Morsi Should Not Have Been Removed From Power by the Military

I. Respect for Institutions and the LawIt is true that a democracy could not function if respect for the institutions did not exist. Checks and balances in democracy is not only a new concept but one that isn't even universally practiced by democracies. The French have a very centralized democracy with very little executive oversight and they're considered a leading democratic power. We see time and time again in places like Africa and Southeast Asia when there is little to no faith or respect for elections and elected officials democracy falls apart. Furthermore, I don't know what kind of research imabench has done but there WERE channels for impeaching Morsi. In late 2012 courts and judges were considering impeaching Morsi. [1][2][3] How could you consider doing something that wasn't written into the Constitution? They couldn't. Morsi could have been impeached for "violating his oath and undermining the country's constitutional foundations." [1] So when my opponent says there were no channels for removing him via other means he is blatantly wrong. All of his points saying that the only way to remove Moris was via military coup are therefore false. II. TurmoilMy opponent describes turmoil that already existed in Egypt. Great, I didn't say life in Egypt was fine and dandy before the coup. What I'm saying that the dissolving of the government and the control of Cairo by the military isn't going to HELP any of this stuff. In fact, having protests being violently put down as they have been recently and having Morsi supporters targeted by the military is in no way helping these people.And they are indeed less free than before. They're government formed by the people was ripped down. Supporting Morsi and being part of his government has gotten dozens of people killed or imprisoned simply for supporting someone politically. Just because there was turmoil there before doesn't mean that adding more turmoil that a coup necessarily does, isn't bad for the country as a whole.Furthermore, people said the LAST military intervention (the interim government set up after Mubarak) was the "first critical step to becoming a strong democracy" but that obviously didn't work. At what point does the military step down and reattach the leash it is supposed to have be held by the executive and give up that power? Or does Egypt get to only live under governments approved by the military as they do now?III. Alternative All of my opponents arguments here are merely speculation. He says that people MAY have started killing Muslim Brotherhood members. But due to his coup the military is openly killing protesters. Should we trade their blood for speculation that citizen killings might have been worse? There is no evidence for this. Again, he counters my factual argument of my saying that the government would have remained in place by saying that there might not have been reform. At least there would be a government.I never said Morsi was a good president. But my opponent's speculations do nothing to negate the facts that if left in power, there would actually be a government to amend and change instead of the military rule we see now. Morsi was a bad president yes, but he should not have been removed from office, especially if the argument for doing so is based off such massive amounts of pure speculation.Conclusion1. Abuse of power should have been dealt with internally.2. There were internal judicial and constitutional means of removing Morsi.3. Removing Morsi from power is one thing but the military suspended the entire government for a military run government which is damaging and wrong.4. Again, there were other ways of removing Morsi rather than a full military take over.[1] http://rt.com...[2] http://www.sampsoniaway.org...[3] http://english.ruvr.ru...