The Instigator
Kethen
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Oldfrith
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

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...
Kethen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,977 times Debate No: 19223
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Kethen

Pro

1- Acceptance (state any rules)
Last- Rebuttal ONLY

I believe U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel even though we can go to jail for trying and we get prosecuted. We shouldn't because it is one of our rights!
If we believe the Government isn't doing their job we should overthrow it and restart. In fact I believe our Founding Fathers expected it out of us.

Rebel= Overthrowing of a Government with peace or force.
(sorry if that isn't the exact definition I didn't want a long title)
Oldfrith

Con

So... First round is for acceptance and definitions

I accept, and would like to provide these definitions.
Rebel: a person or group that rises up against an established government to overthrow it. ( note that success is not in the definition. That is simply their objective)

I would like my opponent to note that if he does not argue against these definitions in the next round, he has greed to them.

Since my opponent is pro, he has the burden of proof

However, since my opponent has posted up supporting arguments for his side, I will rebut them.

"I believe U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel even though we can go to jail for trying and we get prosecuted. We shouldn't because it is one of our rights!"

Evidence.... and "we shouldn't because of our rights" is flawed logic.

"If we believe the Government isn't doing their job we should overthrow it and restart. In fact I believe our Founding Fathers expected it out of us."

Question is... are they not doing their job? And Evidence for the founding fathers.
Debate Round No. 1
Kethen

Pro

I wasn't posting anything more than my idea for the argument. It was just a way that my contender would have a better Idea of what I was talking about. That's why I said I believe. Ill start it now. Sorry for the confusion I don't start many arguments.

I agree with your Definition. The end result is hoped for not guaranteed but the act of doing so is what we are talking about.

1)U.S. Citizens have the right to rebel because the Declaration of Independence says so.
Paragraph 2 Directly from the Declaration of Independence
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, IT IS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

By rights they mean the ones that are given to us by the Creator and are unalienable like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

So if the MAJORITY of people feel as if the Government is being destructive and or taking away their unalienable rights they have the right to rebel. I'm not saying that we can rebel whenever we want about anything we so desire and I'm not saying as of right now we have the justification to do so I am just saying that we do have the right. Whether we have the right to now is another argument.

The 2nd Amendment Grants us these rights as well
"A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Thomas Jefferson understood what the British were doing but he believed we should rebel quite often.
" And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"[1]

You may bring up Shay's rebellion or other rebellions that were, for lack of a better term, squashed. These feelings of dissent were not felt by the majority of the colonies though. Also I am not arguing that the U.S. is allowing us this right I am arguing we do have the right (unalienable). (The government probably would squash it)

[1]http://www.let.rug.nl...

Thank You for accepting and good debating too ya!
Oldfrith

Con

My opponent quotes the declaration of independence as to why the government allows american citizens to rebel. My simple statement is that the declaration was not used to the formation of our government, it was used to say to Britain, "we will fight (rebel, yes) for this land. however, my opponent using it to say that we can is misusing the document

My opponent states the second amendment to the constitution.
This amendments purpose was to keep other nations from invading America, not to keep the government accountable. Note how it says "security"not "accountability."

He states thomas Jeffersons famous quote on a rebellion every twenty years. There really should, but since my opponent agreed to my definition that success is not guaranteed, if there was, then this quote helps my side. Thank you.

Now, to my contentions.

1. Americans are rebelling.
Have you ever heard of "occupy wall street" or the "tea party movement"? these protests are obviously meant to overthrow the current system that is put in place by our government, but there success is not guaranteed, which doesn't matter. My opponent accepted my definition.

My opponent also shays rebellion, saying that it is irrelevant because it failed.

Doesn't matter. Americans rebelled, and that proves pro wrong
Debate Round No. 2
Kethen

Pro

The Declaration of Independence was used to free us from Britain but if the Founding Fathers stated that people have the right so when they write the Constitution they obviously believed the people still had the right. That or you are saying the writers of the Constitution believed the Colonist had more unalienable (endowed by the creator) rights then we do. That literally make absolutely no sense. Why the same people that worked on the Declaration and the Constitution would change their mind on unalienable rights.

