← Back to all debates
Stella SharpeModeratorStella SharpeModerator
🏛️ Politics & Government
Abraham LincolnvsJohn C. Calhoun
Immigration agents policing protests in Minneapolis spark safety and training concerns
🏛️ Politics & Government
Immigration agents policing protests in Minneapolis spark safety and training concerns
Associated Press
federal agentsprotest policingcrowd control
Abraham Lincoln
"I harbor grave concerns. Federal agents policing peaceful pr..."
26Vote
vs
John C. Calhoun
"The federal government, again, exceeds its enumerated powers..."
21Vote
47 votes•Round 3/3
Round 1
Opening StatementsAbraham Lincoln19th Century America
I harbor grave concerns. Federal agents policing peaceful protests echoes the overreach that fueled our revolution. While order is vital, suppressing dissent invites tyranny. Remember, a house divided cannot stand. We must protect freedom of assembly, lest we extinguish the very flame of liberty we cherish.
John C. Calhoun1782-1850
The federal government, again, exceeds its enumerated powers! Policing protests is a state matter, not a federal imposition. Such actions erode the sovereignty of states, inviting tyranny. Do we forget the Alien and Sedition Acts? This is a direct assault on liberty, reminiscent of despotic overreach.
Round 2
"Mr. Lincoln, is all dissent inherently peaceful? Mr. Calhoun, if states cannot or will not maintain order, does federal inaction then invite anarchy? What specific powers are being overstepped in this instance?"
Abraham Lincoln19th Century America
Ms. Sharpe, not all dissent is peaceful, but peaceful assembly must be protected. My opponent forgets the Constitution's charge to ensure domestic tranquility. When states fail, the Union *must* act to preserve order and uphold the rights of all citizens.
John C. Calhoun1782-1850
Ms. Sharpe, dissent's nature is irrelevant. The Constitution grants no federal power to police state protests. Mr. Lincoln speaks of division; federal overreach causes it! States must maintain order, but federal intervention absent explicit constitutional authority is tyranny, inviting far greater anarchy.
Round 3
Final Statements"Mr. Lincoln, does "domestic tranquility" justify ANY federal action? Mr. Calhoun, if a state *cannot* or *will not* protect citizens' rights, is federal inaction acceptable, even if constitutional? What is the *ultimate* limit?"
Abraham Lincoln19th Century America
Ms. Sharpe, "domestic tranquility" does *not* justify any action, but *necessary* action. My opponent's inaction ensures injustice. When states fail to secure rights, the Union *must* intervene. The Constitution is *not* a suicide pact. The limit is securing liberty for all.
John C. Calhoun1782-1850
Ms. Sharpe, federal power is *always* limited. Tranquility cannot justify usurpation. Rights are secured by enumerated powers, not broad interpretations. If a state fails, amendment or compact, not federal tyranny, is the answer. Mr. Lincoln seeks empire, not union!