The Instigator
A.Starr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BenClem
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The South should have won the Civil War

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 1 vote the winner is...
BenClem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 70847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

A.Starr

Pro

The south clearly should have won this war. The North should have allowed the south to secede and leave but they didn't. The South and the north had clearly different beliefs that should not be in the same country. The people had the power to leave, but they wouldn't allow it. The South was fighting with untrained farmers fighting for their beliefs and land while the trained north solderers were fighting because they were getting paid to. This was an unfair fight given the facts that the south were greatly out numbered and untrained. If the fight was fair, the South would have won.
BenClem

Con

The south should not of won the civil war for the following reasons.
A.The north saved and changed life's. If we had not fought the civil war black people might still be in slavery. Just because we have different beliefs doesn't mean we should be able to enslave one another. That was the biggest reason for the war. The whole point of the north even fighting in this war was to free the black people. Yes, we should be able to have different beliefs but that does not mean we should be different countries. Black people should have the same rights as white people.

B. I kind of touched on this in my first reason but here it is. The south and the north need each other. We need to be the same country. If we had split off into to different countries back then we might still be at war We might not have thought the same but there would be a lot more hard feelings now if we had split off then. Having a country right next to you that fought you and got it's independence from you would cause a lot of tension.

In response to your argument in your first speech about the war not being fair I would like to say no war is fair. There has never been a "fair" war in the history of mankind. In response to your other argument that we were just fighting against farmers with our trained army my answer is we had a volunteer army also. We had a lot of recruits of people that just wanted to free the slaves. Our whole army was not a well trained battle machine against the helpless farmers. It was runaway slaves who wanted to free their family. It was men who believed that could and should free the slaves. So we should thank our lucky stars that the north won and that we stayed one country that now believes that all men are equal.
Debate Round No. 1
A.Starr

Pro

A.Starr forfeited this round.
BenClem

Con

Since my opponent didn't respond I feel my arguments still stand. Till those are responded to I think that I don't have to bring up any new arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
A.Starr

Pro

A.Starr forfeited this round.
BenClem

Con

BenClem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jslefty5 1 year ago
jslefty5
Does that mean you want slavery? this is absolutely ridiculous
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
@TBR
And then I think he's also saying that if it was symmetrical, the probabilities of the outcome would be maximally asymmetrical.
Posted by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
Are you asymmetrical war is unfair? Is that the primary point?
Posted by HarrisonJHamilton 1 year ago
HarrisonJHamilton
The Civil War was not fought based on the morality of slavery...
It was fought based on economics. Outlawing slavery would've literally destroyed the southern economy overnight.

The British played a key role in southern succession and the Civil War that followed. Cheap commodities such as cotton was vital not only to American economies, but to European economies as well.
Posted by SergeantMajor112 1 year ago
SergeantMajor112
Even though I am not an American was not the main goal of the civil war to end the wrongful ensalvement of the blacks. By all means correct if I am wrong but isn't ensalvement today considered as bad as some war crimes. American ideology was to remove the black population, the original owners of the land, and either have them no longer exist or only exist when the White people were too lazy to be a human.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
*won
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
I don't even think this is considered a debate.
You aren't really debating anything.
How do you prove that the South should have one?
Posted by TequilaLifeWater 1 year ago
TequilaLifeWater
I fail to see what part of your argument shows how they 'should have' won the war...
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
What do you mean "should have"? Do you mean should have as in they had the resources necessary to, or that they were superior to the North in general and were morally justified in their actions?
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'm not sure you'll get the debate you're looking for. You may want to rethink your resolution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
A.StarrBenClemTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening case relied on the fact that the fighting between the South and the North was unfair. Con rebutted pro's central argument by saying there's no such thing as a fair war. Con also showed how the North was a morally superior to the South and how the North and South needed eachother to be a successful Union. Since Pro failed to rebutt Con's good counter arguments by forfeiting, Con wins.