Innovation Assessments Logo

Innovation Assessments Virtual Classroom DEMO

Home

Back to Demo Class

Demo Online Discussion and Assessment

Was the bloodshed of the French Revolution necessary?
  • Posts to this forum are being graded based on this rubric.
Jump to Participant: [ADAMS Abigail]   [DILLON James]   [DOE Jane]   [GAGE Jonathan]   [GOUGES Olympe]   [JACKSON Andrew]   [MASON George]   [PRESTON Mildred]   [SENIOR Edith]   [SMITH Mary]   [Teacher]   
Show Forum Report
This is the report zone.

Start New Discussion Thread

Teacher Wed Nov 27 10:28:37 2019 Score:  Grade Participation not yet scored. Show Fallacy Rating
The rules: (1) Post your position on the topic by stating your claim and developing 2 arguments in support in about 200 words. (2) Reply in the opposing view to a classmate. (3) Rebut the opposing view offered to you.

(Edit Wed Nov 27 10:54:44 2019)
edit delete

       reply       

ADAMS Abigail [adamabig] Wed Nov 27 10:32:33 2019 Score: 100 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
It is clear that the bloodshed of the French Revolution was necessary. Firstly,the old ways would not just be erased so easily. Nobles and collaborators outside France would work to undermine the new regime and impose the old order. In the name of the self-defense that every sovereign nation enjoys, the French need to "clean house" so counter-revolutionary elements do not pollute the just society established by the new Republique.

Secondly, you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Sacrifice is necessary to bring about the greater good for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham, an important philosopher said: By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.

Anderson, K. (n.d.) Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number. Retrieved from https://probe.org/utilitarianism-the-greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number/
delete

       reply       


Reply from DILLON James [dilljame]
Wed Nov 27 10:46:00 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
Well said Abbie, However, the opposing view might say that the number of lives that were tragically lost at this time was not worth it. Like Jane mentioned in her response if it were a few people that lost their lives it would still be unfortunate but more acceptable than 40,000. Some would disagree with your logic, like writing a response with bias. The wrong responder, someone could use this against you and would say your writing is less credible.
delete

Reply from ADAMS Abigail [adamabig]
Wed Nov 27 10:56:51 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
I see your point: numbers do matter. However, in light of the huge benefit to humanity as a whole, 40,000 is not a large number.
delete
DILLON James [dilljame] Wed Nov 27 10:33:07 2019 Score: 85 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The bloodshed of the french revolutions was very necessary, as many people would have opposed the changes, and those people would be the ones with power. The only way to relinquish them of that power is through their death, and the death of everyone who might have come to their aid.

Secondly, the death of the anti-revolutionaries was what most of the revolutionaries wanted, and to go against the majority would completely defeat the ideals the democratic ideals that the revolution strived to achieve.
delete

       reply       


Reply from ADAMS Abigail [adamabig]
Wed Nov 27 10:43:43 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
Okay, so close your eyes... imagine someone you really love ... could you now just sacrifice them to the mob? Or to some kind of greater good? Really? Oh, sure, it`s easy to say that those people whom we do not know, THEY should have died for the future. But if we recall that they were REAL people with real families, then maybe it is harder to just cast them into the guillotine.
delete

Reply from DILLON James [dilljame]
Wed Nov 27 10:58:03 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
I see your point. It`s easy to becold and objective when we are 200 years in the future and these are just names and numbers in a book. However, I don;t think that changes the good that the revolution did.
delete
DOE Jane [doejane] Wed Nov 27 10:33:53 2019 Score: 94 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The revolutionaires did not enjoy things the way they were in France. They promised people change and hope. But the only thing that comes from bloodshed is fear and despair. The Reign of Terror was called that for a reason. The revolutionaires controlled people with fear and killed people for disagreeing with them. Yes it could be fine to kill a few people to let them know they were serious about their cause for change but it just went wayyy too far. 40,000... that's how many people the Reign of Terror murdered. All of those people had friends and family. 40,000 is just a number until you really understand how much that really is. 100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100 is 1,000. You have seen on TV how big the Super bowl is right? well 40,000 people being killed would be the amount of people that go to a super bowl for 387.53 years. Yes a few people might have needed to die for the cause of the revolution but 40,000 people just makes you ask why. Its just sick if you ask me. Therefor I believe that if a few people had to die for the cause, fine, so be it, but not if innocent people are murdered to the point where people fear for their lives by breathing.

