Instigator / Pro
4
1616
rating
40
debates
67.5%
won
Topic

Resolved: Civil war is upon us. It isn’t North v. South, nor East v. West, and not even Hatfield v. McCoy. It’s law and order v. anarchy

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
5
1725
rating
35
debates
85.71%
won
Description
~ 3,227 / 5,000

Resolved: Civil war is upon us. It isn’t North v. South, nor East v. West, and not even Hatfield v. McCoy. It’s law and order v. anarchy

Full Description:
Resolved: Civil war is upon us. It isn’t North v. South, nor East v. West, and not even Hatfield v. McCoy. It’s law and order v. anarchy. It’s not even politics. This is such a basic conflict, it tears the fabric of the Constitution more than a complicated economic policy of slavery v. abolition divided us 160 years ago. At the root, that is what the Civil War was all about. The South’s economy was built upon slavery, whether or not the practice had basic human rights as its conflict, and that conflict nearly prevented the Constitution’s ratification in the first place.

With both factions of the Continental Congress that fashioned the Constitution, and ultimately ratified it, ultimately convinced that they could do so, and did so unanimously by State, with that conflict in place, they believed it would ultimately be resolved. That it occupied the better part of another century to accomplish the eradication of slavery, and still another century to think we had solved the animus between the conflicting races of black and white, but really did not, it is stunning to recognize that that the conflict we now engage may have had that old conflict at the heart of it, with the murder of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands, or, literally, the knee of a police officer sworn to uphold law and order, our present conflict, with gunfire, mayhem, and general lawlessness in our streets, has little to do with the old racial issues we have suffered to bear since the inception of our Republic.

War is upon us with the conflict so basic, we dare still call ourselves civilized humans. We are battling each other by weapons as physically lethal as they are mentally and spiritually, in words, corrupting the notion of civilization.

I contend civil war is upon us. I will bear that Burdon of Proof of the resolution. My contender must prove otherwise.

Definitions:

Civil war: A war waged by physical and verbal weapons by factions within a single nation. See “Civilization.”

Upon us: Currently engaging the people in a physical conflict by deliberate death, personal injury and private and public property destruction resulting from the conflict.

Law and Order: A basic civilized condition of a people in mutual agreement to tolerate one another’s differences by peaceful discussion, with agreement to allow a police force to enforce our peaceful interaction, allowing a justice system to peacefully manage our conflicts in a manner that achieves justice for all.

Anarchy: The absence in society of acknowledging the necessity of law and order to maintain peaceful relations between citizens of differing opinion. Synonymous with lawlessness and chaos. Civilization in conflict with itself.

Civilization: The social construct resulting in a large group of people of a single nation, or many nations, who agree to cooperate in peaceful, organized, and productive comportment with one another in spite of recognized differences of cultural values, language, aspirations, religious beliefs, et al. The word also truncates to “Civil” with the same meaning.

Round 1
Pro
I Argument: Civil war is upon us, again. 
 
I.a One hundred sixty years ago, a bombardment fired upon Ft. Sumter, an island fortress in Charleston Harbor in South Carolina on April 12, 1861, by Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard initiated Civil War in this country,[1] not yet one century old. The bombardment signaled the beginning of the Civil War between designated Northern [Abolitionist] and Southern [Slave] States, and proceeded to be the most costly war in lives to American citizens lost in combat [214,938] until World War II [291,557].[2]
 
I.b It is a popular belief that the United States was founded on slavery, and, indeed, prior to the American Revolution, which endured from April 1775 to September 1783, all 13 colonies engaged in slavery, but only on a limited scale in the northern colonies.[3] During the Revolution, many slaves, particularly in the South, with the disruption of the war, escaped and found their way to freedom, finding abolition already popular in the North, while those States had not yet officially moved to abolish slavery.
 
I.b.1 However, by the close of the Revolution, Northern States had either abolished slavery altogether, or had at least adopted emancipation procedures. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, 8 of the 13 colonies, maintained slavery following the Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.[4],[5] Therefore, it is erroneous to claim the U.S. was founded on slavery since 5 of the 13 States were free States, and every slave State, as listed above, ratified the Constitution. In fact, neither “slave,” nor any word derived from it, is given mention in the Constitution until the 13thAmendment of 1865, so, one can hardly make the claim of “foundation” with respect to slavery in the United States.
 
I.c Lest my opponent charge that the Civil War was never an officially declared war by Congress [it was not][6], and, therefore, we are not now engaged in a civil war, that argument, for practical purposes, fails to deny that war is waged. For example, when Germany declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941 [yes, they were first to declare war on the U.S., and we did so against Germany hours later of the same day], the U.S. Navy was already engaging in conflict with German U-boats, so, let’s not get persnickety about who declared war on whom to be engaged in battle.
 
I.d Advance to the present day. While the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis Police Officer in May 2020 has naught to do with slavery, nor does it suggest that a majority of police officers in the country, which number some 800,000 inclusive,[7] are racist, this was but one of some 772 blacks killed by police in the United States during the last four years.[8] That is a rate of 0.0018% of blacks [44M].[9] However, a comparative statistic ought to be viewed: of the 800,000 police officers in the United States, over the same four years, there have been 273 officers deliberately killed by citizens. That is a rate of 0.003%; almost double the rate of blacks killed by police.
 
