Instigator / Pro
8
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1411

the us government would easily put down a right wing militia

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

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

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:

I would actually give pro conduct for concession, but I have been corrected that it must be an explicit rather than implicit one.

"One of them was shot dead days later." It took days to handle a petty half dozen people uprising, which does not come anywhere near close to fitting the definition con provided (and pro accepted) of easy. That it would not be a threat to the union, doesn't mean it's easy for the boots on the ground. Easy would be if we could settle them with quick drone strikes without consequence.

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:

I'm going to be honest, the moment I saw Pro's tepid response to Con's case, I knew that Oromagi won. While Pro offers some basic analysis, the totality of the Con case was ignored. The issue is that Con's analysis of the specific verbiage of the resolution posed a significant threat to Pro's case. If "easily" is defined as "not causing discomfort," and toppling a militia necessarily causes "discomfort" for the US (as shown by both competitors' cases,) then I have to vote Con sans any retort by Pro. This is not to say that there was no path to victory. Every action, be it waking up in the morning, presenting a debate case, or rummaging through a trash can to find a half-eaten burger lead to some level of discomfort. If Con contended that "easily" should be defined, in the context of the resolution, as "easily compared to most operations that the US deals with," then Pro would have a leg to stand on. Additionally, the other points, as spurious as some of them are in my opinion, are extended regardless. As a quick side note: I would recommend using the term "on balance" in resolutions. It means "on average," and allows you to suggest that the "typical" right-wing militia wouldn't pose a threat. The word "typical" is important. It means that the hypothetical super-group of right wing militia could be discounted completely since most right-wing militias are minute in both manpower and funding. As it stands, Pro's reluctance to engage with Con means Pro's case topples like a trash can filled with half-eaten burgers if said trash receptacle was accidentally bumped into by a voracious eater with low standards. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a hankering for burgers.