You say it is used only for other countries. That is not true. It says for security. It doesn't state what that security is for. Security to protect your land from an opposing force, security from the Government taking your rights or security from another country. Anything you can attach security too.

You are trying to prove that we don't have the right to rebel? right? That literally makes no sense that Thomas Jefferson quote helps your side. None at all. He stated we should rebel every twenty years...you are trying to say we don't have that right. I'm confused as to were this helps you whether they succeed or not.

Americans are not rebelling. Occupy Wall street is a protest. Big difference. They are asking for change. Not forcing it.
protest
1. public, often organized, dissent or manifestation of such dissent[1]

rebel
1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.
2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention[2]

Now you put words in my mouth. I never said Shay's Rebellion is irrelevant because it failed. I said is is irrelevant because it wasn't the feelings of the majority of the people. Meaning 51% of people didn't agree with the rebellion. Therefore it is not a proper rebellion for a change in Government because if they majority of the people DISAGREE with the Rebellion then the Government is protecting the Majority of people.

The fact that Americans have rebelled proves me right. You wrong? I am arguing that we DO have the right. You are arguing we DON'T have the right. The reason the Government can say it was alright they put the rebellions down is because they were protecting the majority.

Conclusion: Your whole rebuttal made no sense. (To me) Used absolutely no sources, looked up no facts or were just false. Your argument was almost entirely for my side of the debate.

[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Oldfrith

Con

On the declaration of independence: You were using it as a list of our American rights, however, it is not in our law book, it is simply an important document. If you went into a courtroom and used the declaration of independence as a source, the judge would note that it should have no effect on the jury, as it is simply on the status of "important document."

And yes, the FF did change their minds. The articles of confederation is the first "constitution" but then it was changed.

"You say it is used only for other countries. That is not true. It says for security. It doesn't state what that security is for. Security to protect your land from an opposing force, security from the Government taking your rights or security from another country. Anything you can attach security too."

true..... but doesn't this help me since thats the FF saying that wee should always be armed, ready to rebel?

Occupy wall street IS a rebellion, since the people there are trying to overthrow at least a SECTION of the government.

Oh yeah, and I misread that part on Shays rebellion. Still helps me immensely.

Wait, so we are debating on two topics at once? That is unbecoming of a debate. I thought that since I agreed that we have the right, that the debate would be on whether or not we would.

And onto what the burden of proof means. My opponent, since he instigated the debate, must provide proof that he is correct. I have to rebut that, with no sources needed. It's like a courtroom, where the defendant doesn't even need to open his mouth, for it is the prosecutions job to prove him guilty. So, with me having no sources, that is irrelevant, since you conceded to my statement of your having the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
Kethen

Pro

My opponent says and I quote "My opponent quotes the declaration of independence as to why the government allows American citizens to rebel. My simple statement is that the declaration was not used to the formation of our government, it was used to say to Britain, "we will fight (rebel, yes) for this land. however, my opponent using it to say that we can is misusing the document"
I ask you... are you a judge or a lawyer or do you have any source that states they would say this. If you were the Judge you might. Not all judges would because it can be assumed that if the Founding Fathers agreed it was an unalienable right then everyone has the right regardless of what country the live in....because it is unalienable....

"This amendments purpose was to keep other nations from invading America, not to keep the government accountable. Note how it says "security"not "accountability."
You pretty much repeated yourself and like I said before security can be the security of anything. You are putting words in there mouth. Read it for what it is. It says security. Securing your rights is security. I don't know where you even got the word accountability or how it relates. You may think it is only for the security from other nations but you also didn't write the Constitution so you can't add things to it. You say only against other countries and that can not be discerned from the text.

"He states Thomas Jefferson's famous quote on a rebellion every twenty years. There really should, but since my opponent agreed to my definition that success is not guaranteed, if there was, then this quote helps my side. Thank you"
You still haven't explained how this aids you. It aids me because he agree we have the right to rebel whether victorious or not. This doesn't aid you in any way. The definition of rebel doesn't make this aid you either.

