The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,476 times Debate No: 9511
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (9)

 

sadolite

Pro

The federal gov't through the EPA has kowtowed to environmental extremist and cut off the water supply to the farmers in the San wakeen valley in California. It is the extremist argument that a smelt is becoming endangered because of the pesticides used in farming in that region.
The consequences of this action has put nearly forty thousand people out of work. And now the people of that area that once used to grow the food that they ate and export food all over the world now import food from China are now all destitute and unemployed living on demeaning, enslaving Govt handouts just to survive.
This situation is artificially created by the federal govt. The govt is making these people live in poverty and has no intentions of reversing this lunacy. The people of this region are more important that some 3 inch smelt. People are more important than these fish, you can't even call them fish they are smelts and you can't even eat them. If they disappeared it would have no noticeable impact in the food chain, people don't even eat them.
What the federal govt is doing to these people is criminal and all those involved in this heinous travesty against these people should be brought up on charges and thrown in jail and the water turned back on. If the water is not turned back on and I mean today, right freakin now, the farmers and the people of that region should form a militia and take matters into their own hands, turn the water back on and defend the free flow of water to their farms to the death if necessary. They need to declare war against the worthless pile of crap we have called the Federal Govt.

They have repeatedly tried to solve this situation in a civil manner. The time for civility when it comes to the federal govt is over on this issue.
Freeman

Con

At first glance I thought Sadolite was only joking when he suggested that mere farmers should go to war with the federal government if their demands were not met. And I was tempted to engage in semantics so that I could beat him. Upon closer examination these sorts of tactics will be entirely unnecessary because my opponent seems to have put forth this resolution in all seriousness. Sadolite's opening argument reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United Sates.

=========
Contention 1: War is not the answer to this situation.
=========

"If the water is not turned back on and I mean today, right freakin now, the farmers and the people of that region should form a militia and take matters into their own hands, turn the water back on and defend the free flow of water to their farms to the death if necessary."- Sadolite

Even if I were to grant that the situation of the farmers in San Joaquin valley was indeed a problem that deserved the attention of scrupulous people it is a non sequitur to conclude that war is the solution to this situation. [1] One simply cannot imagine how war, and the explicit use of violence that comes along with it, would be a good solution to this issue. When we as a people choose to engage in war, for either offensive or defensive purposes "collateral damage"—the maiming and killing of innocent noncombatants—will be unavoidable. [2] Given what is at stake in this situation it would simply be unthinkable to place so many innocent people in danger over what is little more than a policy dispute. Even if we could determine that destitute farmers could overthrow government armies through their mastery of pitchfork ninjutsu, it would still be and intolerable and immoral means to resolving this issue. This analysis merely stems from the fact that modern warfare guarantees that innocent people will be killed, blinded, orphaned and severely disfigured in the act of war. And since warfare in such a situation would be flagrantly unnecessary we can dismiss it as a choice.

=========
Contention 2: The Farmers of San Joaquin valley have better options than war.
=========

If the farmers of San Joaquin Valley feel unrepresented or mistreated then they should create a petition, gather signatures, and campaign vigorously for it in congress until their voices have been heard. [3] They can also run for elected office, if they so choose, and try to advance their position that way. [4] Either of these possibilities doesn't have the absurd effect of needlessly wasting life over an ultimately reconcilable terrestrial dispute.

The fact that you have provided no sources in your opening round has made my job needlessly difficult. How am I to know that you are being truthful if you start making claims and then back them up with zero evidence? And the fact that you spelled Joaquin wrong didn't help much either when I was doing research. Needless to say I expect better things from you in the next round. If you know something that I don't then please feel free to reveal it to me. And this time try to have some evidence.

========
Conclusion
========

Sadolite's resolution is, in my opinion, probably the product of the combined effects of too many red bulls; an almost paranoid mistrust of Government; too many hours of listening to Sean Hannity on the Radio; too many hours of watching UFC; and a serious lack of sleep. Why should farmers risk their own lives and the lives of countless innocents in a pointless campaign of violence and bloodshed over a dispute that can almost certainly be resolved by peaceful means? Gathering a militia of farmers armed with pitchforks, shotguns, and their deranged revenge fantasies for the purpose of warring with the Federal government is a phantasmagorically absurd option to resolve this issue. Such a decision would ruin whatever chance the farmers had of mediating their disputes peacefully and it would almost certainly condemn countless scores of people to an untimely death for no good reason. Resolution negated- (Vote Con)

All the best,
Freeman

======
Sources
======

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

[3] http://www.gopetition.com...

