The Instigator
FlameofPrometheus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

War of 1812

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,966 times Debate No: 24008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

FlameofPrometheus

Pro

Resolved: The United states was correct in declaring war on Britain 1812

We will have 30 minutes to post arguments their will be the rounds as follows
1. acceptance
2.rebuttal
3. closing arguments
sources may be used but considering the short lapses of time between me and my opponent I hope logic will be held higher than facts.
TheOrator

Con

I will accept, with disclaimer (as I always give when this happens) that what I propose in the debate is not what I believe, I accepted for the challenge, not the point.
Debate Round No. 1
FlameofPrometheus

Pro

America was justified in its actions for two reasons
1.Social contract theory (locke)
A.
British ships impressed sailors from American ships thus violating America's social contract with its citizens.

"Impressment, colloquially, "the Press", refers to the act of taking men into a navy by force and without notice" wikipedia.org

Because the social contract was violated America had to reply with force so future sailors were not impressed.

Warrant: Impressing sailors violated the sailor's liberties thus America had to reply with force.

Impact: why this matters
Protecting citizen's right to liberty is one of the greatest demands of a correct country. Thus it was correct to assume war.
B.
Britain's blockade of U.S. ports ("our commerce has been plundered in every sea");[1]
By blockading U.S. ports goods that (because of payment) were owned by Americans could not be attained.

Warrant: preventing goods from reaching Americans is devaluing American's cargo, that cargo would be American's property

Impact: why this matters
Stopping shipments cause financial loss and loss of property Locke's social contract state that countries out to protect property. Thus America going to war with Britain was correct due to social contract.

http://www.warof1812-history.com... [1]
TheOrator

Con

My arguments will be based around the fact that America was not justified in declaring war against the British. As my opponnent states "America was jsutified in its actions", I propose that "correct" be interchangable with "justified" in the resolution.

CONTENTION 1: Lack of diplomacy
When considering going to war, one must first persue other options as war is disasterous and is danger to the citizens of the government declaring war. Unfortunately, rather than negotiating with the British over the end of impressment (The British did in fact attempt to sign a treaty with the Americans, but it was shot down by the American government [1]), a group of war-hungry politicians known as the "War Hawks" attempted to declare war rather than negotiate. Because America did not properly explore other options before war was declared, they were not justified in declaring war.

CONTENTION 2: Lack of Public support
The second reason the declaration was unjustified in declaring war was the lack of public support by the American people. John Locke states that because the Government was elected by the people, it is a tool of the people to uphold their will. However, it was not the people's will to declare war on Britian. Even President Jefferson's Embargo Act [1], which escalated tensions with the British to the point of war, recieved massive amounts of disapproval from the people. Mostly because the act prevented American ships from docking in any foreign ports, which led to an impact on the merchant percentage of the American population. There was so little public support for the war of 1812, American soldiers even refused to cross the border into Canada during the war, stating that they were only participating to defend their homes, not fight "President Monroe's War".[2] Because the war lacked Public support, and because the government is supposed to be a tool of public support, the Americans were not justified in declaring war.

CONTENTION 3: Britain was justified in it's pre-war actions.
American history books like to point to the British's actions for the cause of the war, however the majority of British actions were justified, and America provided at least as much reason to go to war.
SpA: Impressment
The most common action that is discussed is the process of impressment, which is the forceful pressing of sailors into a navy. Britian performed this act for two reasons: 1.) Because of large amounts of disertion among the sailors and 2.) The amount of British citizens in the American navy. At one point, there were 9,000 British sailors in the American Navy. [3] To the British, this was not an act of kidnapping, but simply stopping British sailors from serving in a foreign navy.
SpB: Canada
Another reason for Britian's rising of tensions were they felt threatened that America was going to attempt to annex Canada. [1,4] These threats, coupled with increasingly negative actions from America such as the Embargo act of 1807, made Britain nervous, and this nervousness caused by America was the reason for many of the British's actions.

Because there are 3 minutes left in the round, I will leave the rebuttals for the next round.

WORKS CITED:
1.) http://www.warof1812-history.com...
2.) Glencoe Text Books
3.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FlameofPrometheus

Pro

I will not try to say my opponent dropped any of my contentions due to the time he was forced not to give a rebuttal. The rest of my case will be a rebuttal on this Con case.
First I would like to say yes correct is interchangeable with justified. Now my opponenets 1rst contention
C1.
�€œThe War Hawks were a coterie of about twenty Democratic Republicans who persuaded Congress into supporting a declaration of war against Britain. These young, vocal members from the South and the western U.S. were voted into the House during mid-term congressional elections in 1810. They were united by outrage regarding the British practice of impressment (or abduction) of American sailors, and the British Orders in Council which were crippling the American economy.

