Instigator / Pro

YouFound_Lxam

1472

rating

debates

45.59%

won

Topic

#4420

The American Revolution was Justified

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

AustinL0926

Judges

Greyparrot

4 debates / 20 votes

Voted

whiteflame

27 debates / 206 votes

Voted

oromagi

117 debates / 397 votes

Voted

WeaverofFate

4 debates / 10 votes

No vote

Parameters

Publication date: 04.20.2023 03:55AM
Last updated date: 05.11.2023 02:37AM
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

Contender / Con

AustinL0926

1636

rating

debates

93.94%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

YouFound_Lxam

04.20.2023 05:18PM

Pro

I want to start of by saying we don't really need to define any word besides justified, because everyone has a basic knowledge of what the American revolution is.

Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

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.

Let's start with why the Americans started this War. To give a little history lesson this is what happened:

https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution

"American Revolution, also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America. 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. Until early in 1778 the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire, but afterward it became an international war as France (in 1778) and Spain (in 1779) joined the colonies against Britain. Meanwhile, the Netherlands, which provided both official recognition of the United States and financial support for it, was engaged in its own war against Britain. From the beginning, sea power was vital in determining the course of the war, lending to British strategy a flexibility that helped compensate for the comparatively small numbers of troops sent to America and ultimately enabling the French to help bring about the final British surrender at Yorktown."

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 Henry III used the colonists and unfairly taxed them for the sole reason of paying off debt. I would say this is unfair. 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.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution

AustinL0926

04.23.2023 04:46AM

Con

I. Preamble

In this opening argument, I will prove that the American revolution was not justified, for several reasons.

I will then rebut my opponent’s arguments, as failing to affirm the resolution.

II. Constructives

To repeat, the definition of “justified” as given by the tournament director is having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action.

1. A Faulty Foundation

To start off, the fundamental reasons for starting the American Revolution were not justified. Although there are several incidents that are widely cited, I will address each of them in turn, and show why they do not qualify as a “good or legitimate reason” for violent revolution.

a. Taxation

One 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 Oppression

Finally, 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.

2. Revolution Itself Was Not Justified

a. Violent Revolution

Now that I have established that the grievances of the colonists were exaggerated, and certainly not qualifying as a “good or legitimate” reason for rebelling, I will add another argument showing why the revolution was not justified.

To put it simply, violence should only ever be used in self-defense. This ought to be a prime facie moral standard, yet it was clearly violated by the deliberate instigation of war, as well as failing to exhaust all peaceful methods of redress. [7]

The colonists were aware of the toll that starting the revolution would cause, both in terms of money and lives. Over 25,000 lives were lost as a direct result of the war, while hundreds of thousands more were uprooted. [8]

b. Worse than the status quo

I now bring the judges’ attention to the second part of the definition of justified: “more preferable than not doing said action.”

In every regard, the revolution was worse than the existing status quo.

First, the colonists had complained about “no taxation without representation”. After the war ended, the new government started taxing people again. And wouldn’t you know, the vast majority of people (as in anyone not rich, white, and male) didn’t have any representation in the new government. [9]

Second, the revolution caused devastating consequences for newly independent America. The war cost over $2.75 billion (inflation-adjusted), leading to economic collapse in the years following the revolution. [10]

III. Rebuttals

“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.”

As an addition to the framework: per the second part of the definition of “justified,” PRO must also prove that the revolution was superior to the status quo.

“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.”

I hardly see how this is sufficient reason for violent rebellion – as a reminder, the colonies were part of Britain, and funded by it as well. Under this logic, a state could secede from the United States if the federal government passed a law that it didn’t like.

“The basic reason for this war was for the Americans to free themselves from British dictatorship.”

False, and clearly a bare assertion. Britain mostly allowed the colonies to govern themselves, and colonists in fact enjoyed high standards of living as well as low taxation. [11]

“The British did many things that lead up to this, like raising taxes on almost everything you can buy and sell.”

This is a gross exaggeration of the scope and scale of British taxation. As sourced earlier, it amounted to only 1-1.5% of an average colonist’s statutory income – a ridiculously light amount.