I.d.1 Therefore, while the emotional state of social agitators would have us believe police are hell-bent on killing blacks, the above statistics indicate it is the police who are being unjustly accused, and losing their lives for it.
 
II Argument: The Seeds of Civil War: Cancel Culture
 
II.a Cancel Culture is a strategy of the current Civil War, and its primary vehicle appears to be Twitter,[10] and, secondarily, violent protest in the streets of cities that seem to curiously be led by Democrats, and, thirdly, by “violence” against statuary of a particular sort. I will address the latter two in r2. But Twitter can be incredibly deceiving. Its stats are alarming in the lack of reality of influence. In the U.S., 68M US citizens are active, monthly users; that’s only 27% of adults.[11] Of U.S. accounts, 10% of users [6.8M] create 80% of the content. Most alarming, Twitter estimates there are 330M active users worldwide, and that 23M of them [7%] are bots.
 
II.a.1 Twitter, in the hands of the new civil warriors, is a perfectly acceptable means of communication. But, in spite of being the second-most influencer in the world on Twitter in 2019, exceeded only by Taylor Swift, it seems Donald Trump’s account is the most reviled by these warriors.[12] He is certainty the most reviled by Democrat Washington. That ought to tell us something about both how absurd this civil war is, as well as the absurdity of the perceived reality of Twitter is by the Socialist Democrats who are the instigators of this civil war.
 
II.a.2 The mayhem in our cities is condoned by their leaders,[13] and the spike in violence is mostly disregarded by city leaders in their protest against federal officers deployed to control it.[14] In other words, Cancel Culture is a watchword the majority of us may have never heard, and have no idea what it means. We have surely heard of revisionist history. Same thing. In their world, the civil warriors have spilled out of their Twitter accounts where history is completely ignored by cancellation, as if saying so makes it so, to use the streets of our cities, lined with our businesses, police departments, government buildings, and homes, as well as the streets, themselves, as canvases, burning, looting, vandalizing and destroying, not to mention taking lives in reckless abandon. Is this not war, in very real terms of count of cost of lives and property?
 
 
 



[4] ibid


[11] ibid


 


Con
PRO=FauxLaw=These below:
  • Civil war is happening in 2020 within this civilization
  • It does not take form in:
    • North v South
    • East v West
    • Hatfield v McCoy
  • A war is happening between law and lawlessness within said civilization

CON=Intelligence_06=PRO’s proof is not sufficient

Argument I: The protesters do not represent lawlessness, anarchy nor chaos

So now we know that it is true that there is a conflict between the police and the citizens who are protesting(especially those of African descent). The police force believes that police brutality is justified and the citizens believe that police brutality is incorrect and the police are racist.

I don’t know how authoritarian-right someone has to be to believe that the protesters represent anarchy and lawlessness, but I can understand that and *hmm hmm* disprove that with evidence. The protesters are mostly just liberals, and they don’t want chaos, they just want a new approach of governing the nation, which is nothing lawless at all. Their belief is indeed still law and order, and the only reason they have any conflict is that their law and order conflicts with the police and the government’s law and order.

It is basically true that the authoritarian rightist government of the US wants to keep its own definition of law and order. There is definitely no argument on that.

I have massive numbers of evidence about what the protesters want.
[1] More regulation on police forces to ensure that they are less racist and corrupt(The police have always been racist[2] and corrupt[3] these days).
Now that we have been established how corrupt and racist the police could be, let’s explore what other BLM protesters want.
[4] BLM protesters want civil rights especially for Black Americans, and equality between the White majority of Americans and the minorities such as Black Americans. Peaceful protests are encouraged and no lawlessness is endorsed. They want law and order, just their own way.
[5] Defund the police, more freedom, etc… It is just more freedom, and libertarianism is far from anarchism unless my opponent is so authoritarian that he thinks that human rights are bad for people. More liberty means more room for rule changes, and rules still exist as laws without a need to address a source. More room for freedom however is far from anarchism as the protesters still want the nation to be in control, just with less suppression, not without control.
[6] Better control, not no control. Changing the petrol engine in place for an electric engine is not equivalent to no engines at all. They absolutely do not want to bring down society, they want law and order and justice for Black Americans and other minorities.

Argument II: Is it even a civil war? Evidence shakes its head.
My opponent defined “Civil war” as a war within a single civilization, for example, The US civil war in the 1860s. However he did not define what a war is, so I will[7].

Note: A war must contain these, according to the definitions:
  • A serious, large-scale conflict(A gun-duel and a fight in the hood does not count as war)
  • Weapons
  • At least two separate sides

Subpoint II.a: Not a war
“Upon us”, so it should be ongoing. Now, what wars are ongoing[8]? George Floyd protests are not listed on the complete list. Y’all think this thing is big for like 2 months, and no one is adding it to the list? There must be a reason, and the most explainable reason is that it is NOT a war. I, so far, see no one saying that it is a war going on except for one person on this site who is debating within this topic.

