A socity that is controlled by the millitary would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness

We are debating"A society that is controlled by the military would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness"I will now offer rebuttalsRebuttal 1" I never once stated how this government would operate "You do not have to state this is how the society would operate, I made a point to show that throughout history when a military runs a society, this is often what happens. This is true with Hitlers Germany, Korea, In some ways afghan, The Kony situation, Stalins reign and many more. It often is the case when a society is ran by the military, these situations happen.I have defined unity for you. Unity is bringing people together, and when you are referring to this as the society that the military is controlling, I have shown that it is not really the case. I didn't feel the need to go into the actually portion of unity within these societies, but since you are claiming that it is a high amount, I imagine that it is abundantly obvious that this is not always the case especially with the previous examples I have given. What I mean by always being lawful is due to the fact of the fear it would instill in people. If you look at the topic we are debating, you are specifically addressing "what happens when a military controls a society". So you could say the society would be lawful because of the force that would be exerted, but there would never ever be unity within it. You could argue the fact that unity could be brought by fear as well, but this would last only to the first chance someone had to revolt. That is not unity, it is the society bearing temperance.A militia is not only referring to only the one in the USA. A militia can be any form of armed defense a country has. These could be ones that are modern and even ones that occurred throughout history. Since we are debating that " a society" that is "controlled" by the "militia" would produce these effects, it can be any society in any situation. You can not just pick and chose the principles you want the militia to uphold and say that is the case across the board, because that is an error in logic. Which is why I also said that it would have better suited you to make this " the USA has a militia that could promote good values within our society". That could be easily argued, but you are taking a stance that "a" society ran by "a" military will always produce high amounts of unity and exhibit lawfulness. No where in any of your arguments have you shown this to be true or even led me to believe that is is remotely possible. Rebuttal 2"As I stated above, people are individuals and always will be and all people are different so it will, by definition, be an impossibility to have a society that "will always ..... have unity."This further proves my point and in a way he has disagreed with his own stance.Rebuttal 3"I believe that you have not fulfilled your stance as the opposition because you have made only assumptions and have not provided enough subjective information to declare victory."First it is not my job to meet the BOP. It is your job to show that your stance is correct. My job is to show that it can be inaccurate or provide reason to doubt. Saying my stance is subjective is just wrong. No other way to say that. Subjective information would literally be erroneous to this debate, and is not how anyone should debate. You are saying provide evidence that fits the circumstance. I would much rather produce objective evidence that shows what happens when a society is ran by the military all throughout history, which I have done in great detail. As far as making assumptions, showing what happened throughout history is not making assumptions. That is as factual as you can get. How you chose to perceive the information can be subjective due to intellect levels and personal beliefs, but the facts still remain the same. History can not be changed. The only way you could argue that I was making assumptions is because I was stating that there is a high probability that your stance would not be true due to what we can see throughout history. This is more of a plausible theory than just an assumption because it is backed with evidence to support it. If anyone is making assumptions , it would be you. You are claiming that something will happen with no evidence to back it up. That is being entirely subjective and making assumptions based off of what you think a military is or should be. In ClosingI have shown through multiple examples in history and even cited psychological studies to show that " a society that is controlled by the military will exhibit high amounts of unity and lawfulness" is not always the case. I have did my part in undermining his original stance, and even gave examples in history to show that his stance can be construed as false.My adversary on the other hand has offered no evidence to support his theory other than his own limited understanding of what a militia is. He regards this to be true in all circumstances without giving any credence to other types of militia. Thus he has failed to meet his BOP and resolve his resolution. He has not shown any factual evidence to support any of his claims and just debated from his personal perspective. The bop was not met.