“Britain's reason for this? The reason was to pay off War funds that they owed to other people”

Also false. Britain raised taxes to help pay off debts from the French and Indian War, where they spent an enormous sum of money to defend the colonies.

“King [George] III used the colonists and unfairly taxed them for the sole reason of paying off debt.”

Britain in fact provided far more funding to the colonies than it received back through taxes, which I proved earlier.

“The Americans had enough of paying off their money so they started the Revolutionary War.”

PRO apparently believes that the colonists ought to pay no taxes at all.

“They did this not to gain power, but to gain freedom for everyone.”

Freedom for everyone except enslaved people? Also, as mentioned earlier, most people had no more political rights under the new government than under the old one. It was primarily rich, white, landowners who received “freedom.”

“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. “

PRO tries to retroactively justify the revolution, making this rather untopical. However, I will quickly address this regardless, due to the sheer number of false statements.

First, they did not come out “stronger than ever.” In fact, the new government suffered a number of crisises following independence.

Second, America’s rise as a world superpower was mainly caused by WWII, which devastated European nations while leaving America more or less untouched.

Third, America was one of the last countries to stop slavery and segregation. Slavery was only outlawed in 1865, while segregation was outlawed in 1964. The British Empire abolished the slave trade nearly 50 years earlier than America, while it never had segregation in the first place. [12]

“None of this would have happened if the Revolutionary War didn't take place. I would say that it was very much justified.”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

IV. Conclusion

In this opening argument, I have:

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

Please vote CON!

V. Sources

Sources in comments!

Round 2

YouFound_Lxam

04.25.2023 09:14PM

Pro

Rebuttals:

a. Taxation

One 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]

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.

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 Oppression

Finally, 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.

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.

Cons arguments fail to address the underlying issues that led to the American Revolution and the potential benefits that resulted from it. While the revolution may not have been a perfect solution, it was a legitimate and justifiable response to the colonists' grievances and led to the establishment of a new nation that has had a profound impact on the world.

AustinL0926

04.28.2023 04:26PM

Con

I. Framework

As a reminder, PRO shares the burden of proof. As a result, he must prove that the American Revolution satisfies the criteria laid out in the definitions, namely that it was:

Done for a good and legitimate reason
More preferable than not doing said action

Neither of these have been proven.

Furthermore, PRO has cited no other justification for the Revolution than taxation: as such, if I prove that taxation was not a sufficient reason, then I should win this debate.

II. Extensions

Revolution Itself was Not Justified

Dropped. Extend.

Constructive: Tax money was used to pay for the defense of the colonies

Dropped. Extend.

Constructive: The Boston Massacre was not a valid justification

Dropped. Extend.

III. Rebuttals

“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."

Once again, I repeat the statistic that colonists were taxed at a rate of only 1-1.5%. PRO concedes that the colonists suffered no actual harm from the taxation.

Consider the following: can a theoretical grievance really be a "good and legitimate reason” for violent revolution? Having a justifiable reason for being annoyed is not the same as having a justifiable reason for starting bloodshed. PRO has not successfully equated the two.

Again, whether indirect representation was sufficient is a matter of opinion – but a matter of opinion is not a casus belli. What is not a matter of opinion is that the colonists received generous amounts of aid from Britain, yet didn't want to give anything back. Furthermore, PRO has dropped my point that the colonists did not exhaust peaceful and non-violent methods to resolve their issues.

Furthermore, PRO has also ignored my point that in the new colonial government, most citizens received no more direct representation than before the revolution happened. He has also dropped my points that colonists were actually taxed more after the revolution. As such, PRO has failed to show how the revolution led to an improvement over the status quo.

“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.”

Extend my points regarding how Britain spent over 60 million pounds in aid defending the colonies.

The colonists wanted it both ways: receive enormous amounts of aid from Britain, yet not be subject to any British control. This so-called “oppression” not only fails to even come close to being a justification for revolution, but undermines its legitimacy as well.

“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.”

