself, and that is exactly what is going on today as we speak.

Rebuttal: My opponent has established his burdens:

  • Another Revolutionary war is about to occur in the US.
  • History repeats itself. (A reliable constant?)
  • The above two are occurring at this moment, in relation to each other.
    (History is repeating itself, which will result in another revolutionary war).

I look forward to reading my opponent’s expanded arguments.

----------------------------

Pro established: You see, in 1775, Great Britain decided to implement a thing called the Stamp Act,
which many Americans at the time consider it to be unconstitutional.

Rebuttal: Impossible. The U.S. constitution was drafted in 1787, signed in 1788 and enacted in 1789. [1]
The American colonists (British subjects) rioted in objection to the stamp act and the British Parliament
repealed the tax, marking a clear victory for the colonists. [2] I challenge my opponent to show
a contemporary parallel, to address his 2nd burden.

----------------------------

Pro established: This feeling was also fueled by the fact that they, the Americans,
felt as if they were already paying their fair share of taxes and enough was enough.
This as you may know eventually lead to the American Revolution.

Rebuttal: Incorrect. The American colonists rejected the Stamp tax because “as British subjects,
Parliament could not impose taxes upon them without their consent, as given
through the various colonial representative assemblies”. [2] The revolution occurred
because of “taxation without representation”, not because the tax was superfluous.

----------------------------

Pro stated:We have true representation, don't we? But do we? Do you really feel that the
government has been a true representing us, and I'm not just talking about our economical
situation. Really think about that. I don't think so. In fact, it seems as if our government has become an
entity of its own, feeling that it no longer needs to listen to us at all
.”

Rebuttal: Entirely anecdotal. Statements like “I believe” or “it seems” are not rooted in cited
sources.

Additionally, our constitution does not promise “true” representation. Article 1 of the US constitution
required one representative per 30,000 citizens. The phrase “true representation” is not mentioned
in article 1. Straw-man argument. [3]

----------------------------

Pro established: “…in any case, I believe that too much taxation without true representation,
coupled with a government that wishes to control the populous instead of work for it or with it,
is indeed an act that will lead to civil unrest followed by another American Revolution if left
unresolved
.”

Rebuttal: Where to begin?

  • Pro does not define “too much taxation”.
  • Pro does not define “true representation”.
  • Pro argued anecdotally with more “I believe” statements.
  • Pro accuses the Government of desiring control over, rather than a partnership with,
    the citizen population.
  • Pro concludes with a sourceless premise, proclaiming that civil unrest in inevitable.

Over to you Pro.

http://www.senate.gov... [1]

http://www.history.com... [2]

http://www.archives.gov... [3]

Debate Round No. 1
Ruid

Pro

First, welcome to the debate, if this is indeed one, for as I see it you have presented no argument against my premise at all. In any case let me address a few of your points, then I will move on.

1.) Rebuttal: Impossible. The U.S. constitution was drafted in 1787, signed in 1788 and enacted in 1789. [1]
The American colonists (British subjects) rioted in objection to the stamp act and the British Parliament
repealed the tax, marking a clear victory for the colonists. [2] I challenge my opponent to show
a contemporary parallel, to address his 2nd burden.

Indeed he is correct, however they, the colonist, was not basing their objections to pay the tax on their constitution, which hadn"t even been drafted yet, but on the 1689 English Bill of Rights which forbade the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. This is what lead me to believe that they, the colonist, felt it was unconstitutional because they felt they didn"t have representation and was being taxed.

Another thing, the Stamp Act wasn"t repealed. In fact, it passed on March 22 of 1765, and took effect on November 1 of that same year.

Rebuttal: Entirely anecdotal. Statements like I believe or it seems are not rooted in cited sources.

True, however this was just an opening statement with more to come.

Rebuttal continues: Additionally, our constitution does not promise true representation. Article 1 of the US constitution
required one representative per 30,000 citizens. The phrase true representation is not mentioned
in article 1. Straw-man argument. [3]

True again, the phrase is not mentioned, but it is assumed, just as we assume that we have freedom of speech, which is protected by the first amendment, even though our constitution doesn"t exactly, in detail, spell out what is considered freedom of speech and what isn"t.

Rebuttal: Where to begin?
Pro does not define too much taxation.
Pro does not define true representation.
Pro argued anecdotally with more I believe statements.
Pro accuses the Government of desiring control over, rather than a partnership with,
the citizen population.
Pro concludes with a source less premise, proclaiming that civil unrest in inevitable.

Point A: This is defined by the people who is being taxed, meaning Americans in this case, and not by one individual.
Point B: The simple definition of true representation with respect to my argument is: a government that does the will of the people, by majority rule I should say, instead of doing what it wills. I would also like to add a government that presents the image of the people in the way they wish to be represented. And just for the sake of clarity, the following definitions can be found in the dictionary.

1. The act of representing or the state of being represented.
2. Something that represents, as:
a. An image or likeness of something.
b. An account or statement, as of facts, allegations, or arguments.
c. An expostulation; a protest.
d. A presentation or production, as of a play.
3. The state or condition of serving as an official delegate, agent, or spokesperson.
4. The right or privilege of being represented by delegates having a voice in a legislative body.
5. A body of legislators that serve on behalf of a constituency.
6. Law A statement of fact made by one party in order to induce another party to enter into a contract.
7. Mathematics A homomorphism from an algebraic system to a similar system of matrices.

