There is no such thing as a "political debate".

ResolutionThere is no such thing as a "political debate."Burden of ProofThe entirety of the burden of proof lies with PRO, for he is affirming the resolution. DefinitionsPolitical -- "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government" (1) OR "of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics" (2)Debate -- "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something" (3)RebuttalsI will begin with some targeted rebuttals, and then will summarize my case negating the resolution. I'll start with PRO's second-to-last statement, which is effectively a concession, whether he knows it or not. PRO states, "There are debates relating to politics, like this one, but no "political" debates."PRO insinuates that there is a distinction between "debates relating to politics" and "political debates." However, the definitions I have provided from the very credible Merriam Webster and dictionary.com which say otherwise. By those definitions, a political debate is merely -- and I'm combining definitions here, obviously -- "a discussion between people in which they expess different opinions about something of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government." Or, if we use the dictionary.com definition of "politcal," we come out with the following: "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics."We are in fact having a debate about politics and government at this point in time because I am about to address PRO's statement that the state is "force." The fact that we can disagree and hold different opinions on an issue pertaining to government means that we can have a political debate. That DDO has a politics section and a politics forums and debates pertaining to political subjects, be they hot-button issues like taxation and regulation or speculation as to who will run or win the 2016 elections, bears out that there is in fact a such thing as a political debate. With that said, the resolution has already been negated. PRO begins by saying, "The State is a monopoly of legitimized (not legitimate), initiated force in a geographical area."PRO says that the state is monopolized force. I disagree; I think the state is necessary for a free society to function, and acts as the manifestation of the collective will embodied by the social contract by which we have pledged to collectively sacrifice some of our freedoms -- in the form of paying taxes, which none of us love to do, by the way, but we accept it as necessary -- for the greater good. It is perfectly fine for PRO to disagree with me, though our debate is not on this subject. Our debate is on whether there CAN be a such thing as a political debate. For there to be no debate, PRO's statement would need to be 100% objectively true and accepted by 100% of the populace. Because it is not, there can in fact be a debate. PRO says, "While people will talk, take sides on issues and seem to "debate", ultimately anyone who disagrees with the decision of the majority (someone not paying their taxes [extortion] for example) will have armed, aggressive criminals in blue costume come to their door."First, to again prove tha we can have a "debate," I will disagree with the final remark he has made. People who disagree with the decision of the majority ARE NOT incarcerated merely for disagreeing. If that were the case, then the tens of millions of people who voted for Mitt Romney or Gary Johnson or anyone other than Obama, the choice of the majority, would have been incarcerated, and that simply is not the case. That was the basis for PRO's remark. He says that people can disagree, but argues that people who do disagree are silenced. This simply is not the case. PRO says, "There is no civilized debate at the barrel of a gun."At this point, I'm only going to dispute the metaphor by saying that associating government with a "gun" is a matter of PRO's opinion, not of fact, and plenty of people, myself included, would disagree with such a characterization of government and have no interest in shutting out opposing opinions. But let's consider PRO's logic deeper, even under his assumption that "government is a gun." Assumpton/Opinion: Government is a gun. Premise 1: If government exists and has power, we cannot have a civilized debate because we would be debating "at the barrel of a gun."Premise 2: Government exists and has power, yet we are able to have a civilized debate, as we are doing now and as others are doing around us and have done.Therefore, PRO's logic falls flat. He actually suggested that there can be NOT debates so long as government exists, and that is clearly a fallacy because DDO happens to exist, we happen to posting on it, and we happen to be debating this subject. If we can debate about whether there can be a debate, we are debating. PRO says, "In short, there is no such thing as political debate, instead it is political threat."Note again that this is nothing more than PRO's opinion, which he is entitled to. However, he has not proven this remark in the slightest, and the fact that we can disagree on a comment such as this bears out the fact that we can have a civil discourse, or a debate, on a political subject -- otherwise none as a political debate.Summary and ConclusionI have responded to all of PRO's arguments and there is nothing left for me, at this point, to rebut. The fact that we can disagree on several issues, including whether or not we can have a debate and whether government is "force" or a "gun," indicates that we CAN have a debate on these subjects. I have provided definitions from two reputable websites bearing out that there is no distinction between "debates relating to politics" and "political debates." Therefore, PRO's arguments fall flat.The resolution has been negated and PRO has not upheld his BOP. I highly urge a CON ballot. Sources(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...