It is with no doubt that the military does not participate on the pro-government side against the protests, but neither does such ongoing protests count as “war on police”[9]. Police aren’t militarized at this moment of time. The protests simply do not count as a war in the eyes of the government. Even if my opponent acknowledges that the government did not officially declare the 1860s civil war as a real war, at least that is classified as a war by literally everyone who knows any American history.

If said protests count as a war, then a gunshot duel in the good old’ western US should also count as a war. 

Subpoint II.b: Not civil
In order to let PRO prove his case, he must prove that the conflict is within this country[10]. However, evidence[11] suggests that protests are popping everywhere. Japan, Taiwan, even New Zealand. They simply aren’t the same civilization as the United States. If this can still count as a civil war, then the battle between one country and various organizations from the WORLD can. That is what US Government v Protesters are. The latter is not from a single country and does not endorse anarchism and lawlessness: They want law and order, specifically equality and human rights. Both sides want laws and they want different laws, and you can’t just call protests “war”.

Conclusions:
  • What is happening is not law vs. anarchy
  • It is not civil
  • It is not a war.

Argument done. I shot all my guns at once because reloading is swift.

[1]https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/george-floyd-protests-dallas-changes-police/287-3a793b3c-406a-4ff0-bd19-4a0391c5c752
[2]https://www.vox.com/2020/6/6/21280643/police-brutality-violence-protests-racism-khalil-muhammad
[3]https://www.theroot.com/nevada-sheriff-threatens-to-stop-responding-to-911-call-1844543797
[4]https://www.vox.com/2020/6/4/21278668/george-floyd-protests-police-brutality-breonna-taylor
[5]https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/06/09/872859084/here-s-what-black-lives-matter-d-c-is-calling-for-and-where-the-city-stands
[6]https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/capital-region/public-safety/2020/07/14/blm-protester--painting-black-lives-matter-is-not-what-we-want
[7]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#21st_Century
[10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_Floyd_protests_map#/map/0

Round 2
Pro
I Rebuttal: “The police are racist”
 
I.a In spite of careful argument to the contrary in my r1, Con has chosen to take his r1 argument [I] in that direction: “…the police are racist.”  I avoided it because such claims make automatic issue that it is so because the majority of police officers are alleged to express racism when that is not and cannot be demonstrated. I will accept that some police officers are racist, but that is not a condition that reflects the majority of the 800,000[1] members of the police force, just as it is not a reflection of the entire non-black U.S. population. Indeed, what is to stop one from alleging that anyone making the unproven claim is not guilty, themselves, of the allegation?
 
I.b As it happens, 12.8% of the police force are black officers[2] when blacks represent 13.4% of the U.S. population.[3] Those two percentages are well within the margin of error of virtually every political poll in the country, a mere difference of 0.6%, when political polls typically have MoEs greater than ±3%, a total spread of 6%. Polls are not hard data, and, when their MoEs are greater than ±3%, they never will be. Neither are journalists necessarily historians, as claimed by Con regarding his source for his police racism charge. Anna North, a journalist with a writing degree from the University of Iowa, employed by Vox, according to her bio, covers gender issues, but apparently is authoritative enough to convince Con she’s an historian [in which I have a PhD].
 
I.c There’s an interesting article about the issue of policing and the evidence of racial profiling among police officers, but, in the end, the data is just not yet conclusive enough for Pro to make an allegation that “the science is in,” as is the case when making a positive claim such as Con did. Well, the science isn’t. “Some interventions could help to reduce racism and rein in the use of unnecessary force in police work, but the evidence base is still evolving.”[4]  And, “…although researchers are encouraged by the momentum for change, some are also concerned that, without ample evidence to support new policies, leaders might miss the mark.”[5]  One of the more interesting data points that has emerged since the police-involved death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO in 2014, is that, “…training can be difficult, however, particularly in smaller jurisdictions, which have been shown to have a higher rate of police shooting civilians.”[6]  That dataset says that small town fatal shootings per 100 criminal homicides by police is a lopsided ratio of 18:3.5, where 18 fatal police-caused shootings occur in small towns of under 10,000, while 3.5 fatal police-caused shootings occur in cities of over 250,000. 
 
II Rebuttal: “Is this even a civil war?”
 
II.a I refute Pro’s argument that this is not a civil war, and reply that in spite of all the data above, the incidents of violence that is documented [and I have done so in r1] since the George Floyd murder last May, has occurred in over 2,000 American cities, in over 40% of U.S. counties, involving between 15M to 26M people in the U.S. with the Black Lives Matter organization at the root of it.[7]
 
II.b Contrary to Pro’s allegation that “I don’t know how authoritarian-right someone has to be to believe that the protesters represent anarchy and lawlessness,”I present D.C., where St. John’s Church was set on fire, and statuary attacked,[8] Indianapolis, where police offices were injured,[9] Seattle, where looting and rioting, and occupation of a 6-block area, and a police precinct, and ultimately a murder,[10] Portland, where 2 continuous months of days had attacks and attempts to burn the Federal Court building, and other mayhem and property destruction,[11] Burlington [VT] vandalism against a BPD station…[12]   I can make about a dozen other references, but the point is clear: that this is only a peaceful protest is wishful thinking. Pro wants to define war as “a serious conflict,”with “weapons,”and “at least two separate sides.”He omits that I defined “Civil war” in my Description: A warwaged by physical and verbal weaponsby factionswithin a single nation. See “Civilization.”As I asked in my r1’s conclusion: “…to use the streets of our cities, lined with our businesses, police departments, government buildings, and homes, as well as the streets, themselves, as canvases, burning, looting, vandalizing and destroying, not to mention taking lives in reckless abandon. Is this not war, in very real terms of count of cost of lives and property?”
 