Watkins, J. (n.d) The French Revolution: Cause And Effect. Retrieved from https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-FRench-Revolution-Cause-and-Effect
delete

       reply       


Reply from GAGE Jonathan [gagejona]
Wed Nov 27 10:48:08 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
Ok, If you were Robespierre would you make the decision to kill all those people? What if you killed your family? Would you still do it? Robespierre was a close intimate der to Hitler. Would you like to cause a World War because you feel the need to make everyone equal, when they really aren`t! It is like saying if you had control of the United States you would have to kill almost everyone because everyone has an opinion and disagrees with a lot that is going on in their country. Would you be able to wipe out a whole country because they disagree with you? The people did kill the monarch, but if you don`t think that Robespierre wasn`t like a monarch and who everyone listened to because they feared him, then you`re wrong.
delete

Reply from DOE Jane [doejane]
Wed Nov 27 10:59:30 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
Robespierre worked in concert with the Committee of Public Safety. No one called him a king! And they conducted trials following rules of law and order to determine guilt. Treason is treason.
delete
GAGE Jonathan [gagejona] Wed Nov 27 10:34:39 2019 Score: 94 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The blood shed of the French Revolution was not necessary. There was no reason to kill someone just because of their opinion about the revolution. I could understand if the person committed a crime and was sentenced to death. The ends dont justify the means. This is a quote that exclaims how if you don't deserve something, you don't get it. Therefore if you truthfully deserve to get your head cut off you should, but if you don't then you live.

cites: https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-ends-justify-the-means-mean
delete

       reply       


Reply from DOE Jane [doejane]
Wed Nov 27 10:47:03 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
someone from the other point of view would have said that there is no way to make progress if you do not kill the people that do not cooperate. If you say that we should not kill those who dont listen than how do you suppose we will be able to have a government without everyone hating eachother
delete

Reply from GAGE Jonathan [gagejona]
Wed Nov 27 11:00:27 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
A healthy respect for democracy would say we should convince our fellow citizens through reason rather than liquidate them like we`re some kind of Nazis.
delete
GOUGES Olympe [gougolym] Wed Nov 27 10:35:23 2019 Score: 100 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The reign of terror was a very key to the French getting the perfect government that they so badly desired. Maximilien Robespierre was the conductor of it and his philosophy was very true. to wrap up what he said is "you cant have an omelette without breaking a few eggs". This philosophy is very true as there is no way that the french would have made it to the point that they were at with all the people that were conflicting and rebelling. Getting rid of the people that didn't agree with your opinion and were gonna interfere with all of your plans was nothing short of brilliant. Doing this not only got him his way but it also made everyone fear him and no one would question his authority. If all of those people were still alive trying to keep the monarch than it would definitely still be here and we would probably still be under the rule of a king. If this all happened then who knows where the french could be a this point

Linton, M. (n.d) Robespierre and the Terror. Retrieved from https://www.historytoday.com/marisa-linton/robespierre-and-terror
delete

       reply       


Reply from JACKSON Andrew [jackandr]
Wed Nov 27 10:50:05 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
The opposing view would disagree. Yes in war there will be bloodshed but to take innocent lives of men, women and children i wrong. They should have gotten the message through another way instead of killing people. If they would have thought more about it and looked at there options they could have found a better way. They could have found a way they instead of getting fear and hate from the people they could have gotten there support that would have worked better without their revolution against it.
delete

