The American Revolution was Justified
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...




- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
2 forfeitures equal 1 loss.
BOP is shared.
This debate is to address the topic of was the American Revolution (meaning the war and everything that accompanied it) justified. Taking that the Americans started the American Revolution aka started the physical battle, it is safe to say that the argument will really encompass, was America justified to fight against Britain for independence.
No more rules, this debate will be pretty relaxed.
“In order for me to win (as stated in the accepted description) I will have to prove that the Americans had a reasonable cause for starting the physical war against Great Britain. Con, must prove that the Americans were not justified in doing this.”
“The war followed more than a decade of growing estrangement between the British crown and a large and influential segment of its North American colonies that was caused by British attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs after having long adhered to a policy of salutary neglect.”
“The basic reason for this war was for the Americans to free themselves from British dictatorship.”
“The British did many things that lead up to this, like raising taxes on almost everything you can buy and sell.”
“Britain's reason for this? The reason was to pay off War funds that they owed to other people”
“King [George] III used the colonists and unfairly taxed them for the sole reason of paying off debt.”
“The Americans had enough of paying off their money so they started the Revolutionary War.”
“They did this not to gain power, but to gain freedom for everyone.”
“Once they won the war, they came out stronger than ever, and stayed true to their promise in giving freedom to the people. The cause of this? Now America is one of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the world, and is one of the worlds superpowers. Freedom was and still is with the people. America also was one of the first countries to stop slavery and segregation, and is one of the most least racist country's in the world, giving aid to other countries and holding millions of immigrants for sanctuary. “
“None of this would have happened if the Revolutionary War didn't take place. I would say that it was very much justified.”
- Shown why taxation was not a valid justification for revolution
- Shown why the “Boston Massacre” was not a valid justification for revolution
- Shown why British control in colonial affairs was not a valid justification for revolution
- Shown why violent revolution was fundamentally not justified
- Shown why the American revolution was worse than the status quo
- Refuted my opponent’s claims regarding justification for revolution
- Refuted my opponent’s claims that revolution benefited America
a. TaxationOne of the main reasons for the revolution was so-called “No Taxation Without Representation” - I.e. the idea that because colonists were not directly represented in Parliament, Parliament had no right to tax them. As a result, colonists viewed any taxes imposed on them as a violation of their rights. [1]This is not a “good or legitimate” reason for rebelling for a multitude of reasons. First, colonists did have indirect representation in Parliament, through their elected legislatures. [2] This concept of indirect representation has been upheld in numerous territories today – for example, the District of Colombia is taxed, and is indirectly represented in the US Congress. [3]In addition, the taxes imposed on the colonists were in fact far lighter than those given to British citizens at home. What most people don't realize is that the total taxes the colonists paid were about 1-1.5%, over four times less than what British citizens paid. Protesting even these pithy taxes was nothing but colonial pettiness. [4]Finally, these taxes were raised to directly fund the defense of the colonies. In the French and Indian War, Britain spent almost 60 million pounds (doubling the national debt) to save the American colonies from being demolished by the French. To impose taxes to compensate for this is an entirely justifiable move from the British. [5]
b. The “Boston Massacre”The other main reason for the revolution was the “Boston Massacre” - an incident in which five colonists were killed by British soldiers.According to all historical accounts, the colonists had started the instigation with the soldiers. They had thrown rocks, hurled verbal threats, and attempted to overpower a soldier and grab his gun. Indeed, the evidence in favor of the soldiers was so strong that a jury of colonists found them to be entirely justified in self-defense. [6]c. Exaggerated OppressionFinally, the revolution was started because colonists were upset that the British were trying to exert more control over the colonies. Again, this is not a justifiable reason for rebelling. Remember, the colonists were British citizens, and part of the British empire.This was not a tyrannical country attempting to take over a sovereign nation. This was Britain, governing British citizens in British territory, who were already treated far better than the average person in the mainland.
- Done for a good and legitimate reason
- More preferable than not doing said action
- Dropped. Extend.
- Dropped. Extend.
- Dropped. Extend.