III Argument: The seeds of war: Cancel Culture
 
III.a Time Magazine published an article whose writer said, “Cancel Culture is not real – at least not in the way people think.”[13] She launched into a description of #MeToo as a response to women being marginalized by men as strictly objects of sex, but which has, itself, been marginalized. How cancel culture now works, the writer said, is that if one wants to see someone or something marginalized, it is simply removed. Something like unfriending on Facebook. Poof; it’s marginalized; it’s done. Like pulling down a stature of Andrew Jackson, or Christopher Columbus. Or trying to take down public figures like Donald Trump, or Brett Kavanaugh. 
 
III.a.1 The only problem is that all the mayhem in all the cities I’ve reference above in II.b has caused loss of life and property that someone, someday is going to have to reconcile by restorative payment. You know who that’s going to be, if not what it’s going to cost. War is like that. Nobody knows the cost, but everybody pays.
 
IV Argument: The seeds of war: cities in denial
 
IV.a The City of Portland has seen better days. I’ve been there. It was a nice place, once upon a time. But, this is no fairytale, and no one, to date, is stepping up to the hero prince plate to hit one out of the park. Oh, right; there is no MLB team in Portland, Covid-19, or not. It is not a nice place any longer. 60+ days have turned a jewel of the west coast into broken glass. The broken hearts are hiding behind doors to blind them of the mayhem and destruction. Even the mayor is blinded.
 
IV.b This is repeated in Minneapolis, Chicago, and other cities mentioned above and cited in I.c. The leaders of these cities are blind to the mayhem, and, as my opponent said in his r1, “I don’t know how authoritarian-right someone has to be to believe that the protesters represent anarchy and lawlessness, but I can understand that and *hmm hmm* disprove that with evidence.” I have no idea what Con means by *hmm hmm,*but there is no evidence to demonstrate that destruction and mayhem, and loss of life, is not occurring in these cities under attack by allegedly peaceful protesters. No, I do not contend that 100% of the protest mobs are causing the destruction, but among them, there are destroyers, and they are making war on the cities and citizens.
 
IV.c But, my opponents asks, “Is there even a civil war?”
 
V Argument: The seeds of war: Who needs a statute when I have a sign?
 
V.a There’s a reason why protest signs have made a thriving market of poster board ever since the 60s, the pattern of which we just cannot seem to elevate beyond unreadable scrawls that demand fly-by-night issues. “Make Love, Not War,” has become “Black Lives Matter,” and the two slogans do have a curious nexus. The development of the BLM movement in 2015 was accompanied by a slogan scrawled on poster board signs: “Pigs in a blanket, fry’em like bacon.”[14]  
 
V.b The signs have returned in the current conflict, with the same vitriol as expressed toward police as was then. BLM St. Paul, MN organizer, Rashid Turner, according to CBS News, said then [2015] that no one was advocating for violence against law enforcement. He said it was meant to call for similar treatment between black people and police officers.[15] However, sister city Minneapolis is singing a different BLM tune today. Oh, the chant is the same, and violence against police is rampant, as was the verbal vitriol in 2015, but it’s not war? 
 
V.c In the 60s, the chant “Make Love, Not War” was prevalent, but the physical demonstration was with flowers stuffed into gunbarrels. It’s a curious coincidence with how BLM is stuffing us with pigs in blankets. 
 
V.d We seem to have not elevated the medium in 60 years. We still use poster board. There’s a reason technology has not influence protest: These days, flatscreens are light enough to carry by hand over one’s head, and everyone seems to have some facility with Photoshop to make some really fantastic protest signs to display on flatscreens, but no one does it. Reason: the protesters have abandoned the flowers. They now carry the guns, and a bright, colorful flatscreen protest sign makes a terrific target of destruction.

V.d.1 Well, that's not entirely true, the manner of protest has elevated. Suddenly, cast statues and monuments are offensive to some people, and all of them who engage pulling them down ignore that they have a Constitutional right to be offended, but the right to answer their offense by vandalism, let alone by removal, is not so guaranteed, and amounts tyo nothing more than destruction of property they do not, themselves, own. They, thereby, become offensive to society.
 
V.e But, my opponents asks, “Is there even a civil war?” Since he bothered to define it when I already had, and we happen to agree in principle, there appears to be some doubt on Con’s part, and it just might be true.
 
 
 



[5]ibid


 

[6]ibid


 

Con
Thanks, faux law

Argument 1: The protesters do not represent anarchy in any way

Again, I do not know how radical someone has to be to call the protesters anarchists, but they are just NOT. I have put the four sources in R1, all four shows that the protesters want police regulation, less racism, less police corruption, etc. Does this sound like anarchy to you? 

