It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt

I am slightly disappointed that I was unable to dissuade my opponent of his views but I will take comfort knowing that I tried. And at any rate it has been fun. ======= Case Con- Rebuttals ======= Contention 1: Issues with my conduct addressed Some things have been said about my conduct in this debate, so I feel that now would be a good time to address them. I haven't really engaged in any personal attacks, apart from one possible exception, which I will mention. My harshest use of language has been aimed at my opponent's arguments and not my opponent himself. Calling an argument crazy and psychotic isn't an attack on any individual any more than calling George Bush naive or foolish is a personal attack on a republican. So, let us not confuse ad hominem with strongly worded rhetorical flourishes. To be fair I did write the following, "Sadolite's resolution is, in my opinion, probably the product of the combined effects of too many red bulls; an almost paranoid mistrust of Government; too many hours of listening to Sean Hannity on the Radio; too many hours of watching UFC; and a serious lack of sleep. " In retrospect this was probably a bit over the top. I have inappropriately used my rhetorical abilities to cast undue mockery upon an individual. This was poor conduct on my part and for this I apologize. Please accept my apologies Sadolite because I am truly sorry. =( Contention 2: War is the only viable option at this point. –Sadolite ----> "So you see Freeman, your civil solution is not going to work not now not ever. " - Sadolite ----> "I have categorically proven that your alternatives have been tried and produced no results. I again will refer you back to the three videos. " - Sadolite My opponent hasn't proven anything apart from his ability to make baseless assertions. How does he know that civil solutions will never work? Odds are that he has never worked for congress or been seriously involved in moving any type of legislation. History has shown that great things can be accomplished with patience, intelligence, and diligence. With the fear of boring everyone reading this debate, I will put forward my example of the march on Washington just one more time. If an entire class of mistreated people can get their rights peacefully then so to can this issue be resolved peacefully. [1] Contention 3: Warfare over policy disputes is unnecessary. ----> "If the water is not turned back on and I mean today, right freakin now, the farmers and the people of that region should form a militia and take matters into their own hands, turn the water back on and defend the free flow of water to their farms to the death if necessary. " (9/17/2009) opening round - Sadolite It goes without saying that such a proposition is ridiculous. There are no better arguments I could possibly make then allowing you to read my opponents own words. He is so determined to have his way politically that he is willing to advocate the murder of state officials and risk the death of innocents to achieve this goal. These types of wars simply can't be done without collateral damage. [2] Contention 4: My opponent has given no good reasons to justify warfare. Let us ponder over what the resolution before us actually says. It reads as follows, "It is time for the farmers of the San Wakeen valley to go to war with the federal govt". We are not debating whether or not the situation in San Joaquin valley is bad or whether the water should be turned back on. We are debating whether or not it is both ethical and practical to launch an offensive military operation against the federal government over a policy dispute. Don't be distracted by my opponent's disingenuous methods of dressing up war and violence in the banners of patriotism and American solidarity, what he is really calling for is treason against the United States. On top of this I have already shown why such an attempt at treason would ultimately be futile, at least how my antagonist is advocating for it. Sadolite seems to be unaware that the federal government actually has an army, tanks, fighter jets, and just about every other advanced form of weaponry. [3] ========= Conclusion ========= My opponents desire to change the world for the better is a good thing even though I profoundly disagree with his methods of accomplishing this. If he wants to make our world better then he should run for congress or he could create a petition. Or he can campaign to remove whatever congress people he believes are responsible for this situation. This is the beauty of democracy; if you don't like something you can change it. There are better methods of solving this issue and I have already shown some of them. Calls for violence in such situations are both immoral and unimaginative. If history has taught us anything it is that intellect and diligence win against blinkered unreason and unbridled violence. -(Vote Con) Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.ethicapublishing.com... [3] . http://www.marines.com...