The Instigator
debatergirl205
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
80 Points

We should have a civil war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 16 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,758 times Debate No: 5681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (16)

 

debatergirl205

Pro

WE should have a civil war. I know you must be thinking is this girl crazy? NO i'm not crazy. If we have a war now all arguments would be settled. We would have all our anger out and maybe calm down enough to sign a treaty or something. This is a small argument.
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Analysis:
I'm assuming you are talking about the United States. The topic, restated is as follows: The United States should engage in a civil war.

Arguments:
1. A civil war would tear us apart.
Our technology is so advanced today that we would destroy ourselves before anything got done.

2. We have no reason to.
We don't have a huge pressing issue within our country that provides sufficient reason to go to war with ourselves. With the Civil War, it was slavery. We don't have slavery anymore.

3. It would destroy the world economy.
If the United States engages in civil war, the world economy would be affected because our economy would grind to a halt as we systematically destroy ourselves. Also, even if we don't destroy ourselves, the economy (ours and the worlds) will have suffered a huge blow.

4. You have to prove it. Your burden is to prove that we should have a civil war. You have not done so. If you don't I win on default.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
debatergirl205

Pro

Let me say my friend you are very clever.
I believe you are wrong. Today our weapons are very advanced but have you ever thought about this.
If we wait until issues occur, then we will have had time to advance our weaponry. Our weapons could be so advanced that it could wipe us all out!!!!! Another thing is, if we have a civil war now, people will realize how stupid and insane war is. Then there will be no reason to have another. Which could spare the lives of many.

Thanks
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks for the compliment.
Thanks for the concede on weapons being advanced.

Your point?
<. Our weapons could be so advanced that it could wipe us all out!!!!! >
That's my point. Thanks for conceding.
< Another thing is, if we have a civil war now, people will realize how stupid and insane war is.>
Really. Look to the hundreds of examples of civil wars. Did people learn that war was stupid and insane? No. They just learned that war was another way to win.

So you say that we should have a civil war to show everyone how stupid war is? Again, people will not realize that. If they did, we wouldn't have so many conflicts and the world would not be what it is today.
So my opponent hasn't really made any legit arguments, so I kinda win the debate since she hasn't made any arguments to prove her side, and I have. Also, she hasn't refuted any of my points. Thanks.
Here are my arguments. Note that none of them have been refuted at all.
1. A civil war would tear us apart.
Our technology is so advanced today that we would destroy ourselves before anything got done.
2. We have no reason to.
We don't have a huge pressing issue within our country that provides sufficient reason to go to war with ourselves. With the Civil War, it was slavery. We don't have slavery anymore.
3. It would destroy the world economy.
If the United States engages in civil war, the world economy would be affected because our economy would grind to a halt as we systematically destroy ourselves. Also, even if we don't destroy ourselves, the economy (ours and the worlds) will have suffered a huge blow.
4. You have to prove it. Your burden is to prove that we should have a civil war. You have not done so. If you don't I win on default.
Thank you.
P.S. I am going to be away most of next week, so if I forfeit my third round I'm very sorry. It all depends on when my oppone
Debate Round No. 2
debatergirl205

Pro

Wow thats really an insult. 1 Ok war could not possibly tear us apart. Why would it? All other wars have not done such a thing. If anything brought fighting countries closer. If we have enogh confidince i our leaders we will trust them with our lives.
2 we DO have reason to. Why not? over here oconomy is terrible. WE are in debt to China. Our lives are at risk if we don't pay China. Trust me my friend. WE DO have reason to. This world is no walk in the park.
3 If you haven't noticed: OUR ECONOMEY IF ALREADY A HUGE MESS!!!!!!! WAR COULD MAKE THIS BETTER. how? well, we loss money all the time because of inports/exports. War could save some of that money by sending out soldiers. I mean, we would save money and have to work harder because we don't have China or some other country give us stuff. Nw we would actully have to work for it. Which of course is less money anyway.WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
4 I think i proved my point quite logically. So the fight is still on.
Have fun on your trip!
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

I'll just go through her points one by one.

1. Note. this is a civil war in America we are talking about. It would tear us apart because our country would be split into 2 or more factions, each one determined to destroy the other. And you say that wouldn't tear us apart? Hm.... 2 incredibly powerful groups going at each other. Each one armed with the leading technology... Nukes, concept weapons, you name it, we can use it. And you claim we would get closer together. Yes, maybe we would, IF the war had a victor. However, this kind of war will not. We would systematically destroy ourselves. The reason other wars have not done such a thing is because we haven't had a civil war in about 100 years. In that 100 years, technology has advanced to the point where we would destroy ourselves. Back them, armies still lined up in a battle formation and just attacked each other head on. Air force was non-existent. Nukes were not invented. Machine guns were not heard of. All they had were cannons that shot at about one round every 5 minutes. Our tanks today can shoot about 20 rounds every 5 minutes, not to mention the armour and the machine guns.

2. So because our economy is bad, we should destroy ourselves and start over??? Why should we destroy ourselves so that we don't have to pay China?

3. How is war going to make an economy better? Look at world war one after WWI, we had the Great Depression. Not to mention that we weren't even fighting ourselves.

4. No you haven't.

Ok, so my opponent has made arguments that actually pertain to the debate, but in the last round. You can't do that. That would go against the rules of debate. You can't make new arguments in your last round.

Extend all my arguments. She hasn't even made a single attack on them.

Thanks for the debate. No time to do an elaborate finish, but simply put, my opponent hasn't shown that we should have a civil war. It was her job to do so. I have shown we sho
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hardluck 8 years ago
hardluck
In a way I agree with what she is saying, but not a war between the people in America, but the people against the American Government.

The Civil War was not caused by Slavery, but by secession, when South Carolina secessed from the Union and then the other states followed, and unless I misunderstand, she is saying we should secessed from the Government. We were already over a year into the Civil War before freeing the slaves was added as a goal of the war. Very few whites owned slaves in the south, So how could the Confederate Government have got all the people who didn't even own a slave to fight to keep something they didn't have. This is history not my opinion.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
I voted better conduct for Con, mostly due to the new arguments in round 3. I voted better spelling and grammar for Con. Pro's Round 3 really got liberal with punctuation and spelling. I voted more convincing arguments for Con. Pro didn't really answer Con's refutations very well, and treated her position as though it were obvious and needed very little explanation.

I voted Tie for sources.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Well, whatever gave that away? :D

Further, we also already have a civil war (pressure group warfare). The question then at present is not whether to have one (we don't have a choice about it at this point), but whether to escalate it, or whether a given side should surrender, ending it.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
"Yes we do. It's called taxation."

I would say you've got to be kidding, but I know you're not:P
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
".
We don't have a huge pressing issue within our country that provides sufficient reason to go to war with ourselves. With the Civil War, it was slavery. We don't have slavery anymore."
Yes we do. It's called taxation.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Voted CON. Obviously.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
And between whom? Republicans and Democrats?
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
even if slavery wasn't the main cause of the Civil War, you all know what I meant by that.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
Most of our Army comes from the South.

"You wanna shoot the Iraqi?"
"Darn tootin'!"
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I assure you, good sir, that slavery was indeed the issue that caused the Civil War.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by el.edward512 8 years ago
el.edward512
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MarcusMang 8 years ago
MarcusMang
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Charity 8 years ago
Charity
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
debatergirl205burningpuppies101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07