[1]Portland is one of the cities that fall victim to a large number of violent protests. However, what do they want? From my opponent's paragraph II.b, he just stated that because properties were broken and some police killed, it represents anarchy. That, however, is a failed argument as the source itself states that although the protesters are violent, they are rooting for a cause that is pro-justice, and it is not anarchy.
Experts say the protests bring together a coalition of racial justice proponents and anti-fascist advocates, who have long been active in Portland. The groups share some intersecting grievances and common goals, such as cutting police budgets and installing more civilian oversight of the police.
Experts say that the protesters, including the anti-fascists, want not to bring the police down and bring the state into anarchy and chaos, but merely defund them, cutting the surplus of wealth owned by the police, and having people a right to review the police department(Civilian oversight). Again, libertarianism ≠ anarchism, and the protesters, no matter how violent, are still rooting for a cause that is to reduce cop corruption and Black injustice, and that is no anarchism. It seems like that both me and my opponent have agreed that the police and the government represent law and order, but he has not presented a good argument that protesters = anarchy. If a man broke into his ex's home and ruined everything, it is probably because he hates his ex-girlfriend, not because he is protesting against the law. If a kid always openly shuns a teacher over the face when the teacher's talking, it is probably he hates the teacher, not because he hates the policy, especially if said student still listens to other teachers in the school. BLM protesters, violent or not, would not be so violent when other policies regarding the police are introduced when it does not harm black lives and keep the society not equal. You do not see BLM protesters killing police officers when they just caught a security threat over the state and kept him behind iron bars. You see BLM protesters go out of the house when the police arrested someone who is basically innocent. If the protesters want literal anarchy, then you'd see police officers killed all over the sidewalk regardless of how much good he has done to the people, minus the evil. The protesters want and only want more regulation upon police and that is no anarchy, I repeat.

In Portland, which is one of America’s whitest cities and has a racist history, protesters have maintained a public call for change that has subsided elsewhere in the country.
A racist city has its consequences. It thus became a fact that Black people are killed in more percentages than White Americans, and to keep the society equal, the people are crying outrageously. Wanting to keep the society equal is not anarchy, and the protesters, violent ones, still want equality, which is law and order, instead of anarchy.

Street protests began four days after the death of Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis. As the demonstrations continued and officers used tear gas to disperse crowds, public outrage against aggressive police tactics increased and calls to defund the police escalated.
On June 8, after more than a week of large-scale demonstrations involving thousands of marchers, the chief of the Portland Police Bureau stepped down, saying new leadership was needed to rebuild public trust. Shortly after, a federal judge upheld restrictions on tear gas put in place by Mayor Ted Wheeler, barring the use of the chemical agent except when life or safety was at risk.
The City Council also passed a budget that would cut $15 million from the police in the upcoming fiscal year, a demand sought by protesters.
Something that even the government(that represents the law and order) accept as just would not be anarchism. The government is supposed to benefit society and I think we both agree that anarchism is chaos and lawlessness = bad, do you think something that in the end fuels anarchism would be accepted as just from the governmental supports?

[2]About 80% of the protests are peaceful. From my understanding, my opponent includes ALL protests as the wrong side of the fight, and the fact a count of buildings are ripped and looted, my opponent declares that most protests are violent and it is wrong to think that most protests are peaceful. Facts say otherwise and the peaceful protests, who still qualify as warriors(SJWs, that might be), just walk on the streets and promotes not even violence, just that law and order must be rewritten so it favors equality more than it already is now.

[3] I acknowledge that some protests promote hate, violence, and anarchy, but that is not all. If you have over 80% of the organization support libertarianism, then 20% of them just say "We will kill the fascists! We will kill everyone who supports the government!" does your organization count as a hate group? No. your cause is to support freedom while still keeping law and order, and only so far a minority sub-group hates. It does not qualify as supporting anarchy. The same goes here.

Argument 2: Not a civil war still

From my opponent's definition, a civil war is a WAR waged upon verbal and physical weapons. However, he has left blank the definition for "war". Nothing is a war until the government defines it as so. A gun-duel in the west and a UFC fight does not count as war. The debate is no war. However, according to my opponent's definition, the three are in fact wars. He has dropped the point and I hope he could refute it in R3.

The government, nor any historians, nor any activists, nor any soldier, nor any police officers declare this as a war. My opponent dropped that point.

Protests pop out in various civilizations. It is not a civil war even if it IS a war. Dropped.

My opponent has wasted three counts for writing "seeds of war" when it is just causation. It is not a civil war yet, implies the reasons. Even if it is upon us, it is not a civil war upon us either. It is still not law v anarchy either.

I rest my case.




Round 3
Pro
I Defense: Civil War is upon us… It’s law and order v. anarchy
 
I.a This section heading is a direct quote from the debate resolution. Con has thrown diversions at us, such as offering a definition of civil war, which was already offered in the debate Full Description, for which Con offered different words in his r1, but came to the same essential conclusive definition as having components of “a serious conflict,”with “weapons,”and “at least two separate sides.”  This definition did not differ from my Description definition of “a war” waged by “physical and verbal weapons”by “factions.” 
 
I.b Another Con diversion is that “the police are racist,”as if that is descriptive of the entire body of police forces throughout the country; all 800,000 of them.[1]That an undefined, but small percentage of them are racist would only reflect the fact that an undefined, small percentage of the general population is racist. 
 