“Firstly, the idea of "no taxation without representation" was not about the amount of tax but the principle behind it. The colonists believed that they had the right to be represented in the government that taxed them, and they were not. The indirect representation in Parliament that the opponent mentions was not enough for the colonists, as they did not have direct representation or control over their own affairs."
“Additionally, the colonies did not view themselves as British citizens but as independent entities that were only subject to British rule due to the colonial charters granted by the Crown.”
“The Boston Massacre was just one of the many events that led to the American Revolution. It was not the main reason but rather a tipping point in a series of events that demonstrated the British government's failure to protect the colonists' rights and interests. The fact that a jury of colonists found the British soldiers to be justified in self-defense does not mean that the incident was not a spark for the revolution.”
“My opponent claims that the revolution was worse than the existing status quo, but this argument ignores the fact that the revolution led to the creation of the United States, a country that has since become a world power and a beacon of freedom and democracy. While it is true that the war cost lives and money, it also led to the establishment of a new nation that was free from British rule and had the potential to be a more just and equitable society.”
"Additionally, the new government of the United States was designed to be more representative of the people, with the Constitution providing a framework for a democratic system of government.”
- Showed how my opponent has dropped many of my R1 points, leaving them uncontested
- Demonstrated how taxation alone was not a sufficient reason for the revolution
- Proved why the British government was justified to tax colonists in the first place
- Indicated why the new government, on balance, was hardly more democratic than the old one
- Evinced that the revolution did not lead to an improvement over the status quo
- Overall, refuted my opponent's points and upheld my own, satisfying the BoP
First, PRO once again uses the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc – that is, because X happened before Y, X caused Y. We are analyzing whether it was done for a good reason, and better than the status quo before then. Nothing more, nothing less.
Second, for many years, the United States was certainly not a “beacon of freedom and democracy,” nor was it “just and equitable.” As a reminder, generations of enslaved people endured unspeakable suffering – and for generations after that, their descendants were subjected to racism, segregation, and inequitable voting rights.
“This does not hold ground. The BOP is shared, and I claimed the revolution was done for a good and legitimate reason and was more preferable than not doing said action. The outcome of the revolution was the goal for the rebellion, therefore making it a legitimate point in reason.“
“This has been the case with every single country to ever exist in some way shape or form. America was one of the first to ban slavery and give blacks equal rights to whites. There are more slaves in the world today than there were at the height of the Roman Empire, and none of them are in The United States.”
“Con argues that the American Revolution was not justified because the colonists were only taxed at a rate of 1-1.5%. This argument is based on a narrow and incomplete understanding of the reasons behind the colonists' rebellion. The colonists were not only rebelling against taxes, but against a lack of representation in the British government, violations of their civil liberties, and a general feeling of oppression.”
“Con also claims that the British government had protected the colonists' rights and interests, but this is an assertion that is not supported by historical evidence. The British government had repeatedly violated the colonists' rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech, and the right to self-determination.”
“Con also ignores the fact that the colonists had attempted to resolve their grievances peacefully and through nonviolent means, but these efforts were met with hostility and violence from the British government.”
“My opponent argues that the creation of the United States was not an improvement over the status quo, but this claim is not supported by historical evidence. The United States has become a global leader in the promotion of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and has been a force for positive change in the world.”
“My opponent's arguments are flawed and lack historical evidence. I have successfully demonstrated that the revolution was done for a good and legitimate reason and was more preferable than not doing said action.”
Long story short, the case Pro is making seems largely nebulous whereas Con's case is more defined, which gives him the advantage. When you're talking about "justified" as you both did in this debate (there's been a rash of topics using this word in reference to history lately and, frankly, I think all of them could do with better discussion of that word, its context in these topics, and how each side could use it), those definite impacts are going to stand out because it's an issue of net benefits, i.e. were the American colonies/world better off for having had the American revolution? When you frame it like that, the side that can better articulate both its link story and impacts is going to come out ahead.
So let's dive into those.
