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

Lets look at the topic that we are debating. A society that is "controlled" by the military would have unity and lawfulness.There is a lot of flaws withing this statement. Lets define some of the terms we are going to be discussing. Military - The armed forces of a country.Society - The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.Unity - The state of being united or joined as a whole, esp. in a political context. Harmony or agreement within an entire groupControlled - Determine the behavior or supervise the running of, or to main influence and authority overMy adversary is claiming that if a society was controlled by the military, they would be stricken with virtues of goodness and unite as a whole.This claim is kind of outrageous when we think about what it entails.Contention Repercussions of controlling anythingTo control something in the context my adversary is claiming, is to run and or oversee. When anything starts to control people by nature they will resent it. So if we look at this claim from the perspective that it could bring lawfulness, that is a possibility but would happen more out of fear that respect. Take Hitlers Germany for example, this society was probably very lawful, but they were lawful because of the consequences that they would suffer if they disobeyed. Most whom turned against Hitler were literally sent to their families door steps chopped into pieces and in body bags. So as far as being lawful, that is a possibility but then you would have to look at the possibility of a revolution at some point. That is even within the constitution of america, if someone were to start to try and run this a single entity instead of a democracy, we can and should rise up against it. Unity on the other hand is far from the case. That is probably not a possibility at all. Let's take a look at Hitlers military run society again, sure people obeyed out of fear, but the country was in shambles. Some of the best times for countries is when America helped liberate them from under the dictatorship that it was suffering from. More often than not, societies that impose tyranny are often military societies. Even psychology when you control someone, they build up resentment. Take for example if you have a girlfriend. If you tell her she can't go out, can't see her friends, can't watch TV while she is home, and the only thing she is allowed to do is cook. 90 percent chance she is going to leave you unless you have something to offer her that will make her stay through all of that. Even if she stayed, studies show that she will resent you. This is not unity, and the same thing can be said for society. When you try to control something resentment builds up, take a look at how people resent our government. Even in the workplace people often hate their boss because of the control he/she has over themhttp://www.mediate.com...http://www.psychologytoday.com...In closingFor my adversaries case to be true, he most show that any society that is controlled by the military will always be lawful and have unity. As i have shown, this is an impossible statement to argue for. He may have had a better time if he would have said something like " If America adopted some of the core principles of its military, it would be a better place"This statement is far more debatable and most would probably agree with. This is not his contention howerver, and he has failed to meet his BOP