The Reign of Terror is Unjustified

"They were in an armed uprising to overthrow the government."But the government was bad! It went against the ideas of democracy that Robespierre proposed! How much times do I have to repeat this! This is the list, once again, of the rights that were contrasted by the Terror:-Invasion of privacy-Lack of rights for the "suspected enemies" (I already noted the unfairness within the last round--they were denied lawyers and accusation was allowed to be based on "intuition" rather than actual evidence)-People had NO rights ro religion-They were FORCED to be soldiers or DIE (which, either way it could be death or death)As for the death of the revolutionaries, I really don't understand HOW the terror prevented more uprising and suffering. Uprising, sure. But suffering, no. On Wikipedia's page about the French counter-revolution, it says this:"By the summer of 1793, the Vendee, Brittany, and parts of Poitou were in open rebellion.... It would be a mistake to classify all of these events as royalist. While there were certainly those among the crowd who wished to restore the monarchy; others simply wanted to remove the Jacobin regime, without necessarily ending the revolution. .... [by the end of 1793] the counter-revolution within France was effectively, if not completely, suppressed. Although these counter-movements appeared to have broad support among the general populace, their ultimate failure was due in large part to a lack of competent organization, a lack of weaponry, and the fact that the battle-hardened army sent to eliminate them showed little remorse in killing their fellow citizens. In the Vendee, the army proceeded with a scorched-earth policy; rounding up whole villages, shooting or hanging the inhabitants, and burning their farms and houses to the ground. Following protracted sieges at Lyon and Toulon, thousands of rebels, or suspected rebels, were massacred wholesale. Historians disagree on the number of those who perished in the rebellion, with estimates ranging from as low as 25,000 to as high as 120,000." We see here the counter-revolutionaries are crushed. (But even then, Wikipedia notes that SOME OF THEM AREN'T EVEN FOR THE MONARCHY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT THE JACOBIN-REGIME. My opponent has asserted weakly that the anti-monarchies are unjustified, sure, but the Jacobin regime? That's unfair.) Everything is awesome, right?Nope.http://www.encyclopedia.com..., a website showing us the Reign of Terror timeline, highlights that in 1794 June and July--pretty much ONE YEAR after the counter-revolutionaries were CRUSHED in Vendee--THAT was when the killing was most. THAT was when 12 heads were chopped off in 5 minutes. THAT was when most of the killing by guillotine happened. But is this justified? Why, the war has ended! People aren't complaining about the military draft any more. Why, the counter-revolutionaries were just crushed one year ago! There's nobody against the revolution to kill! We see the true unfairness of the Terror in this spike of killings. People accuse each other just to show themselves as the true patriots. Robespierre has abused his absolute power along the convention, and even his group itself agreed that HE was corrupt, the mighty leader, the legendary man who supposedly "helped the poor", as my opponent states. Who knows? Maybe it was all a cover-up. Maybe Robespierre finally could not take it in 1794 June and July, and finally released his demon-self, leading to HIS execution. (Which I stated before, and I WILL STATE THIS AGAIN:) Even the National Convention agreed that Robespierre was corrupt. What do YOU have to say to that?My opponent states that the Reign of Terror lead to a democracy. But this democracy was flawed. It was corrupt. It was probably Robespierre's version of a democracy--hence why Napoleon, an ambitious dictator, was elected. He had absolute power for some reason, and we see this democracy was not really a democracy--it was really an open trap allowing anyone to become emperor if they were brave enough to take action. In conclusion, Robespierre was just as bad as Louis, if not worse. He went against his OWN IDEAS in the Terror and people had rights to counter-revolt against him. Why, Robespierre was so mad he kept on killing, a massacre of unnecessary killings, AFTER the coutner-revolutionaries were crushed and the war against their enemies had ended. Robespierre went crazy and corrupt. We're not even sure if he really thought his ideas for democracy were his true toughts; after all, his actions speak against them. The Reign of Terror led to a corrupt democracy that allowed the ambitious Napoleon to take over, which lead to people fearing this flawed democracy, which explains why France returned to a monarchy as soon as Napoleon was rid of. Vote for PRO, judges. Vote for the unneeded Reign of Terror.Thank you.