I.b.1 Con argues in r2, Arg 1, again, the racist card, but offers no statistics to back his argument. He claims that Portland is one of the whitest cities in America. The New York Times also makes that claim,[2] but they are not a statistical gathering organization, and do not bother to reference one, either. However, I will reference the U.S. Census, relative to the “whiteness” of the 15 largest American cities: Is Portland, OR “one of the whitest,” or one of the largest? Listed #1by white percentage is San Antonio, TX at 69.6%[3] #2 is Austin, TX at 68.3%. #3 is Phoenix, AZ, 65.9%. Listed #15 is, [ironically for the NYT, the largest American city] New York City, at 44%.[4]  Portland does not make the list. Con’s claim that Portland “has a racist history” is not sourced, but merely claimed. The NYT also makes the claim, but they do not source their claim either, not that Con cited them, in any event.     
 
I.b.1.A However, I will offer that Con’s racist argument does fail to deny that civil war is upon us. Not just that, but Con’s claim is void of any citation. It is his opinion, fed by the same mob he claims are peaceful protesters. I will cite: According to statistica.com, from 2017 to 2020 [to date] 1,441 whites have been shot and killed by police. Over the same period, 778 blacks have been shot and killed by police.[5] But, if Con wishes to insist that blacks are killed by police at a greater frequency, let him chew on the fact stated above: that this claim supports my BoP that civil war is upon us. That civil war just may not be as high a racial concern, as I've alleged from r1, as it is a political one with misguided attitudes about the police by any racial element.
 
I.b.1.B Con argues that “a minority sub-group” of protesters hate. I do not disagree. But no part of the definitions of “civil war,” or “anarchy,” or failure of “law and order” require that the violent actions we see in cities spread across the country must be committed by the majority of protesters. In this realm, if one man, or woman, is engaged in anarchy, it is an indictment on our society.
 
I.c A third Con diversion is the slavery issue, which was introduced in the Description as one complicating our first Civil War in the 19thcentury, but I also said that the belief that our country was founded on slavery was shown to be erroneous because “The South’s economy was built upon slavery, whether or not the practice had basic human rights as its conflict, and that conflict nearly prevented the Constitution’s ratification in the first place…”  but “…With both factions of the Continental Congress that fashioned the Constitution, and ultimately ratified it, they were ultimately convinced that they could do so, and did so unanimously by State, with that conflict in place, they believed it would ultimately be resolved.  [ref: Full Description]
 
I.d A fourth Con diversion was the allegation that it was hard “…to believe that the protesters represent anarchy and lawlessness.”  By Con accusation, only “authoritarian-right”  people can believe this. Nevertheless, I offered in my r2, II.a, II.b rebuttal the evidence that a war was being waged by armed protesters against persons and property “…in over 2,000 American cities, in over 40% of U.S. counties, involving between 15M to 26M people in the U.S.”
 
I.d.1 If it does not meet the definition of civil war, why have approximately 232 people in Chicago been shot and killed since beginning of June?[6]  Prior to the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis in May, the murder rate in Chicago was on track this year, to reach just over 300 murders for the whole of 2020. That rate changed in late May, and is now on a track to reach over 700 murders by year’s end, if the current rate continues.[7]
 
I.d.2 If civil war is not upon us, why were six people killed by protests over George Floyd’s murder in less than two weeks in Minneapolis?[8] The foregoing referenced NYT article includes a photograph of the rioting that includes the burning of a police precinct and shops nearby. Persons and property destruction. Is that not war? “Let’s be very clear,”  MN Governor Tim Waltz said. “The situation in Minneapolis is no longer, in any way, about the murder of George Floyd. It is about attacking civil society, instilling fear and disrupting our great cities.[9]  Is that not law and order v. anarchy? Is that not civil war?
 
I.d.3 Con claims in r2 that, Nothing is a war until the government defines it as so.”  Note: this claim is not sourced. I had already rebutted this point, assuming that at some juncture in this debate, my opponent would raise the issue. Recall my proactive statement in r1, argument I.c: Lest my opponent charge that the Civil War was never an officially declared war by Congress [it was not][10], and, therefore, we are not now engaged in a civil war, that argument, for practical purposes, fails to deny that war is waged.”  Declaration of war by a government does not define war. Con did not declare the necessity of government declaration as a necessary element in his own definition. 
 
I.d.4 We have called the Civil War, North/South Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf [“Desert Storm,” and “Desert Shield”], “wars,” but none of them were declared “war” by the U.S. Congress.[11] Con’s claim of “Nothing is war…”is, therefore, false. 
 
I.d.5 Con further claims, r2, Arg 2, It is not a civil war even if it IS a war.”  One might just as easily say, “It is not a civil justice even if it is justice.” For whom, exactly, is justice for, if not the human civility, a.k.a., the citizenry? Our dogs and cats?  War is waged by civil humans, become uncivil, in one nation or among several. My definition of “civil war,” and Con’s definition of “war” use similar words, though different words. Con is straining to define a distinction without a difference, other than that in civil war, the combatants are of a single national people, the which concept does not appear in either of our definitions. “War is hell,”[12] but civil war is not? Absurd. If anyone dropped the argument of war, Con dropped it. Con claims I also dropped the argument that governments declare war. Given the foregoing, I invite scrutiny into the validity of that claim.
 