Reply from GOUGES Olympe [gougolym]
Wed Nov 27 11:01:35 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
I think if you actually lived in the place and time, you would have seen differently. It was a struggle for life and death, them or us, him or me. No choice.
delete
JACKSON Andrew [jackandr] Wed Nov 27 10:36:11 2019 Score: 85 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The bloodshed was not necessary to prove a point across. People wanted change in their country, but they did not want to fear their country. If anyone questioned the method or even had power, they would kill them, because they stand out. It's like being scared to think about your country. People thought that if everyone was equal then there wouldn't be any problems, if you don't question. That is how they lived! It's like your being controlled, ok maybe killing some people would get your point across, but killing 40,000 people, now that is just inhuman! If I was there I would move or something, or just duck tape my mouth, because I would question what my country is doing to itself. So, no the revolution was not worth the bloodshed.

Britannica, T. E. (2018, August 29). Reign of Terror. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Reign-of-Terror
delete

       reply       


Reply from GOUGES Olympe [gougolym]
Wed Nov 27 10:49:06 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
Although it is pretty messed up to kill 40,000 people, it is very difficult to have a successful revolution without some bloodshed. It is impossible to meet every person`s needs in a country and do it without any bloodshed whatsoever. Although it would be great to have a peaceful revolution, it would be nearly impossible
delete

Reply from JACKSON Andrew [jackandr]
Wed Nov 27 11:02:29 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
What about the American Revolution? We established a democratic republic without this kind of carnage and political mass killings.
delete
MASON George [masogeor] Wed Nov 27 10:36:58 2019 Score: 100 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
Was the bloodshed of the french revolution necessary? I strongly think that the bloodshed necessary for a successful revolution. Most if not all revolutions involved some bloodshed. If you study the England revolution you can see that it started with people arguing between which role in government should hold the most power. The French Revolution started with three determining factors. One was when a drought hit france and there was no food left to eat. Another factor is that taxes were raised and this made it hard for low income families. The last factor was people that were excited for German Unity. After observing all of these factors from both revolutions you can see that it would have been very hard to conclude these revolutions peacefully and without bloodshed.

Spielvogel, J. (2014) The French Revolution Begins. Retrieved from
Spielvogel, J. (2014) War And Revolution in England. Retrieved from
delete

       reply       


Reply from PRESTON Mildred [presmild]
Wed Nov 27 10:52:05 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
The opposing view would say that the blood shed during the Revolution was not worth it! In time the things that came to be would have if there had been patience. To begin with, France had terrible social conditions and everyone was just miserable anyway and to add all of the gloominess the revolution popped in and made the peoples lives even worse. No one was treated equally which began to upset people, every single day that they lived was a disaster. This began to make their lives even worse every day.

WAS THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WORTH IT? Prezi.com, prezi.com/pkykbwiztgau/was-the-french-revolution-worth-it/.
delete

Reply from MASON George [masogeor]
Wed Nov 27 11:03:55 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
But how can you not see that the revolutionaries violated their own values by these acts? What happened to the Rights of Man and Citizen anyway!? If you violate your principles to defend your principles, then you really don;t have any principles do you!
delete
PRESTON Mildred [presmild] Wed Nov 27 10:37:49 2019 Score: 100 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The blood shed of the revolution was not necessary. Killing people who didn't commit a crime and were being killed for a pint is wrong. Innocence men, women and children were being killed for other people uses to show they had the power. Taking innocent lives isn't right if they didn't do anything wrong they could have taken it a whole other way for a better income than just killing people, if they would have thought more on it and looked at their options instead of jumping to conclusions this would have led to less deaths and less wars happening amongst the people


The French Revolution, French Revolution. [Online]. Available: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/. [Accessed: 31-Oct-2018]
delete

       reply       


Reply from MASON George [masogeor]
Wed Nov 27 10:51:09 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
The opposing view would say, yes it was unfair for many but let`s not forget that the bloodshed of the French revolution was the abolition of slavery, inherited rights and privileges, and judicial torture. It was made to have justice for the citizens. And give for rights for them and many more privileges.
delete