[4] http://www.centeroncongress.org...
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Here is my source for my opening argument. I generally don't give sources for my opening argument, but rather make an opening statement to see what my opponents angle will be. It was a good move on my part as my opponent openly admitted he was going to use samantics instead of substance. Semantics, in my opinion, are just another way of saying "I cant think of a good rebuttal so I will divert attention away from the subject at hand and try and get my opponent off topic and mire them into meaningless drivel. This wont happen in this debate.

Here is my source for most of my opening argument:

http://online.wsj.com...

The San Joaquin Delta did not exist 150 years ago, it was built by man so anything that lives in it didn't live there before. They are there because man built it. They are not indigenous to the area with respect to water not being present before it was built The Delta was not built to support fish or wild life and never was, so anything that might live in it is irrelevant. It was built to transport water for farming and drinking water. It is not a preserve for wild life and to label it as such is preposterous.

The Delta consists of a myriad of small natural and man-made channels,, creating a system of isolated lowland islands and wetlands defined by dikes or levees. The total area is around 1,100 square miles, around 70 reclaimed islands and tracts, surrounded by 1,100 miles of levees surrounded by 700 miles of waterways. The Delta was originally marshland. Reclamation was made by the building of levees, by Chinese laborers in the 1850s.
A typical levee was constructed as being approximately trapezoidal, 10 ft above original ground level, and approximately 30 ft wide at the base rock armoured on the river side. The construction was a colossal engineering undertaking. The construction did however allow for the introduction of fish of all kinds to live and thrive

What is a Delta Smelt? Here is a link that tells you what it is and what are the most likely causes for increases and decreases in population. Ithttp://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov... It seems mother nature is the biggest factor in it's population by way of precipitation or lack there of. It also states that the populations of these smelts very greatly from year to year and also there is no accurate count as to how many there are. How can anyone say they are threatened if you can't count them?

And now for your viewing pleasure, months old videos of our worthless congress discussing this issue. As you will see advocates of the EPA and the Endangered Species Act will not do anything but ask for more hearings while this entire region dies. Side note; The smelt is not "endangered" it is now currently labeled as "threatened".

Part1

Part2

Part3

What's going on here is criminal and nothing is going to be done. This issue, as you can see from the above videos, will be ignored and prolonged indefinitely in Congress forever and just die away along with the people of that region. There is no alternative for the people of this valley if they are to survive another growing season other than to take control of the water and fight the federal govt and seize control of the pumping stations. The govt could care less about their plight and never will. It is their goal to kill these people a slow and agonizing economic death. Otherwise they would act immediately if it wasn't.

Here is reason enough to immediately turn the water back on. It takes only a year of drought (Lack of water) to kill an olive tree harvest in California . It takes 5 to 8 years years to grow from from seed to harvest and it takes a subsequent 3 to 5 years for each additional harvest and 20 years to reach full harvest maturity . These trees can live as long as 500 to 900 years if cared for properly. This crop is irreplaceable it will be gone forever, period. No one will even think of planting any new trees because of our erratic and unreliable and oppressive govt. Say good buy to the olive industry in California. Artificially killed off by our Govt for no good reason. It's OK to kill 150 year old olive trees but it is not OK to kill a smelt that lives for what, a year at most, if that.

Now my rebuttals for my opponents last argument:

"Sadolite's opening argument reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United Sates."

This is no "hoax." This is going on as we speak. People and entire communities are being killed of every day. No action is being taken. Forcible take over of the pumping stations is going to be the only way to save this region, Months and months have already past and irreparable damage has already been done. My opponent seems to think they can just sit for another year or two and live in squalor while the repugnant govt sits around and bickers about legal E's and procedure. There is no intellectual discussion on this issue. Just worthless, endless, meaningless lip service from a out of touch repugnant federal govt.

