CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I know that the British may have had harsh taxes on them but if we compare theirs to the taxes on the citizens of Britain we will see a radical difference. Britain had to pay for the French and Indian war as well and Britain thought that since they provided so much protection for the colonies that the colonies should help pay off their debts. The funny thing is that the colonies refused to buy the British tea even thought this made the tea cheaper. Instead the colonies purchased the Dutch tea which was more expensive. I never really understood that. I think Britain didn't really do any harm in terms of this act.
If the colonies were not helping pay off their debt for the protection Britain was providing, then Britain should have just walked away. Also, in the end, once the Brits did leave, we proved that we could manage quite well without British protection. In other words, there was no reason for us to pay protection money. And when you think about it, that sounds so gangsta ;)
The following should be read with a heavy Italian (Sicilian) accent.
"Yo, America, you have to pay protection money or we'll send Tony over to breaka your legs. Capire?"
The actual freedom of speech didn't exist yet because the nation of America was not formed yet. Sure you can always say what you want but at the time they were under British rule and they gave their rule and this rule actual would have saved them money.
You're saying the right to the freedom of speech did not exist before it was written down?
Does that mean that gravity did not exist before it was discovered, or air, or atoms? The answer is obviously no. You are born with the right to speak up against oppression. Nothing can literally take that away from you, whether your government acknowledges it or not you always have that right.
"You're saying the right to the freedom of speech did not exist before it was written down?"
Not at all. The American constitutional version that you are used to didn't exist. Britain was in power so whatever they said really goes.
"Does that mean that gravity did not exist before it was discovered, or air, or atoms? The answer is obviously no."
Yes I am aware of that but does that make it right for people to bicker when things are in their favor?
"You are born with the right to speak up against oppression. Nothing can literally take that away from you, whether your government acknowledges it or not you always have that right."
Yeah I can agree but you were in British rule. Whatever they said was law. The Tea Act reduced the price of tea. Yet they purchased the Dutch tea, which was more expensive, and refused to by from the British.
The American constitutional version that you are used to didn't exist. Britain was in power so whatever they said really goes.
That's not grounds for it not being a right.
Yes I am aware of that but does that make it right for people to bicker when things are in their favor?
It doesn't matter if it's in their favor or completely handicapping. A child living the good life in his mom's home, rent free, with no job no bills no anything, still has the right to complain about his virtually worthless issues.
Whatever they said was law.
Even dictatorships can't change rights. Rights exist against persecution.
if that was the case it would have been worded that way. As it was not I am right in saying the U.S. had the right to rebel. If the question had said should America have rebelled against cheaper goods then it'd be an opinion question, makin rebutting me senseless, but it's not.
That is what it is referring to. The rebellion of the Tea Act. The really had no right to whine because the really owed Britain for the French and Indian War.
The question asks "do they have the right", am I wrong. So what is the answer, I mean I've said what my answer is, now all you can do is say what your answer is. If it's different than mine we'll have to agree to disagree.
The thing is that you aren't addressing or acknowledging the situation at hand which is the firmament of which this debate in on. You are however taking the "humane" approach which will give you an advantage by siding with the favorable "human rights".
Yes, because there is no need to address any other situation. A right is a right, always ensured.
Like the scenario I presented with the spoiled brat living off of his mom. He has the right to complain, she has the right to not put up with that crap. America has the right to 'whine', Britain has the right to not put up with that crap.
As for my opinion on the matter, which it would appear you are pressing me for, I feel that they still had the right to 'whine' because I wasn't there, I don't know the intricacies of why they were whining and if it is as you said, they paid for more expensive goods, they probably had a greater reason for it. Basically they payed for more expensive goods for the principal of the issue.
The colonies didn't want to help pay for the French and Indian War. Britain defended them all the time. Britain fell into debt and they needed help and they looked to the ones they protected. They were still apart of Britain so really there shouldn't be a huge conflict.
Yes, because there is no need to address any other situation. A right is a right, always ensured.
Then why post on a historical based debate if you didn't come to argue the validity of the colonies rebellion against the British?
Then why post on a historical based debate if you didn't come to argue the validity of the colonies rebellion against the British?
Because I can read a question, and see words that lead to a definite answer. The question literally asks, word for word "did they have the right". Are you telling me that they did not have a right?
As for the rest of the situation, we wil have to agree to disagree. My opinion won't be changed because, I was not there, I don't know specifically why they rebelled, but i can only assume it was on principal.
Because I can read a question, and see words that lead to a definite answer. The question literally asks, word for word "did they have the right". Are you telling me that they did not have a right?
You continuously refuse to access the actual problem here. You are steadily taking the humane approach which is cool and all but that isn't the purpose of the question. I haven't doubted that you can read but the way you analyze and answer questions raises question.
There is no actual problem. I am reading the question for what it is. if I making an error then it's not the fault of a person reading objectively, it's the fault of a poster who posted a definitive question. The question definitely asks if they have the right.
It's like a debate that ask "Is this group, whatever" the answer will be no, because that question is a generalization and if anyone does not fit the standard the whole question is scrapped. If the poster meant to address the situation of rebellion, then they should have been more clear.
As for taking the humane approach, I'm not, I'm taking the semantic approach. I read the sentence for what it says, which is not wrong.
Hmmmm although I can agree with your way of deducting a nice levy from the actual problem you still never really gave a firm argument as to if the colonies should have acted the way they did. The Boston Tea Party should be a good example. Was that necessary?
We have no personal ties to the situation. The history books may tell a story different than the actual motives.
While it may sound like conspiracy theorist babbling, the principle that caused America to rebel could have been anything, even a petty dispute between the King of England and the president of America, that they masked with oppression and rebellion. It may sound crazy but my belief is that without a personal perspective we just don't know, honestly, what the issue was about, and why America rebelled.
the principle that caused America to rebel could have been anything, even a petty dispute between the King of England and the president of America
A president didn't exist at that time. I do however agree with the rest of your statement though so I guess we just debated until we withered down to nothing.
Lol, they often do on topics like this. I was debating with a use named Lizzie that asked if something was right or wrong, and since those are subjective terms we never really did come to an end.
LizzieXLaura search that name in the search bar under people, check her history and decide for yourself. i think she's alright but I am biased obviously.
She's awesome. She's like you in how unrelenting she is when it comes to a debate. She really likes to debate and often tries to argue outside of her natural style to get a new perspective. She definitely doesn't call names either.
Well even nowadays there a number of situations when you don't have freedom of speech in the USA. To say that you always had it is to say you always had it with certain restrictions.
A natural right that everyone has though is to do whatever they want it couldn't harm anyone else. I guess this includes the right to say whatever you want.
I know that. I already established that. The question is referencing the way the colonies rebelled against the Tea Act. Also you were under British rule so you had to follow their law. I don't know if they allowed freedom of speech.
The tax was expensive. That was a lot in those days. And anyway, would you pay for anything that came from a country that wanted to take over you? Not really.
The tax was expensive? It made tea cheaper. Also they were under British rule. They were still apart of Britain. The Revolutionary War brought us our independence.
