The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YoungLawyer
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time

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 2 votes the winner is...
YoungLawyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 430 times Debate No: 60086
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

linate

Pro

political unrest because of lousy economic conditions, sure. just like in europe.

what makes any significantly soon coming calamities different than in the past, is that there is no geographic areas that disagree with each other. it's mostly just john disagrees with bob, individual disagreements. it could be plausible to say the south will 'rise again' and fight, given how conservtive it is. but i don't see enough evidence of this, and think my john v bob point is more accurate.
YoungLawyer

Con

I find the title of this debate interesting. This is my first very debate, let's see how it goes.

Definition of civil war: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1]

Key points

-Change government policies. (As you read you'll see me talk about this. Changing domestic policies)

-Take control of the country or region (Divided between Democrats and Republicans. IRS spying on Republicans, NSA tapping into phones. Republicans States could be thinking to leave the union)

-Independence (as you read you'll get an understanding.)

Before I start...I'll like to ask my opponent this simple question: Why did the United States fought its first ever civil war?

If you answer that question, than everything should fall into place for you. *hint, its to alter the course of the nation. *It will go down as one of the greatest moments in American history* *It will forever change America.*

As much as wars are gruesome and terrifying, they aren't simply fought for power. Civil War could also be a means for change, and changing the course of a country. If you have learned from history, there wouldn't be a "United" States of America, if it hadn't been for the war. Through blood and sweet, through brothers fighting each other, was this nation able to stay together, not divided between north and south. The major causes of the civil war has to due with slavery and states right. While slavery isn't our modern day issue, states right still remains. Also, the IRS has been spying on political figures, the NSA has been tapping into our phones, gridlocks has hold our nation growth, and wealthiest individual are buying our politicians in Washington. What may seem like a small riot, may be the start of an revolution. I'm sure you have heard of the occupy wall street movement. Once the American people eyes are open, once they start understanding the issue, once they see what is actually happening, little by little, an uprising will happen. Who knows...just like Washington and Benjamin Franklin, normal Americans may be putting an plan together somewhere.

I will like to say: You cannot create the future, but vision it. Now, it don't make sense for you to come out and say that "a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time." Upon what conviction do you make that case, if no one had predicted the numerous wars that we have had over the course of human history, from WW1 to WW2.

Do you think we'll be here today if it hadn't been for the civil war. Do you think there will be a black and white America. While you may not realize the issues that is going on everyday in this country that is affecting you indirectly, there's someone its affecting both directly and indirect. And it only starts with a small group of patriotic, with good motives, to start something. I can tell you right now I do not like the direction in which this country is moving. I do not like how we waging wars, getting involve in foreign affairs, our debts are rising, college costs is like going to your own deaths, the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider, homeless people are dying everyday, and our politicians are being bought. This is where it can start, and that's how it started. People wanted to bring an end to slavery, some southerners wanted to hold on to it. I'm want to bring our debts down. States wanted right. I want our governments to stop bailing out wall streets. I could get my band of friends together, buy weapons as we are allow to own them, and little by little start causing an uprising, just by getting others whom are motivated for the same cause as me.

We cannot determine the possibilities of wars. Who would have known in our lifetime that we'll ever end slavery. Who would have known that we could hold the states together. If it weren't for the civil war, as Lincoln wanted "to keep the states together" the Southern would have broken away. The civil war was also a means to hold the country together. And that's what happen.

I'm sure you have heard of the States that sign a petition wanting to leave the union. Same thing with the first American civil war, States wanted to leave the union and they kept pushing for it. For Lincoln to hold them into the Union, we had to use the ultimate weapon, war. And the States that wanted to leave, were as economically and industrialize ready to fight this war as the North was. But they fought again. This could be the same today between the federal government and the states. And than we could be thrown into another civil war.

Link: http://www.wric.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...

I can tell you, I fear the idea of a civil war. But that does not mean it could not happen. Our imagination, far exceeds our expectation. Sure things may seems good in your eyes, sure we're the richest country on earth, sure there don't seem to be big issues right now, but it only starts little by little, by those who want change, and with change, comes the ultimate sacrifice: our lives.

I look forward to what my opponent has to say.

http://www.history.com...
http://www.slate.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.wric.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

con mostly just gives some possible causes for a future civil war, and says 'anything is possible'. he gives no specific indicators of it happening other than speculation, and doesn't given a way a geographic power would develop in contentino to my points about it mostly being bob against john nongeogprahically based in terms of dissension of power structures.
YoungLawyer

Con

Yes, I give possible causes for a future civil war, to determine its possibility. It does not mean that because I'm giving possibilities doesn't me it cannot happen; my possible causes could be a reason for a future civil war to happen just like our first civil war.

