The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 103661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




confederate statues should not be in places of honor

the civil war was about slavery, plain and simple. if you look at the reasons stated for the war, it always went back to slavery. only in the abstract was it about states' rights, and there has been a misinformation campaign to retrospectively say that's what it was about. research history and you will see the truth. so do we want statutes of men who led the fight for slavery? maybe in the same way we'd want a statue of hitler, maybe at a museaum, but not out in public spaces of honor.


Even if we don't believe in some of the reasons they fought, they're still Americans, and died for what they believed in. When you disrepect someone's ancestors because you think what YOU believe is right and there's is wrong? That is disrespecting America. Our roots are our roots, and we can't change that. So if you think I'm going to sit here and watch you disrespect other Americans because of their beliefs, you're dead wrong. Buckle up, it's going to be a wild ride...
Debate Round No. 1


i' m not sure if you're thinking i'm saying we should take them down ourselves without their consent, cause i'm not saying that. i'm saying they should come to that conclusion themselves.

the only other thing i can really make out you are saying is that it's disrespectful to not have the statutes. what about all the blacks who were forced into slavery, and their ancesters, where is their respect? and you didn't tackle the hitler point, should germany have hitler statues up in the name of respect or whatever? why not if you say no and how is it different? how not just have this stuff in a museaum, why does it have to be out in places of honor?


There are a couple reasons that your argument is flawed.

First, you say that it is disrespectful to the African American community. However, what about George Washington, or other members of the Founding Fathers? Most, if not all of them, owned slaves. By your logic, we need to take down those statues from public honor, as they disrespect that community. By this logic, most of our history from before the Civil War would be taken down, as most of those people in our history owned slaves.

Second, you claim that, by MY logic, we should have statues of Hitler out in the public. Apparently you can't tell where Hitler lived. That problem would be up to Germany and other European countries, not America. However, I can say that there is a difference between everyone universally agreeing not to display something, and one part of the country agreeing, while other parts disagreeing.

Now, as for my arguments, there are a couple reasons why removing Confederate statues from public places of honor is not going to happen.

1. They're lawfully protected.

Several states with these statues have already enacted several laws in order to rightfully protect these pieces of American history (1). They are also not coming down in national parks, like Gettysburg, where these people fought and died for what they believed in (2). Meaning that these statues, especially in these states, will be very hard, or even next to impossible, to remove. If you want this to happen, you're going to have to argue with them, not me.

2. Not as many people as you think support removing them

In fact, most of the polls out there show an overwhelming support to NOT remove them (3). In fact, the only poll that removing them gained a sliver ahead of not removing them, was when they worded it differently, saying that they would be "relocated" to museums and such. So, your proposal is not as endearing as
it seems

3. Slavery is part of our history.

While I do not support the idea of slavery, it is an important part of our nations history. As I said above, many of the important figures in the formation of our country owned slaves. Removing statues just because of their racist undertones is only destroying the history in which the people on the statues fought, and most likely died in. This will not make the modern world a better place, and would only blur what happened in the past to form this country.

( just an FYI, Abraham Lincoln only created the Emancipation Proclamation to aid his support, not because he felt that slaves were being treated unfairly (4))


Debate Round No. 2


washington was known for lots of other good things in history. the confederates were only known or their relbellion against slavery. and most people in history had poor thoughts about certain things, but that don't mean we can't draw distinctions.

and you didn't really argue why it's not disrespectful to africans and right minded people who don't believe in slavery, you just went down a slippery slope. if you could actually try to defend your position on the merits instead of a slippery slope, youd have more merit to your position. it doesn't look like you can do it, though.

you are getting too distracted in the arguments about letting localities do what they want. of course i dont disagree it's up to everyone in their own districts, but as to whether you or me would want them up, that is what we are arguing. so you didn't really draw a distinction about hitler. if you lived in germany would you want a statue of him up in places of honor? how do you draw a distinction? one believed in genocide, whereas the people you are defending in honor believed in slavery. both major atrocities.

i dont care nor is it relevant what polls say about the stattues. this is just you v me in whether the deserve to be put up.

we don't have to disregard history by removing the statutes. we can have those statues in a museaum or have other ways of remembering history. and there's a difference between remembering history and putting evil doer statues up in places of honor.


"If you could actually try to defend your position on the merits instead of a slippery slope"

I am defending my position, in fact, I'm the only one to actually provide sources that help me defend it. Since you don't have any sources provided, we can assume you're making your claims and arguments up as you go.

"The confederates were only known for their rebellion against slavery."

There are two things wrong with this statement.

1. Saying that the Confederates were only known for this, and the fact that they revered it is entirely untrue. In fact, according to ACTUAL SOURCES (1) (which I suggest you read this one to shed a bit more light into my case), the South were actually in the process OF FREEING SLAVES when the Union declared war on them (the reason being listed in my source).