Contention 1

The people of San Joaquin valley have made pleads to the govt and were told to to freakin bad. The Endangered Species Act was written by "man" and not "god" The repugnant govt doesn't care if their livelihoods are destroyed and the entire region is turned into a dust bowl. (See the vote in the third video.) As you can see an attempt at civil and intellectual discourse was made and the people of the region were rejected. It is also interesting to note that not a single mention of the peoples plight was ever even mentioned or considered by all those who opposed the bill that might have done something to solve the problem. You tell me, what does one do now? You either die or take matters into your own hands. It will be only after civil unrest and violence ensues, that anything will be done from this point forward. And the only killing that will take place will be the jackbooted federal govt killing the farmers.

Contention 2

"If the farmers of San Joaquin Valley feel unrepresented or mistreated then they should create a petition, gather signatures, and campaign vigorously for it in congress until their voices have been heard."

See all three videos of congress telling them to freakin bad, smelts are more important than people.

"They can also run for elected office, if they so choose, and try to advance their position that way."

The entire region is already a dust bowl, this will take years to have any effect. It is already to late for this.

"Sadolite's resolution is, in my opinion, probably the product of the combined effects of too many red bulls; an almost paranoid mistrust of Government; too many hours of listening to Sean Hannity on the Radio; too many hours of watching UFC; and a serious lack of sleep"

An unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attack, poor conduct and totally and completely irrelevant to the debate.

"Why should farmers risk their own lives and the lives of countless innocents in a pointless campaign of violence and bloodshed over a dispute that can almost certainly be resolved by peaceful means? "

As I have shown conclusively by using videos strait from congress, not second hand recounts or news sources or blogs but strait from the horses mouth so to speak. Nothing will be done. They should fight and go to war becaise the federal govt is oppressing them and denying them the ability to the most basic fundamental rights under the constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This what our fouding fathers went to war for.
Freeman

Con

Let me begin by thanking Sadolite for his writing and for bringing this issue to my attention. The debate should be interesting even though I profoundly disagree with most of what my opponent says. I must say that when I first saw this debate I thought that you were joking. And I was hoping that you would actually admit that were joking in the second round. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

=========
Contention 1: An uprising of militant farmers against government troops would be suicidal.
=========

Your heart seems to be in the right place, I hope, but with all due respects your arguments are crazy. They are actually beyond crazy in the ordinary sense of the word. They are downright psychotic and even suicidal. If you think that war with the federal government over a policy dispute is a good idea then please pack your bags and head down to San Joaquin Valley to join your brothers in arms.

-----> Here is how the scenario you beckon us to would likely play out based upon a historical analysis of other such incidents. The events occur in chronological order.

One thousand farmers and citizens gather together with their assault rifles and march to turn the water back on. Upon turning the water back on a government envoy and possibly a sheriff's deputy would go in to order that they put down their weapons and shut the water off immediately. If these militants refused they would immediately be faced with a well trained army of swat soldiers and a crew of snipers that could blow their heads off from 2 miles away. This would eventually end up in a standoff as long as either side refused to take the first shots. The subsequent standoff would probably last a while, perhaps even days. Given that these farmers will be outgunned and outmatched by virtually a thousand to one a very slow slaughter would take place if they refused to lay down their arms. If ordinary swat teams were insufficient to deal with these militants then the government would send in tanks. If tanks didn't do the job then f-16 fighters would swoop in to obliterate anything that's still standing. So, on top of not having any water these farmers will now be dead. And upon completion of this scenario everyone would look back at this massacre in utter disbelief at how pointless it all was.

=========
Contention 2: We have enough wars on our hands.
=========

I have already said it before and I will say it again. Violence is not the answer to this situation. You would do well to reflect on how Mahatma Gandhi helped defeat the British. [1] Furthermore, you would do well to reflect on how racist and segregated this country was even when you were still a small child. Just imagine what our world would be like if Martin Luther King had led militants to Washington instead of peaceful protestors. [2] Not only is my opponents war with the federal government virtually unwinnable but it is immoral and flagrantly unnecessary.

=========
Conclusion
=========

I can barely think of a more pointless use of violence than the one my opponent has beckoned us to. The only thing such an outburst of violence would accomplish would be to needlessly waste human life. Ironically, it would also ruin the farmer's chance of having the water turned back on. On the other hand, I have already shown two solutions the farmers could take if they wanted to mediate this situation, neither of which nessceistate bloodshed. (Resolution negated)

=======
Sources:
=======

[ 1] http://www.mukto-mona.com...
[2] http://afroamhistory.about.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

Your arguments are crazy. They are actually beyond crazy in the ordinary sense of the word. They are downright psychotic and even suicidal.