 
I.e A fifth Con diversion is that “law and order” as I defined in Description is not the law and order of the protest. Con stated in his r1: The protesters are mostly just liberals, and they don’t want chaos, they just want a new approach of governing the nation, which is nothing lawless at all.”  Then in Con’s r2 Argument 1, Con states, “The protesters do not represent anarchy in any way.”Bold statement, considering the review offered above, I.d through I.d.2. I defined anarchy in the Description: “The absence in society of acknowledging the necessity of law and order to maintain peaceful relations between citizens of differing opinion. Synonymous with lawlessness and chaos. Civilization in conflict with itself.”   
 
I.e.1 Does Con really expect us to believe the numerous attempts to destroy the Portland Federal Courthouse over more than 60 days of continuous rioting in the streets is not anarchy by that definition? There are citizens of Portland in that Courthouse, and they are not presented with “peaceful relations”from the protesters outside attempting to burn the building to the ground. Does Con, by his rebuttal, claim that “law and order”even as viewed by peaceful protesters, is not as I defined: “A basic civilized condition of a people in mutual agreement to tolerate one another’s differences by peaceful discussion, with agreement to allow a police force to enforce our peaceful interaction, allowing a justice system to peacefully manage our conflicts in a manner that achieves justice for all?”  
 
I.e.2 If Con disagrees with these definitions, he has had ample opportunity to offer others, and I submit the time to do that was in his r1, rebutting my Description definitions. He did not. Lacking rebuttal definitions, Con has effectively accepted these definitions. So be it. It will not be allowed to Con as an r3 surprise, having accepted them, ad hoc,in r1 & r2.
 
I.e.3 I will agree with Con; all protesters are not violent protesters. However, just as some people are racists [acknowledged], some people are also violent protesters who are not lawful at all. It is specifically why I did not limit my definition of civil war in Description to just two factions, and even Con argued for a definition that includes “more than two sides.”War must be a consideration of all sides of the conflict, and the fact that not all sides favor conflict does not alter the fact that conflict [Con did use this specific word in his war definition], nevertheless, is upon us. 
 
I.e.4 Con closed his r2 claiming “It is not law v. anarchy either,” but avoids sourcing this claim, as well. I repeat MN Governor Tim Waltz: “The situation in Minneapolis, is no longer, in any way, about the murder of George Floyd. It is about attacking civil society, instilling fear and disrupting our great cities.”[13] I challenge Con to describe what those actions are, as described by Gov. Waltz, if they do not define anarchy while the reader reviews my Description definition of anarchy, unopposed by Con in the last two rounds. One may talk around it, one may offer opinion, but if one in a contending role does not cite scholarly rebuttal sourcing, nor re-define what was defined, one has not a convincing argument that stands scrutiny.
 
I.f Con added an alleged drop, that I did not rebut his argument that my “civil war” definition includes UFC and Western gun duals. Rebuttal: both situations are not war because Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist during the Napoleonic era defined war as “a continuation of politics.”[14] I would add 'failed' politics. However, neither boxing nor duels involve politics, failed or not. One may argue for politics in a duel, but what politick is limited to two opposed people? Politics is a social concern, not an individual one. “Politics is that which concerns the state, permanent institutions that provide public services, enforce laws, ensure security and provide for the governance of persons.”[15]   Persons; plural.
 
Therefore, I conclude that, even by Con’s definition variance of words acknowledging the same factors as my “civil war” definition, I have met my BoP: civil war is upon us.
 
I conclude my debate, turn the finale of round 3 over to Con, and respectfully ask for your vote.
 
 

Con
I have made up my mind. Just plain supports to my R2 argument and rebuttals against my opponent's R3 arguments. There is really nothing new to talk about. In my eyes, the protesters still don't represent anarchy, and it is still not a civil war regardless. This is my last round argument, and I will prove my opponent wrong.

1. Still not a civil war

Still not convinced? Let's just not go full-on war here. Even skirmishes and other small conflicts count as armed conflicts. We'd have THIS many protests, and the US is not in blood red or yellow. It is plain in Gray like every other nation without any armed conflicts.

You might think, huh, it might be outdated. You know George Floyd has died in late May and the main protests went out in June. Well, that is zero reasons why this chart is false. Because if it really counted as an armed conflict, it would be updated as early as in June. Ok. It is not an armed conflict.

Rebuttals will be embedded within points as I will refute some claims when I just wrote there.
I.d.4 We have called the Civil War, North/South Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf [“Desert Storm,” and “Desert Shield”], “wars,” but none of them were declared “war” by the U.S. Congress.[11] Con’s claim of “Nothing is war…”is, therefore, false. 
My opponent just stabbed himself right in the right foot. The problem is that NO ONE, other than this guy that you probably just read on this webpage, has called this a war, even after hours of surfing on the internet for relevant issues. The fact is that when I typed "Is George Floyd violent protests war" into the search bar, nothing relevant showed up that even just proved that it ISN'T war. It is not that it is not officially recognized by the government. It is that basically no one officially recognizes this as war.