Reply from PRESTON Mildred [presmild]
Wed Nov 27 11:06:03 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
So what rights did the folks have who were senselessly executed on trumpted up charges in kangaroo courts?
delete
SENIOR Edith [seniedit] Wed Nov 27 10:38:27 2019 Score:  Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The bloodshed of the French Revolution was absolutely unnecessary. This time span, known as The Reign of Terror, resulted in 40,000 lives being taken, often the innocent lives of women and children, whose only crime was being born into a noble family. People were also put to death for speaking negatively against the revolution, which completely contradicts the ideals the revolutionaries were fighting for--freedom of speech. The idea of the Reign of Terror is completely hypocritical and unfair. The people convicted were put to death without a proper trial, often resulting in people being falsely accused. If a proper, fair trial was used, not nearly the amount of lives would have been taken, proving that these deaths were not by law and were absolutely not necessary.

Death is not the answer to this situation. Limitations could have been set in place for these people, or some other way that was not so drastic. The measures Robespierre took to eliminate the people who might interfere, not only was unfair, but also caused more trouble for the revolutionaries. People were offended and upset by these deaths, resulting in rebellions.Its effect upon public opinion, especially foreign opinion, was extremely harmful to the Revolutionary cause. Being unlawful should never be the solution, and in the end negatively affected the revolutionaries. Ultimately, this was not necessary because the revolutionaries failed, and so therefore the killing of innocent man and women was not necessary.

"Reign of Terror." Encyclopedia of Modern Europe: Europe 1789-1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire. . Retrieved October 19, 2018 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/reign-terror
delete

       reply       


Reply from SMITH Mary [smitmary]
Wed Nov 27 10:53:53 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
I believe that the bloodshed of the French Revolution was very unnecessary. There had to be a better way to do it than to kill thousands of innocent people. Yes, it wouldn`t be easy but it was possible and they should have figured out how to do it without so much unnecessary bloodshed.
delete

Reply from SENIOR Edith [seniedit]
Wed Nov 27 11:06:57 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
That`s easier said than done. You will be hard pressed to find many instances in history where major positive change did not cost something dear.
delete
SMITH Mary [smitmary] Wed Nov 27 10:39:29 2019 Score: 94 Grade Show Fallacy Rating
The French Revolution was worth the bloodshed and brutality it caused. The Reign of Terror, although barbaric and violent, changed the lives of the people of France forever. Developing rights, liberty, democracy, equality, and a new found respect for every individual, the Reign of Terror succeeded in doing just about everything it had planned to do. The Revolution was very tragic, innocent people died etc etc.. yet when you look at the overall picture it was all worth it. It created Nationalism, and demolished ruling classes.
Take it like this as we have previously talked about, would you (if you didnt know the people) kill one person to save three? Of course you would because you would want to save as many people as you could. Well this is the same idea as the Revolution, as tragic as it was for thousands of people's deaths, it in return saved hundreds of thousands people's lives. One must give in order to receive. Although sinful and sad the revolutionary demolished slavery, inherited judicial torture, and inherited privileges (which brought together many strong contributions as well) and yet did so much more. In order for all of these positive outlooks to happen, these negative outlooks had to be the start.

J. (1970, January 01). A look at our world... Retrieved from http://beautifulpsycho-xx.blogspot.com/2007/12/french-revolution-reign-of-terror-truly.html
delete

       reply       


Reply from SENIOR Edith [seniedit]
Wed Nov 27 10:52:55 2019

Show Fallacy Rating
The blood shed was not worth it because all of the innocent lives that were taken. People would be killed for little things like talking badly about the revolution or no reason at all. Also the amount of people that were killed was ridiculous to the point where 40,000 people were killed.
delete

Featuring AI-Assisted Scoring!

The content in this course is subject to copyright law. All content that is not specifically marked Public Domain or Creative Commons is only for the use of students enrolled in this course, for purposes associated with this course, and is not to be retained or disseminated. Content that is marked Creative Commons may be used under the terms of the relevant Creative Commons license.

© Innovation Assessments 2018