Are they really? What did our founding fathers give up for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when all attempts at resolution failed as it has in this case.

To sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death.
They were risking everything, and they knew it.
Nine of the 56 died during the Revolution, and never tasted American independence.
Five were captured by the British.
Eighteen had their homes -- great estates, some of them - looted or burnt by the enemy.
Some lost everything they owned.
Two were wounded in battle.
Two others were the fathers of sons killed or captured during the war.
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." It was not just a rhetorical flourish.

Source for above http://www.yorktownsailor.com...

Were these 56 men crazy, suicidal and psychotic also? I see no difference in what they were fighting and what theses farmers are fighting, a tyrannical oppressive dictatorial govt denying them their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As I have shown, these farmers are going to loose everything they own if the water is not turned back on now.

I will again refer my opponent back to video #3 showing Congress voting "No" to some kind of civil resolution to the problem. Congress is as high as it gets, there is know where else to go from there, unless my opponent knows of some secret branch of govt that will listen to the plight of the farmers and take action.

In the third paragraph of contention 1 my opponent describes what he be lives would happen if a war was declared against the govt. Although it is one scenario, it is highly unlikely. Gory and graphic details to try and sway opinion in his direction. To pull at your heart strings and say war is preposterous and out of the question. Is it really?

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the nation or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies[1

Let me offer a different scenario that is far more strategic and would not even require a single shot being fired in anger.

A declaration of war would all that would probably be necessary. The farmers would not have to fight at all or attempt to do anything, Just say they will. Write up a declaration of war saying if the water isn't turned on immediately all property taxes will stop being paid, all access to roads in the area will be closed with blockades and a militia will be formed to take action by force if neccesary. The farmers will have the support of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that will support them once the Govt and the news media receives their Declaration of War. I know I would give generously to their cause to hurt the govt where it counts. IT'S SELF SERVING, SHALLOW, POMPAS, REPUGNANT EGO.

Politicians, being the self centered, shallow, pompas, repugnant, cowards they are, will be beside themselves and wont know what to do other than to concede and turn the water back on or look like the tyrannical monsters they really are in the eyes of their constituency. Filling out petitions and calling representatives and the like has not worked. I have proven this categorically. It is time to threaten civil unrest. war and violence if anything is going to happen.

In contention 2 my opponent directs his argument to me on a personal level and asks me to read about Gandhi and then plays some sort of race card. Irrelevant babble. My opponent is clearly a pacifist and his writings and responses to me indicate that he would not even fight and die for his own freedom, life liberty or pursuit of happiness. I can understand why he thinks no one else should either. This is not an unwarranted editorial on my part as he has stated violence is "never" the answer. Freedom was born from violence. Violence keeps freedom alive. Passiveness always results in tyranny and oppression. The farmers are being passive right now, and look at the result.

"I can barely think of a more pointless use of violence than the one my opponent has beckoned us to"

The pursuit of, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are pointless reasons to fight the federal govt. My opponent does not even acknowledge the monumental criminality and unconstitutionality of this heinous and barbaric act of our federal govt. Leaving these people to starve and make their land unusable and worthless without any compensation or one shred of representation. This is as tyrannical and criminal as it gets. I ask my opponent how long do these people have to wait for action? The crops are already dead. the land is turning into an arid dust bowl, 40,000 people are unemployeed.
Freeman

Con

Things just keep on getting better. My opponent's arguments have gone from bad, to terrifying and illusory, and now it would appear they have finally managed to reach escape velocity from all terrestrial constraints of candor, constraints like civility, logical coherence, and rationality. Consequentially they are venturing into areas that are most commonly referred to as psychotic, delusional, and dangerous. No one should have to make the arguments that I'm making right now.

======
Case Pro- Rebuttals
======

"My opponent is clearly a pacifist and his writings and responses to me indicate that he would not even fight and die for his own freedom, life liberty or pursuit of happiness. I can understand why he thinks no one else should either. This is not an unwarranted editorial on my part as he has stated violence is "never" the answer." -sadolite

Please, don't lie about my positions. I have never written that (violence is "never" the answer) in the context of this debate or at any other time. On top of this I am not a pacifist. I'm just a sensible person that realizes how crazy and pointless your call for war is. Moreover, your attempts to lie about my views are as poorly constructed as your opening argument. (Moving on)

======
Case Pro
======

Contention 1: The March on Washington was peaceful.