As a reminder, PRO’s obligation is not only to show that there were valid reasons for the revolution, but that they were justified as well. He has not done that here – in fact, my findings that the British were not at fault has gone uncontested.

Furthermore, the British government had protected the colonists' rights and interests, by protecting them from foreign aggression, as well as taxing them at far lower rates than in the mainland.

“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.”

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.

"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.”

The “democratic government” brought by the Revolution only benefited a small minority of people: white male landowners who were not Jews or Catholics. This minority amounted to around 10% of the population (and less in some states). [1]

IV. Conclusion

In this round, I have:

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

Please vote PRO!

V. Sources

1: https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america

Extend all sources from R1.

Round 3

YouFound_Lxam

04.29.2023 07:35AM

Pro

Thank you for this debate, I will wrap my case up in a conclusion argument.

Rebuttals:

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.

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.

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 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.

Thank you for this debate.

AustinL0926

05.02.2023 04:58AM

Con

I. Framework

I have refuted PRO’s main constructive argument during the 1st and 2nd rounds (taxation), and he has entirely dropped these rebuttals, thereby conceding this point. His other points (America became less racist, America became a democracy of the people), have also been refuted.

He has attempted to counter this by introducing new arguments in the 3rd round. Even ignoring this violation of debate ethos, these arguments are unsourced, and should therefore be discarded.

In contrast, I have provided several reasons for why the revolution was not done for a good and legitimate reason, nor was it an improvement over the status quo.

II. Comparison to the Status Quo

One of the main issues in this debate is whether citing America’s success today can be used to justify the resolution. In this section, I will argue that first, the answer is no, and second, even if the answer is yes, this doesn’t really help PRO much.

1. Why Retroactive Justification Doesn’t Work

To repeat, the definition of “justified,” includes that it would be “more preferable than not doing said action.”

To get a bit nit-picky here, this definition uses the present tense – that is, it evaluates whether the action is preferable at the time.

To take a more down-to-earth example for this: consider if I had the choice to go to a movie theater for $5, or go to an identical movie theater for $20, then most people would consider the first choice to be preferable. Even if I would find a 50-dollar bill on the ground while walking to the second movie theater, it wouldn’t change that fact.

Similarly, to use the success of America today in order to justify the revolution is simply a logical fallacy. America’s rise as a world power was caused by numerous unpredictable events, such as WWII and the subsequent economic collapse of most European countries.

2. Why This Doesn’t Help PRO’s case regardless

Even if we allow later events to color our view of whether the revolution was justified, this actually allows me to bring in a distinct set of harms that sufficiently counterbalance PRO’s points.

Consider the following points...

First, if America had stayed as part of the British empire, then it would have abolished slavery 50 years earlier, as I showed previously.

Extending on the previous point, this would also have preserved the sovereignty and way of life of the indigenous people already living in North America – Britain had already passed an act intended to prevent conflict.

Second, it would also have avoided the heavy debt (and the increased taxation needed to pay for it) incurred as a result of the war.

Third, heavy bloodshed could have been avoided as well – again, PRO’s case needs a pretty good justification for violent action, which he has so far failed to provide.

III. Rebuttals

“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.“

See Section II.

“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.”

First of all, this is certainly not the case with every country to ever exist, so discard this as an unsourced argument.

Second of all, my opponent has dropped my argument that the British Empire (which the US was formerly part of), abolished slavery nearly 50 years before the US did, and never had formal segregation. As such, America was certainly not “one of the first” countries to give equal rights.

“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.”

PRO fails to rebut my point that British taxation was neither unreasonable or unjustifiable, so extend.

Regarding a “lack of representation in the British government”: I have already refuted this earlier, in rounds 1 and 2, but I will address it again. Colonists received indirect representation in Parliament – and while this may have been less than what the average British mainland resident received, they also got taxed at a far lower rate and received more aid.

Regarding “violations of their civil liberties”: PRO has not provided any source to substantiate this, so I will duly ignore it.

Regarding a “general feeling of oppression”: unfortunately, I have to argue that “a general feeling” isn’t a particularly strong justification for violent revolution.

