Debate Rounds (5)
Hello! I have a number of arguments that will be elaborated upon in further posts. For now, here they are:
1. Global Economic Impact
As we have already seen, the Brexit has already led to severe economic implications in markets worldwide. Over $2 trillion have already been lost just in one day (June 24).This has resulted in worldwide stock markets plunging in value. Spain's IBEX 35 fell 12.5%, NASDAQ fell 3.6%, Europe's Euro Stoxx 50 tumbled 9.1%, and Japan's NIKKEI 225 fell 7.9%. The British pound has plummeted to its lowest level in thirty years in just one day! British trade will be hindered by not being able to easily trade with the continent. This will inevitably result in further economic trouble in Britain even after this initial damage outlined above.
As for Europe: the EU just lost its biggest economy. This will mean that the whole of Europe just got a whole lot poorer, because Britain no longer has easy access to trade. What will this mean for countries like Greece? What will happen to the European continent if there's an economic downturn? The financial security of Europe and all of its trading partners will be made much weaker because of Brexit.
2. Impact on Britain
As we both know, there was a referendum in Scotland in September of 2014 to secede from the UK. It failed and the UK is still whole. In the Brexit vote, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU. Already there is talk in Scotland of seceding and rejoining the European Union. There is also a movement starting for the reunification of Ireland (meaning the UK would also lose Northern Ireland). If these happen and the UK is split into three pieces, the consequences will be both profound and irreparable. The UK is our strongest ally overseas. If it splits, NATO, the UK, and the US will be much less powerful, both militarily and economically. Brexit has already set this in motion. Would you (or anybody) knowingly and willingly support the weakening of our country?
3. Peace in Europe
The organizations that led to the EU were founded in 1945, just after World War II. The idea was to create a union of countries that would be so closely intertwined that war between them would be unthinkable. After Brexit, other countries are already clamoring to leave the EU as well. This Brexit has started a long domino chain that will eventually result in the collapse of the EU. At some point, there will be war in Europe because of this collapse. Now that countries are abandoning the network that has held relative peace in a whole continent, who knows what the disastrous consequenses will be?
When you simply dismiss an opponent's arguments as "factoids and other junk," it is to be assumed that you have no rebuttal for them. Thus, unless you provide an adequate rebuttal in later rounds, you concede all of these points as true. I don't know what political correctness has to do with this debate; if you would be so kind as to explain so both of us have some context to argue off of, that would be nice. Just as a note--since the British people have now voted to leave the EU, I hope that it happens and that Britain does succeed in invoking Article 50. It's one thing to be against something passing and quite another to try to override the will of the people by undemocratic means. I respect the will of the British people and hope that the choice they made actually occurs. If I'm not mistaken, however, you titled this debate "Brexit" and I took the Con position. Does this not mean that I am arguing that the effects of Brexit will be mostly negative and you arguing that they will be positive?
Seeing as you don't appear to have made any actual arguments as to why a Brexit will be beneficial, I shall refrain from expanding my arguments this round, seeing as I have nothing to respond to.
Why is this relevant? If my opponent will continue to insist on going off on tangents that do not pertain to the ideas of this debate and still refuses to post any actual arguments (or respond to a single one of mine), I see no reason to continue this debate.
I understand that conversations never travel in a straight line. However, this is not a conversation. This is a debate. Debates are meant to stay on point and not meander around pointlessly. You titled this debate "Brexit," and you have not even mentioned the word in any of your argument. You haven't even made any actual arguments. So I say again, if you refuse to actually write anything substantive, I see no point in the further continuance of this debate.
Well, it appears that my opponent has again chosen to refrain from posting anything substantive. Since he has not responded to any of my points, he has conceded all of them. He has not made any of his own arguments, and hasn't even written the word "Brexit" save for in the title. I strongly encourage voters to vote Con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.