the us government would easily put down a right wing militia
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Benson and Weber cite Abraham Lincoln's executive actions during the Civil War and Dwight Eisenhower's 1957 intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas as precedents for the executive use of force in crushing a rebellion. The President would be able to mobilize the military and Department of Homeland Security to recapture a secessionist city and restore the elected government.https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-is-how-the-us-military-would-put-down-an-armed-rebellion
18 U.S.C. § 1385 – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatusAccordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an "Act of Congress", have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.[2
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
- Easily is the wrong adverb to employ when discussing the suppression of any insurrection, whatever the scale. We are defining easily as "without discomfort or anxiety" and any usurpation is likely to provoke violence. CON offers that any degree of violence results in discomfort and/or anxiety for both those injured and those doing the injury. If we look at a recent incident of insurgency that posed little threat to the USFG and offered minimal resistance,
- the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, for example, we see that even though there was only one death an one mild injury a considerable amount of discomfort and anxiety was experienced all around
- 40 people under siege for 40 days in winter without much food or heat,
- Hundreds of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials called upon the maintain that siege in winter, at considerable taxpayer expense,
- the desecration of sacred Native American artifacts and sites
- destruction of bird habitat in one of the US's premiere bird sanctuaries. 
- PRO and CON would probably agree that the Malheur occupation was about as easy to suppress as anti-government armed uprisings get. Nevertheless, considerable pain, discomfort, and anxiety was visited on hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals.
- PRO is guaranteeing the results of future US conflicts which is always dangerous. Circumstances change. Loyalties shift. Technology unbalances even the most careful preparations. Historically speaking, high levels of confidence in the established defenses often predicates spectacular failure.
- The Battle of the Teutoberg Forest,
- The blitzkreig Sichelschnitt overrun of the Maginot line, and
- The 9/11 terrorist attacks are all examples of unexpected strategies overcoming overwhelmingly superior forces.
- In order to win this debate, PRO must establish that PRO retains the capacity, supernatural or otherwise, to accurately predict the future outcome of any and all right wing insurgencies.
- What if a right-wing majority government refused to suppress, perhaps even endorsed a right-wing uprising?
- Our present right-wing majority government is currently, unexpectedly facing a potential loss of executive power in the near term. It is certainly not outside the range of possible short range scenarios that both the sitting President and vice-President are impeached in the next few months, installing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as president, who's legitimacy was questioned by Trump just yesterday:
"The whole party is taken over by the Left," Trump said. "They've been taken over by a radical group of people, and Nancy Pelosi, as far as I'm concerned, unfortunately, she’s no longer the speaker of the House." 
- Even the likelihood of a non-electoral transfer of executive power to the Democrats could provoke insurrection in the right-wing. So what if armed groups acted to defend Trump's tenure? Can we be certain that Trump would oppose such a force? Can we be certain that the US military would oppose such a force without a clear chain-of-command or obvious Commander-in-Chief?
- If the US Govt was paralyzed by politics or even actively pro-militia, how much more unpredictable might the effectiveness of any right-wing uprising prove?
- What if the Commander-in-Chief was removed by coup or assassination or health emergency or accident? If the chain of command can't be quickly established, would military response be delayed, perhaps even to a disastrous degree?
- What if large portions of the military were sufficiently sympathetic with a right-wing insurgency that the military either refused to fight or even joined the rightist cause?
- The US Military has always leaned Right- and has been increasingly right-leaning ever since the end of the draft.
A 2009 Department of Homeland Security (HLS) report further warned that the combination of the election of the first African American president, a downturn in the economy, and an influx of unemployed vets returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan were potential flashpoints and that military personnel and veterans were being targeted by far-right extremist groups. 
- The US's deadliest and most enduring right wing organization, the Ku Klux Klan, was founded by Confederate Veterans immediately following the Civil War.
- The US's deadliest single of domestic terrorism, the 1995 Murrah Federal Bldg. bombing was carried out by a Gulf War veteran.
- What if a right-wing military insurgency received substantial backing from foreign enemies?