Pro's position largely comes down to three points: colonists were justified in rebelling against 1) taxation without representation, 2) violations of other rights, and 3) a status quo that would yield a much greater US in the future. The last of those really isn't relevant, no matter how many times Pro restates it. Long-term changes that the US chose to make are not directly connected with the Revolution at any point in the debate. Pro cites the Constitution (I don't see a direct quote, but he mentions it), but doesn't provide the kind of direct link required to make a case for the impetus of the Revolution itself being directly tied to the later outcomes like banning slavery. Points 1 and 2 give Pro a little bit of ground, but they're nebulous because it's never clear what the negative impact was. I buy that the British government was oppressive, but I don't know what that means for the colonists living under that oppression. Con points out the taxation only amounted to 1-1.5%, and while that might still be difficult to manage, it's up to Pro to demonstrate how. I also don't see a response to Con's point about how this amount was justified, since the British spent more on the colonies than they were bringing in from taxation. Similarly, telling me that a lack of representation is damaging is not enough - you have to give me specifics on how it harms the people who lack it. Pro keeps referencing "a series of events that demonstrated the British government's failure to protect the colonists' rights and interests," but I see more of a specified path to revolution from Con than I do from Pro (Pro provides a link in R1 that provides some of the surrounding events, but Con is the first to mention The Boston Massacre and I don't see the path up to that incident or anything that came after from Pro). It's all very vague, and while these points suggest that there were justifications, none of them have any weight. Even if I consider the future of the US, how do I weigh that as a justification against the harms Con cites? Pro gives me no indication.
As for Con's case, he largely turns Pro's impacts by referencing specific events and weighing his impacts. If I buy the slavery point Pro was making, Con tells me it would have happened earlier if the colonies were still colonies. He tells me the Native Americans would have been better off as well. I've got quibbles with these points, but I don't see responses from Pro. Moreover, he gives me much more direct harms: the cost of war (lives and dollars) and the loss of support from England (military and otherwise) are solid points that, again, go unaddressed. I don't think that these points are necessarily going to win the day in this debate regardless of what Pro had done, but I need something to counterbalance all this, and I'm not getting much, and when these impacts are largely or entirely conceded, they loom large on my flow. It doesn't help that Con suggests a number of other possible methods to manage the relationship without war, and while I think that's largely extra topical, Pro does nothing to argue that back, so I'm left thinking that Pro's arguments may have justified doing something, but not necessarily revolution.
All this leads me to vote Con. I also award Con sources because, frankly, he's doing a lot more across all the points. Pro's single source doesn't help him much.
PRO wastes more than half of his opening argument by incompletely revisiting the definition of JUSTIFIED and summarizing the history of the Revolution. As CON will point out, the definition of JUSTIFIED was provided as part of the tournament. If you are going repeat that term, do so in the DEBATE DESCRIPTION and failing that, make sure your definition matches the definition agreed to as part of the tournament. PRO's partial definition seems like parsing a condition that was previously agreed.
PRO tries to tilt the burdens a little by suggesting he need only prove that the US had a reasonable cause, while CON must prove not JUSTIFIED. In fact, both have a burden to prove JUSTIFIED/not JUSTIFIED and a reasonable cause strikes this voter as a slightly lower standard. CON correctly holds PRO to a better than status quo standard.
Nevertheless, PRO does give us two justifications:
British dictatorship.
raising taxes on almost everything
PRO also adds some ends to justifiy the means:
American wealth and power
Americans stopped slavery and segregation
Became a home for many immigrants
CON lists the justifications for the American Revolution as twofold:
Taxes
Boston Massacre
This voter find both arguments superficial and non-comprehensive. CON correctly sets aside PRO's post hoc arguments as legitimate justifications. PRO correctly faults CON's understanding of the weight of taxes and the Boston Massacre relative to public mood. While I don't buy even one of CON's many claims of dropped arguments, I have to side with CON's understanding of JUSTIFICATION. JUSTIFICATION happens in the moment of action, not after the results can be appreciated. A police shooting that follows the correct rules of engagement is justified, even if the result is the death of an innocent person. A police shooting done out of fear or haste is unjust even if lives were saved. The ends never justifies the means.
Ultimately, it is CON's superior understanding of JUSTIFICATION that wins him this debate.