My opponent has decided to ignore my argument about MLK by calling it irrelevant because he has nothing else of intelligence to say on the matter. Let me restate it for those that have forgotten. Imagine how different our world would be if Martin Luther King had led a group of militants to Washington instead of peaceful protestors. [1] It is, of course, fallacious for any serious person to draw such a comparison between ascendant discrimination and policy disputes. I merely do this to show that there are peaceful means to resolving even the most intractable of disputes. Sadolite could have said everything he is not saying about the civil rights movement in his calls for violence and yet civil rights were attained through largely peaceful measures and by way of legislation. [2]

=======
Conclusion
=======

I don't know if your joking, but if you are its not funny, and quite frankly I'm getting creped out just a little bit. I have already given two alternatives that don't require violence and will most likely produce good results. [3]-[4] Further, my opponents attempts to draw an analogy between the founding of our nation with policy disputes over water in California are as poorly rooted in history as they are in logic. –Resolution negated (Vote Con)

All the best,
Freeman

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.gopetition.com...
[4] http://www.centeroncongress.org...
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

Again in the first paragraph of my opponents last rebuttal he shows extremely poor conduct. Irrelevant to the debate.

"I am not a pacifist."

What if anything would you consider worth fighting for? Total loss of value of your land and all your personal wealth and being forced to stand in bread lines and deprived of your Constitutional rights under the Constitution of the US does seem to be a reason. What in gods name would!!

"You would do well to reflect on how Mahatma Gandhi helped defeat the British."

I think you need to read up on Mahatma Gandhi. The British were not defeated by a pacifist strategy. Not all the people agreed with Gandhi. More than half the people didn't and they fought the British fiercely. Gandhi. didn't come on to the political scene until the war was almost over and the British decided to leave anyway. Gandhi. was given credit for ending the war because he took power a year before it ended.

He was a Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties.

After reading what I have read about Mahatma Gandhi there is nothing I want to learn from him. Unless of course if I want to be a Benedict Arnold and a racist.

http://rupeenews.com...

The due process clauses of the US Constitution protect a person from deprivation of his property without the required application due process of law.

In the fifth and fourteenth Amendments: The US constitution states that the federal or state government shall not deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law.

Regulation causing a reduction in value of the land constitute a deprivation.

The govt must make the owner whole "by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury there by sustained.

The protection of absolute individual rights is the only justifiable function of any government.

A government official is bound by law in every official act. Private individuals may do anything save that which is legally forbidden; government officials may do nothing save that which is legally permitted.

All govt officials involved in cutting off the water are guilty of violating the farmers constitutional rights and are criminally and monetarily responsible for their losses.

Complicit – A theory of liability that extends legal liability beyond the direct perpetrator of an illegal act to others who have participated in the commission of the act.

The farmers of course must go to the very same criminals in Congress and plead to have the water turned back on if there is going to be any civil solution. So you see Freeman, your civil solution is not going to work not now not ever. The govt will sit on it until they are all forced to leave and loose everything they own. It is already to late for most. They already lost their entire fortunes. Yet you say this is petty and not worth fighting for. Easy for you to say. Bet you would sing a different tune if the govt passed some regulation that rendered your land and livelihood worthless without any due process of law and told you to freakin bad, the EPA and the Endangered Species Act usurps the Constitution and all of your rights thereunder.

Again my opponent brings up MLK. What in gods name does this have to do with anything. He reiterates his pacifist position. MLK was a pacifist. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pacifist but this wont work in this case. My opponent is asking the farmers to beg the fox to guard their chickens.

"I have already given two alternatives that don't require violence and will most likely produce good results.'

I have categorically proven that your alternatives have been tried and produced no results. I again will refer you back to the three videos.

If the farmers have any hope of keeping their farms and getting any representation they must threaten to use force. As I have proven, the govt is crapping all over their Constitutional rights and it is the govt's sole legitimate job to protect their rights. Ya, like they will ever get their day in court and all the people in govt that are complicit in the destruction of their lives and wealth will ever be prosecuted or punished.