- A US Senate report issued just this morning found that the National Rifleman's Association, an ostensibly apolitical, non-profit organization:
"...engaged in a years-long effort to facilitate the U.S.-based activities of Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin. The U.S. Justice Department determined the activity of those Russian nationals—one now convicted of a felony charge of conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent and the other designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for the Russian Federation’s global malign activity, including attempting to subvert Western democracies and malicious cyber activities—amounted to an illegal conspiracy to gain access to American organizations through the NRA." 
- What if a right-wing militia adopted terrorist tactics on an uprecedented scale? Simultaneously bombing public institutions (like McVeigh or the '96 Summer Olympics) or major points of infrastructure or large population centers?
- What if right-wing snipers simultaneously assassinated large numbers of left-wing leaders?
- What if a right-wing paramilitary group gained access to one or more weapons of mass destruction?
(Republic of Texas members, from left to right, Robert Otto, Gregg Paulson, and Richard McLaren after their arraignment in 1997.)
After several months—with, thankfully, no deaths—the two were finally arrested when federal agents posing as supporters managed to infiltrate the property. Elaine and Edward Brown, who became involved in the "patriot" movement in the 1990s, were sentenced to at least 30 years in prison, leaving behind a piece of property so booby-trapped that potential buyers weren’t allowed to tour the land when the government put it up for auction. (Unsurprisingly, no one bought it and, as of 2015, the property remains unsold.)
(Ed Brown standing outside of his barricaded home in Plainfield, New Hampshire in 2007.)The Montana Freemen, 1996
Three years after Waco, the Montana Freemen, a group of separatists who refused to recognize any form of government, faced off against the federal government for 81 days when a local bank attempted to foreclose on their leader’s 940-acre ranch. (Several threats against local officials, including a call to hang the county sheriff, probably didn’t help their argument.)
While the Freemen eventually surrendered and no lives were lost, they were still convicted on several dozen charges, including the attempt to cash $18 billion worth of fake checks.
(A still from a videotape from an unidentified Freemen released to the media from their compound in Jordan, Montana.)Waco, Texas (1993)
One of the deadliest standoffs in recent memory, the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian cult in 1993 left 86 dead—the vast majority of them members of the church—after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives attempted to raid their Waco, Texas, temple, suspecting that they’d been stockpiling illegal weapons. (They also suspected that the group’s founder, David Koresh, had been practicing polygamy and statutory rape, having sex with girls as young as 12.)https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2016/01/history-standoff-militia-government yes often the army refuses to use it full force for pr reasons
- In the absence of contradiction, PRO has accepted CON's proffered DEFINITIONS and BURDEN of PROOF.
- PRO has not objected or corrected CON's interpretation of the resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that the
present USFG or any near future USFG could eliminate any internal
right-wing paramilitary force under any circumstances without any
discomfort or anxiety. CON will concede that under most contemporary
circumstances, a violent conflict between some unnamed Right-wing
militia and the US Military should end in victory for the USFG but even a
small degree of violence would produce some discomfort and anxiety,
causing PRO's condition of "easy" to fail There are also exceptional
circumstances and scenarios that might cause the USFG tremendous
difficulty or under some unlikely conditions cause the USFG to fall.
- We have agreed to define "easily" as "without discomfort or anxiety." To win this debate, PRO must prove that the USFG can always squelch any right wing militia of any size or capacity without discomfort or anxiety. VOTERS will note that none of the examples offered by PRO qualify as "easily put down militias" as defined in this debate.
- One Republic of Texas seccessionist killed in 1997
- Ed & Elaine Brown's car and property destroyed, dog impounded.
- 4 ATF agents and 82 Branch Davidians killed in Waco.
- [The Oathkeepers example seems to describe lawful conduct, so no USFG intervention was required]
- The USFG failed to intervene to prevent the Greensboro massacre or suppress the murdering Klansmen colluding with local officials, so not put down at all.
- VOTERS should find that none of PRO's examples qualify as "easily put down" and should find that PRO failed to make this case.
- PRO dropped CON's argument and offered no evidence that PRO is able to accurately predict or guarantee the results of future right-wing insurrections.
- PRO ignored all of CON's hypothetical situations that might upset the balance of power or otherwise influence the outcome of future right-wing insurrections.
- Since PRO failed to prove "easily" and failed to guarantee the future, VOTERS should award ARGUMENT points to CON.
- Since PRO substituted cut & pastes for arguments (including some broken or expired links), VOTERS should award SOURCES points to CON>