“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.”

PRO again introduces a new last-round argument. As he has not provided any source nor example, there is nothing to rebut.

“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.”

What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence – PRO has not sourced this. either.

“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.”

PRO duly ignores the ample historical evidence that I provided in the previous rounds. I also address this in Section II.

“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.”

Well, I do have the advantage of using more than one source – so I think that I have provided ample historical evidence.

I have also disproved both of these – the revolution was not done for a good and legitimate reason, and it was not more preferable than not doing it.

IV. Final Focus

To finish out this debate, I will show why PRO has not proved the resolution, and why I have disproved it.

1. PRO’s arguments

PRO’s only sourced argument, to justify the revolution, is taxation. Every single other argument has not been substantiated by a single source.

However, I have refuted the argument about taxation being a “good or legitimate reason” for rebelling, by proving that colonists were taxed at very low (and premium) rates – and that a theoretical lack of representation does not suffice to justify violent revolution.

PRO has also attempted to argue that revolution was better than the status quo, but I have also refuted this as well, in all three rounds.

2. CON’s arguments

In contrast, I have disproved both parts of the resolution.

First, I have shown that there was no “good or legitimate reason” for rebelling. PRO has dropped these points, leaving them uncontested.

In addition, I also demonstrated that peaceful methods of resolution were still possible, and that the few grievances the colonists had were not a justifiable reason for starting a war that would claim thousands of lives.

Second, I proved that the revolution did not lead to an improvement to the status quo, and in fact worsened it in some ways.

3. Conclusion

Thanks to my opponent for this debate, and all judges for taking the time to judge this debate. Please vote CON!

WeaverofFate

05.11.2023 02:37AM

#21

I'll add a vote after my finals on Friday

Sir.Lancelot

05.06.2023 02:10AM

#20

bump

Savant

05.05.2023 11:11PM

#19

-->

@oromagi

I think you'd be very good at arguing the Pro side of this, especially after reading your vote.

oromagi

05.05.2023 10:07PM

#18

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.

whiteflame

05.04.2023 02:19PM

#17

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

@AustinL0926

I haven’t forgotten about this guys, I’m working on it.

Greyparrot

05.02.2023 11:59PM

#16

Heh, I always try to vote first before reading the comments as I want to try to be unbiased.

Savant

05.02.2023 10:31PM

#15

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

Four

PREZ-HILTON

05.02.2023 10:27PM

#14

Three

AustinL0926

05.02.2023 05:41AM

#13

-->

@Savant

Thanks! I felt it was a bit below my usual standard, but I think I did enough to uphold my part of the debate.

Savant

05.02.2023 05:05AM

#12

-->

@AustinL0926

Don't want to say too much before the judges vote, but excellent job.

Savant

04.29.2023 03:57AM

#11

-->

@AustinL0926

I'm definitely guilty as well—perhaps why I'm more keen to notice those kinds of things.

AustinL0926

04.29.2023 03:54AM

#10

-->

@Savant

Yes, it was. I'm a real dunce when I wake up in the morning.

Savant

04.28.2023 10:58PM

-->

@AustinL0926

I assume "Please vote PRO!" was a typo?

Savant

04.25.2023 09:22PM

-->

@PREZ-HILTON

"1. America"

That's right. Second place is for chumps.

PREZ-HILTON

04.25.2023 09:20PM

-->

@Savant

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.

AustinL0926

04.23.2023 04:43AM

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

Savant

04.21.2023 08:57PM

"World History"
So the history of America

Sir.Lancelot

04.21.2023 08:54PM

-->

@Savant

Yeah, but I first learned about the American Revolution in World History.

Savant

04.21.2023 08:47PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

World history? I think you mean American history.

Sir.Lancelot

04.21.2023 08:31PM

The American Revolution is one of my favorites in World History.

Sir.Lancelot

04.21.2023 08:30PM

I LOVE this subject!

whiteflame

05.06.2023 04:11PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

oromagi

05.05.2023 09:49PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Greyparrot

05.02.2023 11:56PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.