I know they wont fight and so does everyone else. But it says volumes about the tyranny that we are facing and you and I are next. Now bow down to the EPA. They rule this country, they are above the law and can destroy you, your family, your livelihood and all your wealth with a simple stroke of a pen and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Ask the farmers in the San Joaquin valley.
Freeman

Con

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for starting this debate and for taking me on what has so far been an interesting journey. I am slightly disappointed that I was unable to dissuade my opponent of his views but I will take comfort knowing that I tried. And at any rate it has been fun.

=======
Case Con- Rebuttals
=======

Contention 1: Issues with my conduct addressed

Some things have been said about my conduct in this debate, so I feel that now would be a good time to address them. I haven't really engaged in any personal attacks, apart from one possible exception, which I will mention. My harshest use of language has been aimed at my opponent's arguments and not my opponent himself. Calling an argument crazy and psychotic isn't an attack on any individual any more than calling George Bush naive or foolish is a personal attack on a republican. So, let us not confuse ad hominem with strongly worded rhetorical flourishes.

To be fair I did write the following, "Sadolite's resolution is, in my opinion, probably the product of the combined effects of too many red bulls; an almost paranoid mistrust of Government; too many hours of listening to Sean Hannity on the Radio; too many hours of watching UFC; and a serious lack of sleep." In retrospect this was probably a bit over the top. I have inappropriately used my rhetorical abilities to cast undue mockery upon an individual. This was poor conduct on my part and for this I apologize. Please accept my apologies Sadolite because I am truly sorry. =(

Contention 2: War is the only viable option at this point. –Sadolite

----> "So you see Freeman, your civil solution is not going to work not now not ever." - Sadolite

----> "I have categorically proven that your alternatives have been tried and produced no results. I again will refer you back to the three videos." - Sadolite

My opponent hasn't proven anything apart from his ability to make baseless assertions. How does he know that civil solutions will never work? Odds are that he has never worked for congress or been seriously involved in moving any type of legislation. History has shown that great things can be accomplished with patience, intelligence, and diligence. With the fear of boring everyone reading this debate, I will put forward my example of the march on Washington just one more time. If an entire class of mistreated people can get their rights peacefully then so to can this issue be resolved peacefully. [1]

Contention 3: Warfare over policy disputes is unnecessary.

----> "If the water is not turned back on and I mean today, right freakin now, the farmers and the people of that region should form a militia and take matters into their own hands, turn the water back on and defend the free flow of water to their farms to the death if necessary." (9/17/2009) opening round - Sadolite

It goes without saying that such a proposition is ridiculous. There are no better arguments I could possibly make then allowing you to read my opponents own words. He is so determined to have his way politically that he is willing to advocate the murder of state officials and risk the death of innocents to achieve this goal. These types of wars simply can't be done without collateral damage. [2]

Contention 4: My opponent has given no good reasons to justify warfare.

Let us ponder over what the resolution before us actually says. It reads as follows, "It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt". We are not debating whether or not the situation in San Joaquin valley is bad or whether the water should be turned back on. We are debating whether or not it is both ethical and practical to launch an offensive military operation against the federal government over a policy dispute. Don't be distracted by my opponent's disingenuous methods of dressing up war and violence in the banners of patriotism and American solidarity, what he is really calling for is treason against the United States. On top of this I have already shown why such an attempt at treason would ultimately be futile, at least how my antagonist is advocating for it. Sadolite seems to be unaware that the federal government actually has an army, tanks, fighter jets, and just about every other advanced form of weaponry. [3]

=========
Conclusion
=========

My opponents desire to change the world for the better is a good thing even though I profoundly disagree with his methods of accomplishing this. If he wants to make our world better then he should run for congress or he could create a petition. Or he can campaign to remove whatever congress people he believes are responsible for this situation. This is the beauty of democracy; if you don't like something you can change it. There are better methods of solving this issue and I have already shown some of them. Calls for violence in such situations are both immoral and unimaginative. If history has taught us anything it is that intellect and diligence win against blinkered unreason and unbridled violence. -(Vote Con)

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.ethicapublishing.com...
[3] http://www.marines.com...
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Water is still off, peaceful solution my a@@. Thousands driven from their homes and businesses, tens of thousands out of work. All brushed under the rug like dust. That's our gov't response. Oh but we still have non indigenous smelts that wouldn't even be there for the fact that they live in a man made aquifer.
What a great cost benefit for the people. This is what all future EPA regulations will be like. Virtually no benefit but huge crippling costs to people and business and jobs.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"but it merits a peaceful revolution". It won't work and never will. Those people are screwed and all of the people in gov't responsible should be held accountable by forfeiting all their personal wealth to the people affected because they are derelict in their duty to protect them and they all know it. Looking to gov't for solutions is like looking to Satan for salvation.

