War of 1812

Due to the fact that a un-negated Con case succeeds to negate the resolution, I will first adress the claims made by my opponent in the last round and then move on to his pro case, provided I have teh time. On the unjust practices of the War Hawks: my opponent begins by first describing what the War Hawks were, then stating "The war hawks believed they were justified and working for the countrys needs.". Unfortunately, simply believing that you were justified at the time does not mean that you were right in your actions. Hitler believed that he was doing the best for Germany by murdering twelve million people who he deemed inferior, but that doesn't mean he was justified in commiting the Holocaust. On the un-ratified treaty: My opponent stated that it was thrown out because it did not adress impressment, but he forgets that this was in the section stating that the war was unjustified because of the lack of diplomacy. Even though the treaty was at first thrown out, America not try to re-negotiate the treaty with an included section on impressment, instead they opted for war. Because the fact that America went to war while they still could have taken a diplomatic approach still stands, my first contention is not negated. On national support: Although my opponent tries to say that the war had public support because "many people called for war", he does not refute the fact that the AMERICAN ARMY even refused to fight the war outside of US boundaries. Even though the war may have had a number of supporters, I'm not denying that, it did not have popular support. On the citizen's needs: My opponent states that in order to have a "correct state", one must actually have a state. This makes sense, however he has failed to prove in the round that America was actually threatened to the point where they would not have a state, so it does not justify America's declaration. On Britian's Justification: My opponent claims that just because Britain was justified, it does not mean that America was not. However, my opponent wants a debate based on "logic", so I'll lay down some logic :) In order to decide who was justified in a declaration in a war, one must decide who had better reasons for their actions. When Britian has been justified (notice that my opponent even says " another nation is justified", he does not try to refute that Britain was justified and he even accepts it), that means that they were the ones who took the right side in the war. If one side is right, the other must be wrong, and so yes, it does actually prove that US was unjustified in the rounds, simply because one of the two sides was justified. On Impressment: My opponent claims "impressments was of all men not just British they did not care who they took", however he does not provide any evidence of this. I, however, provided evidence that the British were seeking deserters and British citizens, so because he cannot prove this, it does not stand. On my opponent's voters: 1.) He has not actually proven any contentions wrong, as I have shown in this round 1.) I guess this is the second number one? Anyway, Like I proved the warhawks were acting in what they thought was right, but it was not in the itnerests of the nation, like Hitler and the Holocaust. And like I stated, the guilt of the treaty was on the americans because they did not opt for a second treaty, which is the norm in the world of politics. 2.) he cannot prove that the people wanted the war, the American military did not even want it 3.) America was not correct, and i have already shown why we should worry about other nations justifications. Because there is a right and a wrong side in the war, and Britain has been accepted as both debators as having a "right" side, that leaves America as the wrong side, so it was unjustified. I have no idea his last statement was so I won't refuse it. As I don't have enough time to negate the Affirmative case as it stands, I will move on to voters. VOTERS: 1.) America did not try to use diplomacy before the war started, and so did not uphold its duty as the government 2.) The war lacked public support and so it was unjustified 3.) The British were justified in their actions My computer keeps freezing so I'll end here