As an American, I am sad to see the original great geopoltical expression of the Age of Enlightment reduced to a few practical considerations. Jefferson wrote one of the most famous and beautiful doctrines in World History to give voice to Colonists' reasons, of which taxes ranks only 13th out of 26 causes and for which tyranny is generally applicable to all. CON correctly faults American hypocrisy when Jefferson declares "all men were created equal," but nobody can take from Americans the foundation of a great nation on that great and radical principle and certainly nobody can say that Americans have not struggled with the meaning of that profundity daily and ever since.
Both sides were pretty weak on sources in an subject where the scholarship could not be more plentiful. Still, I am giving sources to CON because of some significant counterfactual errors made by PRO. PRO gets George III's name wrong. PRO falsely claims that the US was a leader in abolition and de-segregaton when in fact the US famously fought a civil war over the issue decades after most of Europe had adopted Napoleonic views of human rights. Racism is one of the most core chracteristics of Americanism and while there are certainly different kinds of racism I don't think there was ever a time when the US could be said to rank amoung the least racist countries in the world.
This has to be one of the toughest debates I have ever voted on. This debate could have easily been a tie, but I think I will have to favor CON ever so slightly. The reason for this is that in the 1st round, PRO sets up his argumentative framework as America being prosperous and powerful as a result of the insurrection against Britain, and therefore was justified. What I expected to see was many more arguments about the ideas behind the Magna Carta, the efficiency of local representation, and the rule of local oligarchs (rich white farm owners as CON discussed) being more efficient than distant oligarchs. I saw none of that from PRO and instead tried to lay out a moral framework for the revolution completely dropping the utilitarian argument that he started in round one. Then the debate shifted to moral arguments....
Since CON defeated him on the moral grounds (especially on the slavery point) I'll have to award this one to CON.
I'll add a vote after my finals on Friday
bump
I think you'd be very good at arguing the Pro side of this, especially after reading your vote.
To me, one of the great WHAT IFs of world history is what if Great Britain had trusted the wisdom of Voltaire and Hume and Smith and simply offered the whole franchise to the Americas, India, Africa, Middle East- as subjected people rose up and demanded equality, what if Great Britain had simply recognized that equality (that was, essentially, the philosophy of the English elite in the late 18th century). Instead of fighting for control and eventually losing the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, SIngapore, India, South Africa, Egypt, etc what all those peoples were still citizens of the greatest nation ever, with London its capitol? There may still have been world wars but they would probably have come earlier with smaller death toll but I think the UK would have been so dominant that perhap we'd now have something more one world government. Would one world government as defined by England be a sustainable and enduring model? Hard to say with certainty, but I do think that British stinginess with the Imperial citizen franchise cost England a real shot at still being the world's one great superpower.
I haven’t forgotten about this guys, I’m working on it.
Heh, I always try to vote first before reading the comments as I want to try to be unbiased.
Four
Three
Thanks! I felt it was a bit below my usual standard, but I think I did enough to uphold my part of the debate.
Don't want to say too much before the judges vote, but excellent job.
I'm definitely guilty as well—perhaps why I'm more keen to notice those kinds of things.
Yes, it was. I'm a real dunce when I wake up in the morning.
I assume "Please vote PRO!" was a typo?
"1. America"
That's right. Second place is for chumps.
Countries that played a role in American revolution
1. America
2. England
3. Cherokee nation
4. Italy
5. France
6. Spain
America won because there was a bigger chess match going on. England just could not hit America with everything they had.
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html
2: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/parliament-and-the-american-colonies-before-1765/the-stamp-act-and-the-american-colonies-1763-67/
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
4: https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/
5: https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/confronting-the-national-debt-the-aftermath-of-the-french-and-indian-war/
6: https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre
7: https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution
8: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/american-revolution-faqs
9: https://www.ushistory.org/us/23b.asp
10: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/
11. Ibid 4
12. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/british-view-americas-slave-trade
"World History"
So the history of America
Yeah, but I first learned about the American Revolution in World History.
World history? I think you mean American history.
The American Revolution is one of my favorites in World History.
I LOVE this subject!