The Instigator
billsands
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LogicSauce
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The United States is on the Verge of Civil War

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 1 vote the winner is...
LogicSauce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 118947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

billsands

Pro

The United States is so polarized, And the leadership so corrupt that really the only choice the majority has to restore Democracy is armed revolution!
LogicSauce

Con

Your initial argument lies on a few assumptions
A. The United States has surpassed a healthy level of polarization so much so that the only remaining option is civil war.
B. The leader ship is so corrupt the only choice is to remove them by force to "restore democracy"
C. Democracy must be restored, Meaning we no longer have democracy
D. That the majority is responsible for restoring democracy via armed revolution.
E. There is no other alternative to armed revolution
F. Armed revolution is a feasible option
G. There is a majority that would take up arms in revolution

A. First can you please provide evidence or at least supporting logic that the United States is polarized beyond a point of return and that civil war is justifiable.

B. Secondly, Can you do the same for the statement about corrupt politicians.

C. Not sure if you witnessed the recent midterm elections but I believe they demonstrated a reassuring picture that our democracy is working at the very least good enough to justify not having a civil war. Both parties reaped gains and loses which is an effective demonstration of the separation of powers preventing a single party from having supreme control indefinitely. While there certainly were issues surrounding these past elections overall, The democratic process has maintained at the very least its minimum standard legitimacy.

D. The purpose of an electoral college is partially to prevent the tyranny of the majority therefore it would be rather ironic for the majority to take up an armed revolution to "restore democracy" (not quite sure what you mean by this) as this would be in direct contradiction to the idea's America's political system was founded upon.

E. Can you please elaborate as to why armed revolution is the only choice?

F. Why is armed revolution a feasible option and against who exactly?

G. Which majority is it exactly that would take up arms in revolt against. . . Whoever else?
Debate Round No. 1
billsands

Pro

okay give it a stab. . Angry minorities angry women, Gender gap antifa. . Far right terrorism in synogogues that pipe bomb stuff, , And the inccility in our public dialogue
LogicSauce

Con

You haven't made any point.
Debate Round No. 2
billsands

Pro

yes i have, People used to be able to sit down to thanksgiving dinner with members of their family of all shades of ideology and party, There are numerous reports that the polarized nature of public dialogue has effected holiday dinners people will no longer be in the same room with members of the opposing party, Also we have armed militias, Trump supportes with pipe bobms trying to kill democrats nazis killing jew and black cause trump says its okay to hate. . We even have rabid socialists in congress now! antifa is just a bunch of goofy kids that mean well they want to fight the nazis but don't know how. . They are not armed or organized
BUT GIVE THEM TIME
LogicSauce

Con

You are making the positive claim that the "The United States is so polarized, And the leadership so corrupt that really the only choice the majority has to restore Democracy is armed revolution! " therefore, The burden of proof lies upon you to demonstrate that your claim is cogent.

"Yes, I have"
--No, You did not make any points in your previous statement. The entire response was a non-argument.

"okay give it a stab. . Angry minorities angry women, Gender gap antifa. . Far right terrorism in synogogues that pipe bomb stuff, , And the inccility in our public dialogue"

--This statement makes no clear, Coherent, And sound assertions.

okay give it a stab - Give what a stab? You haven't given me anything to refute without first asserting it with evidence.
angry minorities - Do what? Cause what? Are how prevalent? All minorities?
angry women - Do what? Cause what? Are how prevalent? All women?
Gender Gap - Requires further elaboration, Proof, Examples, Why it's relevant, And how it contributes to your point.
Antifa - Requires further elaboration, Proof, Examples, Why it's relevant, And how it contributes to your point.
Far right terrorism in synagogues - Requires further elaboration, Proof, Examples, Why it's relevant, And how it contributes to your point.
that pipe bomb stuff - Which pipe bomb stuff specifically?
the inccility (Im guessing incivility) in our public dialogue - Which dialogue? All public dialogues? Examples? Why/How does this contribute?

"People used to be able to sit down to thanksgiving dinner with members of their family of all shades of ideology and party, There are numerous reports that the polarized nature of public dialogue has effected holiday dinners people will no longer be in the same room with members of the opposing party"
--This is one large claim that you have provided zero proof/explanation of, And have failed to elaborate as to why and how this supports your position. Which people used to be able to sit at a holiday dinner with their family but can no longer? Why is this so important? Explaining or at least mentioning the reports that specifically refer to the, "polarized nature of public dialogue" effecting holiday dinners, Is necessary at very least.

"Also we have armed militias"
--Ok, So what?

"Trump supportes with pipe bobms trying to kill democrats"
--Ok, So what?

"nazis killing jew and black cause trump says its okay to hate. . "
--Proof of both, Nazis killing Jews and blacks, And, Trump saying its okay, Is necessary. Again, So what?

"We even have rabid socialists in congress now! "
--There are currently two independent candidates in congress both of which are in the senate. One is Bernie Sanders, A self described democratic socialist who advocates for a workplace democracy and favors the Nordic model of social democracy. The other is Angus King a moderate independent who has been quoted as saying he is "neither a Democrat nor a Republican, But an American". Every other member of congress is either an elected Democrat or a Republican and the two individuals I mentioned certainly cannot be described as "rabid socialist". Socialism is a broad term and encompasses many derivations of socialist ideology that are often mashed with other existing theories such as, Libertarian socialism. Contrary to popular American belief socialism does not mean communism, However, Communism is considered to be an extreme variant of socialism.

"antifa is just a bunch of goofy kids that mean well they want to fight the nazis but don't know how. . They are not armed or organized
BUT GIVE THEM TIME"
--Again, So what? This is a slippery slope fallacy as well.

Almost entirely a non argument, With no elaboration, Explanation, Support, Or logic. The premise is also a slipper slope.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Block.19 3 years ago
Block.19
Two things to consider.
1. The majority of voters lean left, As shown in recent elections. However the majority of armed citizens are right wing voters. So the majority would not have an advantage over the minority, As things currently stand.

2. This isn't the 1860's, If there was a "civil war" like call to arms of citizens on both sides of the political spectrum the government would step in to prevent any serious confrontation from taking place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
billsandsLogicSauceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: LogicSauce stated flaws in billsands arguments. billsands did not see flaws even though it should be clear that Pro did not provide evidence, logic or reasoning to back claims. He did provide anecdotes but even that was not further expanded. Some examples she gave were accusations not proven to be true like pipe bombing perpetrated by a Republican. Due to these not proven accusation without even explaining how it could be LogicSauce also gets the conduct vote.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.