The Instigator
MolecularBird06
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AizenKnaik
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The American Civil War Was Not The Only Civil War Fought By America

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 3 votes the winner is...
AizenKnaik
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 962 times Debate No: 49433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

MolecularBird06

Pro

First Round is Acceptance.
AizenKnaik

Con

To begin with, I'm not from America and I have not reviewed my world history but as far as I could remember, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by the America. Unless you have any other sources that could tell us that there was other civil war fought by America, then I think I'm gonna concede. But for now, since you haven't presented proof, I'm still going to argue. And my argument is, there was no other civil war fought by America. And by the way, even if you have presented your proof containing the 'other' civil war to which the America fought, it will still going to be scrutinized according to its credibility. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
MolecularBird06

Pro

Thanks for excepting this debate. The American Civil War was the only major Civil War fought by America, but the Revolutionary War can also be considered one. Loyalists remained loyal to the king and many fought the patriots during the war in brutal and savage fighting.

The definition of civil war is war within country: a war between opposing groups within a country. Doesn't Loyalists and Patriots fit this definition? They were two groups from the same country who ended up fighting for different sides.

Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti slavery groups clashed.About 30 from each side were killed and events such as the Pottawatomie Massacre. Doesn't this also fit the definition?
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_Revolution)
http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_Revolution)
http://www.toriesfightingfortheking.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
AizenKnaik

Con

"A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state."

Certainly, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by America. You've pointed in your argument that the Revolutionary war can be considered as a civil war. That is a fallacy. When you say civil war, it is referring to the war between the citizen of a particular state. Meaning to say, the citizens of a certain country are fighting against each other because of the existing different ideologies that are pretty much inculcated in their minds. And because of that, basically, civil war results to a splitting of a nation into two (e.g. North and South America, North and South Korea, and the like). On the other hand, when you say revolutionary war, it is a war that basically aims to dethrone the ruler of a particular country. Furthermore, the citizens of the state where revolutionary war has flared up are trying to form a connivance against the ruler of that country. And also, in revolutionary war, there is no splitting of the country to form different nation.

"The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war."

To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable.

Sources:
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://www.reddit.com...
http://www.differencebetween.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MolecularBird06

Pro

"Certainly, the american civil war was the only civil war fought by America. You've pointed in your argument that the Revolutionary war can be considered as a civil war. That is a fallacy. When you say civil war, it is referring to the war between the citizen of a particular state. Meaning to say, the citizens of a certain country are fighting against each other because of the existing different ideologies that are pretty much inculcated in their minds. And because of that, basically, civil war results to a splitting of a nation into two (e.g. North and South America, North and South Korea, and the like). On the other hand, when you say revolutionary war, it is a war that basically aims to dethrone the ruler of a particular country. Furthermore, the citizens of the state where revolutionary war has flared up are trying to form a connivance against the ruler of that country. And also, in revolutionary war, there is no splitting of the country to form different nation."

Well the Revolutionary War was fought by two different groups. This was the Loyalists and the Patriots, they fought over whether the colonies should leave Britain, also as I said earlier the definition of a civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country. The two groups were the Loyalists and Patriots. They also were both American. This meets the definition of a civil war.
"To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable."

Also Con seems to agree that a "revolutionary war can be a civil war"

I belive that Con just agreed with me.

Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti slavery groups clashed.About 60-180 men died in the fighting. Doesn't this meet the definition of a Civil War? This was fought by Americans with two different groups before the civil war.
AizenKnaik

Con

"The American Revolutionary war was to gain independence from Great Britain, and began in 1776. The civil war was between the Northern and Southern states, and began in 1861. Both where conflicts over fear of the government freeing slaves, fear of central government, control of the Western frontier."

We can pretty much extrapolate from the presented factual statement above that the revolutionary war you were talking about was really a battle between America and Great Britain. America and Great Britain are two different states. So therefore, what happened between those two nations was actually not a civil war. In addition to that, you've mentioned that "a civil war is a war between opposing groups within a country." Obviously, Britain and America are two different state or country, having a definite territory. So again, therefore, the American revolutionary war was not a civil war and that, America fought only one civil war which is the American civil war that began in 1861.

"To sum it up, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the other way around cannot definitely be applicable."

By proposing that statement, I did not show any conformity or agreement than you actually think I was. I said that revolutionary war CAN be a civil war. Obviously, by the use of the modal auxiliary "can", the tone of the statement appeared to be more like a presumption or supposition. It was not a factual statement. The meaning goes similar if I would have tried to change it with the word "may". Also, the word "can" in my argument was used to avoid stereotyping. Meaning to say, I don"t want to generalize something that is not true to all. Going back, revolutionary war can be a civil war but the latter can"t be a revolutionary war. It DOES NOT really mean that if a revolutionary war CAN be a civil war, then all revolutionary wars ARE civil war as well. We should avoid hasty generalization.

"Also the fighting in Kansas can also be considered a Civil War. At Bleeding Kansas, pro slavery and anti-slavery groups clashed. About 60-180 men died in the fighting. Doesn't this meet the definition of a Civil War? This was fought by Americans with two different groups before the civil war."

Before anything else, I just would like you to be informed that the American civil war was fought from 1861 to 1865. The fighting that had happened in Kansas was merely part of the civil war. During the civil war, different states had their own fights. So what I"m trying to say here is that the American civil war was comprised of different states, having a fight of their own. Also, many things had happened during the civil war. Like what you've said, at bleeding Kansas, pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups clashed. Still, what happened to Kansas was only one of the highlights of the American civil war. As it implied, there is only one civil war that America had fought ever since and revolutionary war was not counted as part of it.

Thank you!

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.funtrivia.com...
http://mrsedwardsushistory.pbworks.com...)%20The%20American%20Revolution%20and%20the%20American%20Civil%20War
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
MolecularBird06AizenKnaikTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument were refuted and proven false.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
MolecularBird06AizenKnaikTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not realize the difference between a revolution and a civil war. While brothers fough against one another, the power was over seas.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
MolecularBird06AizenKnaikTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Aside from the tug of war between definitions, Pro would've provided a well sourced definition so you both can agree on instead of pestering it 50% of the debate. The resolution needs to be contested properly based on proper definitions. I will not give points as to who wins the best definition but on the resolution itself. Pro needs to prove that ACW is not the only one and Con only needs one evidence that one battle was not under the umbrella of the ACW in America. As such, judgements are made based on Kansas and American revolutionary war. Pro made his argument that these are seperate wars, Con began refuting by laying out that it was merely one of the highlights of the civil war. Pro did not elaborate more on the points that he made. Con made somewhat deeper evaluation than Pro, for e.g state conflicts. Hence Argument points to Con.