I cannot give specific indicators of it happening, because no one give indicators of the first civil war happening. People determine its possibility due to slavery and states right, and people knew for change to come and to keep the nation together, war was necessary. This could be the same today, with many of the issue were facing such as debts, government becoming corrupt, gap between rich and poor is getting wider, college cost is going on, privacy rights are being violated, people somewhere in America may be thinking of a need for change. Like I said, it only starts with a small group of people, with good motivates, to start this.

My opponent pretty much lose its debate saying "he gives no specific indicators of it happening." I believe the debate title says... "a civil war in the USA is not likely in our life time." By using the word "likely" he's indicating a possibility, so its wrong of him to say that I'm only making speculation, as he himself is also making speculation that a "civil war "isn't" likely." We do not need to be peace, to think that a civil war isn't likely. For all I know, the United States was at peace, before problems starting arising, which led to the first civil civil war. This could be the same today.

I will like to come to my opponent statement: " being bob against john." I'm indicating my opponent is talking about our government. I'll like to say government is not the solution, it is the problem. They are the one causing some of the issues, and most of them are not being impacted by the issues directly. It's the normal everyday people who are facing these issues, whom may want change and will rebel against its government. So this is more so of a "people vs. governments."

I could give you a way a geographic power would develop but you're the one saying "con mostly just gives some possible causes for a future war." By me giving how a geographic power would develop, I'm also giving a "possible" cause for the war. Am I not? Both your points are contrary, you're saying I'm giving "possible causes for a future civil war and saying anything is possible, he gives no specific indicators of it happening other than speculation", yet you want me to give a way a geographic power would develop. This could also be a possible cause of the civil war, and could also be a "anything is possible" and if I give a way a geographic power would develop, I will only also be making a speculation too, because like you said, "he gives no specific indicators of it happening", same with no geographic power is developing, there's no indications of it happening right now. But it could happen and we could fall into a civil war.

I do not like wars, but its possibilities of it happening is endless, and its surely not good.

I look forward to my opponent reply.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

con continues as i said in my last post. he even says "there's no indications of it happening right now. But it could happen and we could fall into a civil war."

con does give an interesting idea of the war being between teh people and the government, but it would be very shady geographically cause it is still esssnetially bob v john, not north v south.

and yes this is a 'likely' debate, a matter of probability. con has given no indicators, i argued there are no indicators, and con even agreed with me that thete aren't any. that means as of now war is not 'likely'. that means i win the debate.

all con has ever offered is speculation.
YoungLawyer

Con

It seems that my opponent is not getting the logical of this ("his") debate. Your title of the debate said "in our lifetime" meaning, as long we are to live. This debate isn't on weather it is happening right now as you are using "no indicators" but weather it is likely or not to happen in our lifetime. So your title of this debate is speaking future wise, not present.

Let me bring you back to the definition of a civil war: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1]

It does not essentially has to be a war between the north and the south, or bob vs. john. It could simply start by a small group of people whom are armed, whom are wanting change. Your bob and john isn't right, the civil war could be between the East, West, North, or South. So forget about that concept.

Simply because you claim, or think there aren't indications does not mean "war is not likely." And I have given you numerous indications. If you read what I wrote and followed some of the links I have given you, you would have seen some of the indications (riots, petition to succeed, government becoming corrupt, suffering), even though are not strong yet to constitute a need for a civil war, as wars aren't a mere thing, but one that cause great loss. Nevertheless, it does not mean a civil war isn't likely, as you have indicated the title "in our life time", which essentially mean forever in our existence. You cannot determine what will happen in human existence, only time will tell.

I look forward to my opponent reply.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
lol i said I look forward to my opponent reply in the last argument, forgetting that that was the last argument. Didn't see it.
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
lol i said I look forward to my opponent reply in the last argument, forgetting that that was the last argument. Didn't see it.
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
Correction: And the States that wanted to leave, were as economically and industrialize ready to fight this war as the North was.

And the States that wanted to leave, weren't as economically and industrialize ready to fight this war as the North was.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
linateYoungLawyerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave many arguments that Pro failed to refute. Pro did not backup his claims with anything.
Vote Placed by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
linateYoungLawyerTied
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: Con gave many circumstances for any reasons that can build up into a civil war in the USA. Pro stated his case and then declared every round after that that con was not supplying enough. Conduct a major win for Con. TBH I am torn between the two and would love to watch another debate on this subject. Thanks!