The War Hawks were fed up with the plodding diplomatic tactics of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They were convinced that a declaration of war was the only honourable response to these repeated violations.�€� [1]
The war hawks believed they were justified and working for the countrys needs.
treaty was negotiated in England, but it was not ratified in the United States because it did not address this issue of impressment. In 1807, the British ship HMS Leopard fired upon and then boarded the American ship Chesapeake, carrying off four seamen. Though the incident itself was minor, the American public was outraged at the slight, and many called for war. 2[]
the treaty did not deal with impressments thus Americans were not happy and see it as justified.
C2
Though the incident itself was minor, the American public was outraged at the slight, and many called for war. 2[]
This source accepted proves American s wanted war.
Secondly to have a correct state
One must first have a state
Thus in order to have a state that state must protect life liberty and property b4 worrying about what its people want.
C3
Just because another nation is justified does not matte r we ar arguing that the US was justified not Britain.
Secondly impressments was of all men not just British they did not care who they took
that is all i can put becaus eof time restrains
voters
1.) i have proven all 3 contentions wrong
since
1.) The war hawks wer acting with the nTation in mind and the treaty did not adress impressment
2 the people wanted war
3 america wa scorrect why should america cr about another nations justification.
also impressment wa sindiscriminant.
My time is up
http://www.galafilm.com... [1]
http://www.warof1812-history.com... [2]
TheOrator

Con

Due to the fact that a un-negated Con case succeeds to negate the resolution, I will first adress the claims made by my opponent in the last round and then move on to his pro case, provided I have teh time.

On the unjust practices of the War Hawks:
my opponent begins by first describing what the War Hawks were, then stating "The war hawks believed they were justified and working for the countrys needs.". Unfortunately, simply believing that you were justified at the time does not mean that you were right in your actions. Hitler believed that he was doing the best for Germany by murdering twelve million people who he deemed inferior, but that doesn't mean he was justified in commiting the Holocaust.

On the un-ratified treaty:
My opponent stated that it was thrown out because it did not adress impressment, but he forgets that this was in the section stating that the war was unjustified because of the lack of diplomacy. Even though the treaty was at first thrown out, America not try to re-negotiate the treaty with an included section on impressment, instead they opted for war. Because the fact that America went to war while they still could have taken a diplomatic approach still stands, my first contention is not negated.

On national support:
Although my opponent tries to say that the war had public support because "many people called for war", he does not refute the fact that the AMERICAN ARMY even refused to fight the war outside of US boundaries. Even though the war may have had a number of supporters, I'm not denying that, it did not have popular support.

On the citizen's needs:
My opponent states that in order to have a "correct state", one must actually have a state. This makes sense, however he has failed to prove in the round that America was actually threatened to the point where they would not have a state, so it does not justify America's declaration.

On Britian's Justification:
My opponent claims that just because Britain was justified, it does not mean that America was not. However, my opponent wants a debate based on "logic", so I'll lay down some logic :) In order to decide who was justified in a declaration in a war, one must decide who had better reasons for their actions. When Britian has been justified (notice that my opponent even says " another nation is justified", he does not try to refute that Britain was justified and he even accepts it), that means that they were the ones who took the right side in the war. If one side is right, the other must be wrong, and so yes, it does actually prove that US was unjustified in the rounds, simply because one of the two sides was justified.

On Impressment:
My opponent claims "impressments was of all men not just British they did not care who they took", however he does not provide any evidence of this. I, however, provided evidence that the British were seeking deserters and British citizens, so because he cannot prove this, it does not stand.

On my opponent's voters:
1.) He has not actually proven any contentions wrong, as I have shown in this round
1.) I guess this is the second number one? Anyway, Like I proved the warhawks were acting in what they thought was right, but it was not in the itnerests of the nation, like Hitler and the Holocaust. And like I stated, the guilt of the treaty was on the americans because they did not opt for a second treaty, which is the norm in the world of politics.
2.) he cannot prove that the people wanted the war, the American military did not even want it
3.) America was not correct, and i have already shown why we should worry about other nations justifications. Because there is a right and a wrong side in the war, and Britain has been accepted as both debators as having a "right" side, that leaves America as the wrong side, so it was unjustified.

I have no idea his last statement was so I won't refuse it.

As I don't have enough time to negate the Affirmative case as it stands, I will move on to voters.

VOTERS:
1.) America did not try to use diplomacy before the war started, and so did not uphold its duty as the government
2.) The war lacked public support and so it was unjustified
3.) The British were justified in their actions
My computer keeps freezing so I'll end here
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
No problem I used to get them confused.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Crap, you're right, Monroe was elected in 1816, not 1812. I knew it was called something along those lines so I typed in "president monroe" into google and it came up with "President monroe's war", so I assumed it to be true. Thanks for the correction
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con, the War of 1812 occurred during Madison's term, not Monroe's. It was never called "President Monroe's War," you're probably confusing that with "Mr. Madison's War."
Posted by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
in my last rebuttal cr means care
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
due to time restrictions*
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I would like to use the round two as constructive and round three as rebuttal if you were willing to change the structure of the round in order to time restrictions.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
FlameofPrometheusTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did far better in proving his arguments and he had better sources.
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
FlameofPrometheusTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Love debates on history. If there were another round I think Pro could have made a come back. Pro relied too heavily on the social contract for a justification of war, there are far more compelling justifications to cite than that. Con's negation of the resolution prevailed - but only because of the limitation of rounds.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
FlameofPrometheusTheOratorTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I still agree with Pro regarding this, but Con provided a better case. I think his points about public support and diplomatic solutions went pretty much unrefuted.