"1. Americans are rebelling.
Have you ever heard of "occupy wall street" or the "tea party movement"? these protests are obviously meant to overthrow the current system that is put in place by our government, but there success is not guaranteed, which doesn't matter. My opponent accepted my definition"
They are not trying to OVERTHROW the government. To overthrow means to take over and either alter the former or prepare an all new government. They are simply protesting for change. They want bills and laws passed not to become socialist or some other form of government. They simply want the Congress to take more action for the citizens. They are definitely NOT trying to overthrow the government. They are a movement for change. "So what does the OWS Movement want? Our preliminary results suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement has an array of political demands that are not very different from mainstream Americans."[1] They only want to makes changes and protesting..."Is all of the protesting directed in the right place?"[2] Protesting is not rebelling.

Even if you were right and Occupy wall street is a rebellion. How does that help your case. It proves we have the right to rebel which is my side of the argument.

"My opponent also shays rebellion, saying that it is irrelevant because it failed.
Doesn't matter. Americans rebelled, and that proves pro wrong"
Here again you repeat yourself so my former defense stands that I didn't say it is irrelevant because it failed it is irrelevant because it was not supported by the majority of the people.

Conclusion: His rebuttal was almost identical to his former rebuttal which I already disproved. His ideas are not backed and are his own opinion. He has put up only one counter argument which I disproved by definition and sources. He can no longer put up an argument because the final round is rebuttal only.
Vote Pro because Con didn't use any sources, he repeated his ideas without changing his fight so I disproved his arguments twice. He never put up a standing rebuttal to my views. I used two physical sources and other online sources and he used none.
Remember the final round is for rebuttal only not counter arguments.

[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2]http://freefrombroke.com...
Oldfrith

Con

My opponent is a very good debater, and I thank him for starting this debate. However, he has very selectively rebutted things that I have said, while leaving others. While I am on the topic I would like for the judges to note that he dropped my Shays Rebellion argument, failing to come up with a rebuttal, therefore, using standard debate rules, I have won, according to Dr. Jim Spears, Nancy Isreal, and Amy Mussatti (3 physical sources, more than Pro).

I will agree that the whole "occupy wall street" contention was not correct, and I would ask that the judges note that I am admitting that it was not relevant,

My main point that I would like to bring up is that my opponent has said that, paraphrasing, "shays rebellion is irrelevant because the majority of the people didn't support it."

If that had been the definition of "rebel," I wouldn't have accepted this debate!

But no, Shays rebellion does fit the definition of rebel, and therefore, my opponent has lost.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Ya I am bad at explaining things. That is why I got on here. Read my first debates if you think that was hard to catch!
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Oh, I see that now. No worries, my bad.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Sorry for the misunderstanding Phantom. I totally meant NOT that it isn't a rebellion unless 51% support it I meant that if it is less than 51% the Government has the right to protect the majority of citizens. If 51% believe it then the Government probably isn't doing their job. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Each participant both stated their own definition and pro agreed on cons. Thus the success of the rebellion had nothing to do with it. Pro also agreed to the burden of proof. Pro says that if the government isn't doing their job we should overthrow it. Cons argument against this is incoherent. He asks the question "are they not doing their job?" It doesn't matter if they are doing their job or not. Pro said IF the government is not doing their job. He never stated that they AREN'T doing their job. Con poorly attempted to refute pros rights argument and misinterprets the constitution and the declaration of independence.

Occupy Wall street is not a rebellion; it is a protest as pro pointed out. Pro says that 51% of people have to agree with the rebellion in order for it to be a rebellion. I'm not sure where he gets that idea, unless I'm not understanding him correctly. Con states that he does not have to use sources because he does not have the BOP. This is false as well as lazy. Sources go to pro.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
I don't understand how he used just as good of sources as I. I actually used sources and the Declaration of Independence and the Constituition. He used none what so ever.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Done! Good debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
KethenOldfrithTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con agreed that we have the right to rebel so the resolution was automatically affirmed. I can understand where Cons confusion on the resolution came from but Pros round one argument mad it pretty clear that the debate was about the right to rebel, not whether we actually will. That argument was posted before Con accepted the challenge so his rebuttals were irrelevant. Sources to Pro for using some. Cons assertion on this was incorrect. Anyone can make stuff up, that is why we judge sources.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
KethenOldfrithTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
KethenOldfrithTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Nearly incoherent arguments, but both sides agree that we have the right to rebel, which is the issue being debated. Advantage Pro.