Is another revolutionary war about to occur in the United States

Pro argued the 1689 English Bill of Rights "forbade the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. This is what lead me to believe that they, the colonist, felt it was unconstitutional because they felt they didn't have representation and was being taxed."Rebuttal: Pro missed the point. The Bill of rights does outlaw Sovereign prerogative, but it is not a constitution. England was not a true constitutional Monarchy because it did not have a codified document. My objection was to the word "unconstitutional", not to the rebellion itself. ------------------------- Pro stated: Another thing, the Stamp Act wasn't repealed. In fact, it passed on March 22 of 1765, and took effect on November 1 of that same year. Rebuttal: Terribly incorrect. The Stamp act was repealed March 18th, 1766. Less than 6 months after going into effect. [1] ------------------------- 　 Pro Conceded that "True Representation" is not guaranteed, stating "the phrase is not mentioned, but it is assumed..". ------------------------- Pro established that "too much taxation" is "defined by the people who is being taxed, meaning Americans in this case, and not by one individual." Rebuttal: Provide the source which states that the American People considered the taxes "too much". ------------------------- Pro defined "true representation" as "a government that does the will of the people, by majority rule I should say, instead of doing what it wills. I would also like to add a government that presents the image of the people in the way they wish to be represented." Rebuttal: Pro is arguing that "true representation" was ignored, which means a legal foundation must support it's observation. Pro provided no legal sources which require the observation of "true representation", but rather he furnished a personal ideal that is not guaranteed by any of the documents he object to. We are not concerned with anecdotal arguments, such as "I believe", "I interpret","I understand it as"...etc. Unless my opponent can provide a document, with chapter, article and clause, I see no reason to assume that "true representation" is a constitutional guarantee. ------------------------- Pro asked: "...what does The Hittite Empire, the Mycenaean civilization, the Western Roman Empire, the Mauryan and Gupta Empires in India, the Mayas, the Angkor in Cambodia, and the Han and Tang dynasties in China, have in common?The Answer: Social Collapse. (Rhetorical questions do not qualify as sourced arguments, by the way.) Pro continues to mention economic and environmental problems as additional causes of collapse, but dismisses them as quickly as he established them by stating that economic troubles are so apparent it is hardly worth mentioning. He then asks the reader to do their own research, by suggesting that you (the voter) "go online and Google such topics or again listen to the news or radio." Indeed. Why even continue reading this debate, when Google is so much more proficient at arguing my opponent's burden for him. In fact, why don't we just invite the voters to write arguments for my opponent, so that he doesn't need to waste his time even showing up? What a disingenuous set of responses. I urge my opponent to do better next round. ------------------------- Pro asked: ".. is the morality of our society and our cultural identity deteriorating to the point that we no longer have a sound foundation on which to stay connected, in other words, are we becoming more and more divided as a nation? " Sadly, Pro then answered his own question without a source (yet again) by stating: The answer is sadly yes. Just look at the gun control issue, the gay marriage issue, and the immigration issue, to name a few.Probably one of the most annoying methods of debating, is the rhetorical proposition. A question, that the inquirer answers themselves. Example: Do I sound intelligent? Yes, I do. Should you accept my answers as absolute? Of course, I just proved that I'm intelligent. Have I won the argument? I certainly believe I have. Wonderful tactic, although ultimately lacking any serious merit. ------------------------- 　 Conclusion: My opponent is burdened with proving three key points. As of yet, my opponent has not addressed a single one. We have been supplied with anecdotes, rhetorical questions and a poor review of English law. With absolute confidence, I extend all my previous arguments into the next round. http://www.constitution.org... [1]