"The protection of absolute individual rights is the only justifiable function of any government."

What part of that statement is not understandable to anyone who takes the oath of office.

Legal documents, Just like the constitution are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not going to be observed and enforced.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Under current law, anyone can sue to protect endangered species and the well-being of the species is paramount.

There was a plan to build flood gates to stop Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, from hurricane storm surge. The gates would be closed when a hurricane approached. Environmentalists sued on the grounds that when the es were closed, it would interfere with the breed habits of some fish. A federal judge stopped the construction, which had been funded and was ready to begin. Later, Hurricane Katrina wiped out New Orleans. Had the project been allowed, lives and property would likely have been saved.

In my area of California, there is a dangerous windy road connecting Santa Cruz with San Jose. There was a plan to build modern straight road nearby. The Sierra Club sued successfully to stop the road construction on the grounds there would have been a impact on a certain endangered gray moth. For a while, the newspapers reported the lives lost in traffic fatalities due to the lawsuit. It was over a dozen just a few years after the decision more than a decade ago.

The key thing is that the rights of endangered species are absolute; it does not have to be established that the species would be wiped out, just inconvenienced. This is a human sacrifice element of environmentalist religion. No, I don't agree that it justifies a war, but it merits a peaceful revolution.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I wish all the people who voted Freeman could have an out of body experience where all of their wealth is seized or destroyed by the govt without due process of law and then come back and reread this debate and I am sure they would vote differently
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
As you can see Freeman has not followed up on his promise to find out "the other side of the story." I am sure he made some initial attempts but soon found out that it is just as I have said in this debate. Govt tyranny run amuck and unchecked drunk with power to control and destroy peoples lives without due process of law.
The due process clauses of the US Constitution protect a person from deprivation of his property without the required application due process of law.

In the fifth and fourteenth Amendments: The US constitution states that the federal or state government shall not deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law.

Regulation causing a reduction in value of the land constitute a deprivation.

The govt must make the owner whole "by giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury there by sustained.

The protection of absolute individual rights is the only justifiable function of any government.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Freeman is his actual name according to his profile.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I do find it ironic that your screen name is "Freeman" and you live in one of the most one sided, over taxed over regulated states in the union.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Good, I am glad you are going to do that. I can save you some time though. The other side of the argument is the delta smelt and they are more important than people. There's no mystery.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"I am on your side Freeman, the peoples side, whose side are you on?"

I have no political allegiance of any kind. It's impossible for you to be on my side because I don't have a side for you to be a part of. I could care less what the majority of Americans believe about politics.

There has to be another side to this debate that you probably aren't aware of. It's very rare for 61 senators to agree on anything. And it's extremely rare for two republicans to cross the isle to caucus with democrats on anything. I am determined now to find out why those republicans voted the way they did. And I am now convinced that there is something fundamental to this debate that remains mysterious to me.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Again you look at govt from a left right Republican Democrat view. The two Republicans voted for it because they are tyrannical monsters and care nothing about people but only govt power over the people. A politicians political party affiliation is about political strategy to get reelected in the area that they live in. Arlen Specter case in point. Don't listen to words look at voting records and what they do. I can say I hate Chinese people all day long, but if I give them each a 100,000 dollars does what I say or what I did have more influence on what you think I think about Chinese people and what I will do or not do to Chinese people. This current govt says they care about poor people, do they really? Look at what govt does and stop listening to the worthless words of govt and those who promote govt on either side of the isle. They are both corrupt good old boy entities that all need to be replaced with average Joe's who know right from wrong and put the country and the people first. I am on your side Freeman, the peoples side, whos side are you on?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
sadoliteFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
sadoliteFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
sadoliteFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
sadoliteFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
sadoliteFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteFreemanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
sadoliteFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteFreemanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteFreemanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70