2. Your mistake in grammar makes "for their rebellion against slavery" sounds like the Confederacy we're fighting against slavery.

"...and right minded people who don't believe in slavery"

Keep in mind that before the South decided to split, slavery was perfectly fine for a little over a hundred years! Again, the reason for this war happening is in my source.

"Washington was known for lots of other good things in history."

But was still a slaveowner, which you say is bad, but still praise him.

Plus, the Confederacy would have been too, if the war never started in the first place. According to (2), it says that, even without the war, the South WOULD HAVE ABANDONED SLAVERY! As a bonus, you know who Abraham Lincoln wanted to lead the Union troops during the war? ROBERT EDWARD LEE! Plus, unlike you, I have actual proof of this, here. (3)

"You are getting distracted in the arguments about letting localities do what they want."

No I am not. Only one of my previous statements was about states and national parks setting up laws to keep them. Your statement is simply false.

"How do you draw distinction?"

As I said before, there is a difference between universally agreeing not to praise something, and some agreeing while others disagreeing.

"...and putting EVIL DOER statues up in place of honor."

Now this is where I get pissed.

Saying that every Confederate soldier was an evil doing slave driver is the same as saying every German soldier during World War 2 was a Nazi sympathizer who wanted to gas every Jewish person they came across. Whether you like it or not, the Confederacy is part of our American history, and removing them from places of honor is the same as giving that same German soldier a dishonorable burial just for fighting for where they came from. When you say that every Confederate is an evil doer, is not only dishonoring history, it is dishonoring me (who had relatives that fought for the Confederacy), and everyone out there with their roots in the South. They fought, and they DIED, for something that they thought was right, most of them not even owning slaves, and the entire Confederacy about to end the slavery trade anyways. And if you think I was going to let you call fellow Americans who gave their hearts, their souls, their very lives, just for someone to call them an "evil doer", well, you're dead wrong.

In conclusion, not only do you insult my very bloodline, and many others, you have no proof in any of you're claims, have horrible grammar, and have written very little. If anything, it was you who was slowly falling down the "slippery slope" as you called it. Next time, try to structure your arguments a little more professionally.

Good day partner.


2. ( numbers 2 and 1 are most important.)

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by szexiv 2 years ago
this should have been a wonderful debate. pro has completely butchered their argument. this whole debate has really been disappointing to read.
Posted by szexiv 2 years ago
this should have been a wonderful debate. pro has completely butchered their argument. this whole debate has really been disappointing to read.
Posted by yomama12 2 years ago
I would also like to point out that myth 4 for both of those websites definitely do not help your case, as it shows that the Union weren't so kind to slaves during that time period either.
Posted by yomama12 2 years ago
While that would have made a lovely round in the debate, this comment shouldn't count because it's a comment, not one of the debate rounds.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
it looks like con is mostly just misinformed. every academic website you look at says the south broke off because of slavery. note that con's site is something unrelated to history, the main site, and it's just propaganda and misinformation spewed by someone random. below is just two websites. one state went so far as to say slavery was "thoroughly" the reason, and the history website says southerners had no problem saying that was the reason for the war. also, slavery wasn't ending, it was becoming entrenched according to the Washington post. even if there was some movement in the direction of freeing them, itd be like saying there's some movement in freeing jews in WWII by the germans. this is all why the only distinction between the confederacy and the Nazi's is one was more genocidal but one was just for slavery. both atrocities and not enough to make a meaningful distinction. lee thought slavery was somewhat immoral but kept them himself and fought for others to do so because he thought it was divine guidance to the betterment of blacks. even if he freed them before the war was over, which I haven't fact checked, he still was fighting about slavery.

if you have better sources of info and better arguments, i'm happy to debate again. either redo, or id be particularly interested in debating how erecting statues of hitler and Nazi leaders is basically the same as what the south did and continues to do. (aside from the issue of whether it's universally disavowed or not, just one person's opinion v another of whether they should be erected)
Posted by SegBeg 2 years ago
[EDIT]: I don't support the taking down of confederate statues because- where does it end? Who's next?: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson?, etc? You need the statues to remember your history, learn from it and not repear the mistakes of it.
Posted by SegBeg 2 years ago
I don't support the taking down of federal statues because- where does it end? Who's next?: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson?, etc? You need the statues to remember your history, learn from it and not repear the mistakes of it.
Posted by Krueger515 2 years ago
Most people don't know this, but President Lincoln offered the command of the Union army to none other than General Robert E. Lee.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: To be honest, I couldn't even understand a couple of Pro's points because of how bad the grammar was. Pro also provided no sourcing whatsoever. Pro did absolutely nothing but make an appeal to emotion, which I would say is fallacious at best. Con had both better arguments and reliable sources.

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