All three are listed as wars here. George Floyd protests are not.

August 2020. If it is going for 2 whole months and no one is classifying it as any, it is not.

Even if my paragraph above failed, which it probably didn't. there is a distinctive difference between the 1800s civil war, the gulf war, the Korean war, etc, and the George Floyd protests. Every single subject but the last one has the US military going places. The police we are talking about for the George Floyd protests are not the Military Police Corps, but merely the normal law enforcers around the city that are NOT a part of the military. No one, absolutely zero people in the entire military within the United States, has joined the police side(or even the protester side, for as unlikely as it is). That is what separates it from becoming a literal war. All wars need the military. This doesn't. Wikipedia stated:
It is generally characterized by extreme violenceaggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.
This one uses the police, not the military. Period. There is so far, no war that uses only the US police.

I repeat, no one other than the person I am trying to argue with classifies this as a war. Wikipedia also classifies George Floyd protests NOT as a civil war. Remember, other violent protests akin to ones seen now existed, and they are still not being characterized as any type of war. 911 has killed a considerable amount of people using weapons, but that isn't a war either.

My opponent has dropped my point regarding if the war is CIVIL or not. I had given Map evidence that in the UK, Japan, and New Zealand, there is still supportive support towards the protesters. Or better yet, there are the protesters.
I.d.5 Con further claims, r2, Arg 2, It is not a civil war even if it IS a war.”  One might just as easily say, “It is not a civil justice even if it is justice.” For whom, exactly, is justice for, if not the human civility, a.k.a., the citizenry? Our dogs and cats?  War is waged by civil humans, become uncivil, in one nation or among several.
My opponent has changed definitions. Remember what is stated before the first round?
Civil war: A war waged by physical and verbal weapons by factions within a single nation. See “Civilization.”
Well, it is NOT factions of a single country. Forces from all around the world have participated. It is not within a single civilization. The US protesters and everyone else who does so in the rest of the world are the same factions, and it is NOT a civil war.

  1. No one classifies George Floyd protests as an actual war, Not even skirmishes. 
  2. Such violent protests happen in the past and none are classified as a civil war.
  3. The military did not go out and instead, it is the police. No war does that. And if you are saying I am appealing to tradition, then any gun duel would also count as a civil war, if they are firing from the same nation. Very distinct line.
  4. One WHOLE faction is not of a single country. It is global.
  5. It is not civil and it is not a war. It is not a civil war.
2. Still doesn't represent anarchy

I know the point above already proves my overall point, but for merit reasons, I will also do this.

I.b Another Con diversion is that “the police are racist,”as if that is descriptive of the entire body of police forces throughout the country; all 800,000 of them.[1]That an undefined, but small percentage of them are racist would only reflect the fact that an undefined, small percentage of the general population is racist. 
I now ditch the reason that the fact the minority of police are racist makes the entire police force racist. However, that does not make the protesters anarchists. I have stated that the protesters, violent or not, American or not, are the same faction. In fact, my opponent probably agrees with it as well.

With both factions of the Continental Congress that fashioned the Constitution, and ultimately ratified it, ultimately convinced that they could do so, and did so unanimously by State, with that conflict in place, they believed it would ultimately be resolved. That it occupied the better part of another century to accomplish the eradication of slavery, and still another century to think we had solved the animus between the conflicting races of black and white, but really did not, it is stunning to recognize that that the conflict we now engage may have had that old conflict at the heart of it, with the murder of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands, or, literally, the knee of a police officer sworn to uphold law and order, our present conflict, with gunfire, mayhem, and general lawlessness in our streets, has little to do with the old racial issues we have suffered to bear since the inception of our Republic.
Only less than 20% of protesters are violent, facts suggest. My opponent has agreed that the violent ones do not represent the whole group just like the racist police officers are not every police officer in the nation. My opponent has upheld zero reasons that show even the peaceful protesters support anarchy, even any. The whole faction still does not represent anarchy and lawlessness and only less than 20% does, which is not the whole picture. Having both groups, in the roots, supporting a kind of law and order or another, with only a small amount of members of one group supporting anarchy, it does not make it law vs anarchy. It is authority vs equality. Auth-right vs Lib-left. Saying that this is law vs anarchy is as if two countries at war, and then one person shot one soldier of both sides, thus it is a 3-sided war now. No, and the reason it is not true is that that person is not big enough to be counted and recognized as an entire side, just like the anarchist violent crazy people do not represent the entire faction of protesters.

Peaceful protesters sometimes even turn violent themselves. It furtherly illustrates that the peaceful and the violent are on the same team.

  1. Only a small part of one faction supports anarchy, and that small part is not enough to represent the entirety of the faction as of anarchist intentions. It is still protesters, and it is not its own faction. 
  2. It is still indeed justice vs another kind of justice. Anarchy is not its own faction.
  3. My opponent has not given any reason that even the peaceful protesters, who occupy the larger share of protesters, still support anarchy. They don't.
  4. Overall, the faction of protesters is more towards another form of law and order and less towards lawlessness.
  5. Thus, it is not law vs anarchy.
I have proven that this conflict is indeed still not a civil war, and it is still not law vs anarchy. Guys, please vote fairly.