The Instigator
DebateStorm
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sniperjake1994
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: The Native Americans should not have been removed from original tribal lands

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,963 times Debate No: 11142
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DebateStorm

Pro

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate!
Sniperjake1994

Con

Thank you for starting this debate. Due to alot of homework I must do I'll post my arguments in R2. Thank you. And sorry for the coincidence.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateStorm

Pro

DebateStorm forfeited this round.
Sniperjake1994

Con

I'll like to thank DebateStorm for starting this and allowing me time to finish up my work. Whew! I finished a 12 page technical report for a competition. So thanks again, I really appreciate it!

Now my case:

I negate:
Native Americans should not have been removed from original tribal lands.

Observations:
1. We are debating on simply removing N.A from original tribal land.
2. Definitions are self explanatory.
3. Pro has the burden proving N.A not removed from original lands are more beneficial than removing them.

Native Americans had been removed from original tribal lands.
1. Because all of this has been done, our modern day is the result. We are a superpower. So by relocating N.A we have benefited more people. Notable N.A have also stood out. (Our impacts and position today should be thanked by the relocation of N.A from original land.)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. By removing them from original lands we have found natural resources such as gold, silver, copper, iron, and coal. These ores have seriously boomed our economy. If we hadn't then the ores or oil will be useless to the Native Americans because they don't know how to apply to daily life, so we lose a resource to use and an opportunity of a superpower. So by removing them we have taken the advantage of our resources to make the U.S great. (Impact: We have the advantage of not depending on foreign resources that will drain our treasury.)

3. In a global perspective if we haven't removed N.A from original lands then the world is the complete opposite. Nazis may rule and kill off all Jews, South may win the Civil War, colonization in the Latin Americas (without the Monroe Doctrine), etc. A small simple relocation prevented all this. Much is benefited for the majority. As for the N.A they will live on, their arts are preserved, their culture is continued. (Impact: by removing land and relocating them we have prevented such inhumane atrocities)

I await your rebuttals. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateStorm

Pro

DebateStorm forfeited this round.
Sniperjake1994

Con

I'll go straight to the point:

Voting Issues:
My arguments remains standing because there weren't any rebuttals against it.
Pro has failed to defend his position nor refuted Con's.
And it is still negated that Native Americans shouldn't have been removed from original tribal lands because of the impacts posted in R2.

Thank you. And please vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.