The Reign of Terror is Unjustified

Conclusion:- Robespierre was justified to rule in the authoritarian manner which he did during the reign of terror since it was a state of emergency (after all they were fighting almost all of Europe and their world spanning empires). Even modern nations can grant governments emergency powers given the right situation and for good reason, it makes the nation more efficient which is how the French republic survived the onslaught from the Coalition war and the counter-revolutionaires. Its justified.- I have studied the French Revolution, I have not read anything about privacy of citizens being invaded, Pro has not given sources or proof of that either.- People had the rights to religion, French government could not control your brain to make you atheistic. Besides my opponent misinterpreted removing the undeserving power of the Catholic church (who exploited the poor as discussed). Its justified.- About the forced military draft, it was a necessary evil to protect French democracy, it would be preferable to fight to preserve the republic than starve under the King (who would be restored if France lost the war). Its justified.- Pro asserts that the democracy after the reign of terror that held elections in 1795 was a flawed democracy where Napoleon the dictator was elected. Sure, it was not a perfect democracy (show me an example of one even today), but it certainly did not elect Napoleon into power in the 1795 elections (dont know where that fact came from) and most certainly was better than the ancien regime.- If you must disreguard the 1795 elections as evenutally leading to Napoleon's dictatorship, you must disreguard dicatorship as it sowed the seeds for another revolution that led to the democracy that France is today. No matter how you want to look at it (End result or Immediate result) its democracy. Therefore the Reign of terror did not lead to authoritarianism as my opponent suggests.- Sure the Reign of Terror killed people, I agree that is bad, but it saved far more as it prevented the restoration of King Louis XVI, the aristocracy and prevented the unnecesary and detrimental influence of the Catholic church. - Those who did not like the Jacobin in control yet did not want to resotre the monarchy cannot be distinguished from pro-monarchists. You cannot expect a soldier to ask every individual rebel about their political affiliation (they may even lie). Besides it is very unreasonable to complain about the so called extremeties of the Jacobin government and then take up arms and commit those very same acts (except for less than justified reasons). It was unjustified for the pro republican but anti jacobin to take up arms with counter revolutionaries as they were effectively working to restore the monarchy and killing their fellow citizens in the process.- the legendary man who supposedly "helped the poor", as my opponent states. Who knows? Maybe it was all a cover-up Pro has repeatedly made allegations in an attempt to undermine my arguments but does not back his statements up with hard facts or adequate reasoning.- Robespierre may have been corrupt, Robespierre may have been executed but that does not mean that the republic has fallen in the reign of terror, if anything it has been strengthened. The people became confident that their republic, their democracy, their freedom equality and brotherhood would survive. The policies instituted in the reign of terror led to the War of the First Coalition turning in France's favor-people had rights to counter-revolt against him In a democracy, people have rights to peacefully protest but not take up arms and slaughter fellow human beings, especially at such a desperate time during the war, France and her people were already suffering under the weight of these European powers and these counter revolutionaries could only be bothered with putting their dictator and people with 'noble blood' in power, pathetic.- Circumstance must also be taken into account when assessing the reign of terror. France just came out of having a terrible king who brought the economy into a horrible state, France is facing war on all fronts, France is under threat from internal forces and yet despite all this, the reign of terror kept the Republic alive, won a war against half the world with almost exclusively French forces and fed the once starving peasants, perhaps saving thousands if not millions of lives. This is an outstanding achievement and certainly cannot be discredited. I understand this may not be the traditional historic view probably because perhaps circumstance is not emphasized as much as it should be. It is easy to be a great leader when times are good, but a good leader only proves himself during rough times. The French government during the Reign of terror did.As such, I encourage voting against this resolution.Sources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...