In any case, let me continue on, starting with this question, that being: what does The Hittite Empire, the Mycenaean civilization, the Western Roman Empire, the Mauryan and Gupta Empires in India, the Mayas, the Angkor in Cambodia, and the Han and Tang dynasties in China, have in common?

The Answer: Social Collapse.

But what are some of the key factors of social collapse, in other words, what causes such a thing to happen?

The Answer: economic, environmental, social and cultural.

With that said, lets take a closer look at these factors, starting with economic, and see how they apply to us today.

Question: Are we in economical trouble? The answer is yes, as is so apparent it is hardly worth mentioning. Just watch the news or listen to the radio.

Question: Are we having major environmental issues, meaning, that it is becoming more and more difficult to get or maintain the supplies of resources we need such as oil, food. The answer again is yes. Go online and google such topics or again listen to the news or radio.

Question: is the morality of our society and our cultural identity deteriorating to the point that we no longer have a sound foundation on which to stay connected, in other words, are we becoming more and more divided as a nation? The answer is sadly yes. Just look at the gun control issue, the gay marriage issue, and the immigration issue, to name a few.

So then, if these signs are indeed present with in our country, which now can be redefine as a society in the early stages of collapse based upon the evidence I just presented, then what should we conclude. I think you know. In fact, it isn't a question of if, but when, which begs one last query, that being: is this idea of another revolution occuring today all that to far fetched to believe? Is it really?

Well, the answer is: no. Just look at what has happened in New Orleans after Katrina and I think about it.

I conclude.

ANd now I turn it over to you sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Heineken

Con

Pro argued the 1689 English Bill of Rights "forbade the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. This is what lead me to believe that they, the colonist, felt it was unconstitutional because they felt they didn't have representation and was being taxed."


Rebuttal: Pro missed the point. The Bill of rights does outlaw Sovereign prerogative, but it is not a constitution. England was not a true constitutional Monarchy because it did not have a codified document. My objection was to the word "unconstitutional", not to the rebellion itself.

-------------------------

Pro stated: Another thing, the Stamp Act wasn't repealed. In fact, it passed on March 22 of 1765, and took effect on November 1 of that same year.

Rebuttal: Terribly incorrect. The Stamp act was repealed March 18th, 1766. Less than 6 months after going into effect. [1]

-------------------------

 

Pro Conceded that "True Representation" is not guaranteed, stating "the phrase is not mentioned, but it is assumed..".

-------------------------

Pro established that "too much taxation" is "defined by the people who is being taxed, meaning Americans in this case, and not by one individual."


Rebuttal: Provide the source which states that the American People considered the taxes "too much".

-------------------------

Pro defined "true representation" as "a government that does the will of the people, by majority rule I should say, instead of doing what it wills. I would also like to add a government that presents the image of the people in the way they wish to be represented."


Rebuttal: Pro is arguing that "true representation" was ignored, which means a legal foundation must support it's observation. Pro provided no legal sources which require the observation of "true representation", but rather he furnished a personal ideal that is not guaranteed by any of the documents he object to.

We are not concerned with anecdotal arguments, such as "I believe", "I interpret","I understand it as"...etc. Unless my opponent can provide a document, with chapter, article and clause, I see no reason to assume that "true representation" is a constitutional guarantee.

-------------------------

Pro asked: "...what does The Hittite Empire, the Mycenaean civilization, the Western Roman Empire, the Mauryan and Gupta Empires in India, the Mayas, the Angkor in Cambodia, and the Han and Tang dynasties in China, have in common?
The Answer: Social Collapse.

(Rhetorical questions do not qualify as sourced arguments, by the way.)

Pro continues to mention economic and environmental problems as additional causes of collapse, but dismisses them as quickly as he established them by stating that economic troubles are so apparent it is hardly worth mentioning. He then asks the reader to do their own research, by suggesting that you (the voter) "go online and Google such topics or again listen to the news or radio."

Indeed. Why even continue reading this debate, when Google is so much more proficient at arguing my opponent's burden for him. In fact, why don't we just invite the voters to write arguments for my opponent, so that he doesn't need to waste his time even showing up?

What a disingenuous set of responses. I urge my opponent to do better next round.

-------------------------

Pro asked: ".. is the morality of our society and our cultural identity deteriorating to the point that we no longer have a sound foundation on which to stay connected, in other words, are we becoming more and more divided as a nation? "

Sadly, Pro then answered his own question without a source (yet again) by stating: The answer is sadly yes. Just look at the gun control issue, the gay marriage issue, and the immigration issue, to name a few.

Probably one of the most annoying methods of debating, is the rhetorical proposition. A question, that the inquirer answers themselves. Example:

Do I sound intelligent? Yes, I do. Should you accept my answers as absolute? Of course, I just proved that I'm intelligent. Have I won the argument? I certainly believe I have.

Wonderful tactic, although ultimately lacking any serious merit.

-------------------------

 

Conclusion: My opponent is burdened with proving three key points. As of yet, my opponent has not addressed a single one. We have been supplied with anecdotes, rhetorical questions and a poor review of English law.

With absolute confidence, I extend all my previous arguments into the next round.

http://www.constitution.org... [1]

Debate Round No. 2
Ruid

Pro

Ruid forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
Ruid

Pro

Ruid forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

All arguments extended into final round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ruid

Pro

Ruid forfeited this round.
Heineken

Con

Opponent forfeits. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
RuidHeinekenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.