The Instigator
Hellvisse
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Canada is not a legitimate country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 41884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Hellvisse

Pro

Canada should not be an independent country. The independence of the Canadian federation is an accident of history and the causes of this accident are no more. The rational for an independent state of Canada is based on values and worldviews that even Canadians do not support anymore. Therefore there is no legitimate justification for an independent Canada.
Romanii

Con

I accept this debate.

I would like to start by posing a few questions to you:

1) What definition of a "country" does Canada not meet?

2) How is Canada's independence and "accident of history?

3) What is the legitimate justification for a non-independent Canada?

I need a fuller picture of your views on this subject in order to give rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
Hellvisse

Pro

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Canada exists as a separate and independent country because in 1776 the ruling men of the northern territories of British North America read that and thought:

"Nah, we ain't about that."

Canada was founded not ONCE but TWICE on the rejection of democracy and responsable self-governenment. The modern structure of the state as a federation of ten provinces was created to dilute and devide the opposition of the pro-democracy Upper and Lower Canada patriots and crush the uprising of the Prairie Cree so the barons of Montreal could build a railway and lay telegraph lines to connect Canada with other fine examples of modern statehood as British India and Rhodesia and to protect british land from the American traitors.

Canada as created on the rejection of all the international community now agrees are the legitimate foundations of legitimate statehood: democracy and self-government.

Now, yes, contemporary Canada has slowly evolved, british parliementary system-style, towards democracy.

Precisely. As it's opposition of the values on which the United States were founded has eroded, as the culture of English-Canadians is indistinguishable form any regional variation of American culture, as the Britsih empire is no more, as free trade and open borders is the stated objective of both countries, of their european allies, and indeed of most Nations in the world, there simply is no need for Canada as an independent nation in the world.

Canada can remain independent if it's citizens wish to remain indepedent and if the members of the United Nations recognize that independence, but it serves no legitimate purpous, unless you feel that protectionist barriers to shield the world's most destructive natural ressources industry (just google Fort McMurray) from competition and accountabilty is legitimate.

Now my man PRO wil no doubt want to argue that Canadians are so nice and polite and that Bryan Adams rocks, and that it is a less racist and violent culture that the US and that, if only for that, it is legitimate.

They are not, he does not, it is not and it is not and if he want to argue that he best be ready to demonstrate because I am.

Do it!
Romanii

Con

My opponent's first argument was about how Canada "rejected democracy and... self-government" by not joining the American Revolution, but the reason they didn't join is because the British Parliament took SPECIAL MEASURES to appease the French population of Quebec into not joining the revolution (1). As a result, the Canadians had no real reason to join the American Revolution. Why shed blood when it's not really needed?

Next he went on to state that "...the legitimate foundations of legitimate statehood [are] democracy and self-government."
I completely disagree with this point. That is simply the foundation of AMERICAN statehood. The definition of a "country" is an area of land that is controlled by its own government (2), and Canada achieved that status on July 1, 1867 (3). Just because Canada still pays respects to the British Crown doesn't mean it isn't a sovereign country.

Then he stated that "the culture of English-Canadians is indistinguishable form any regional variation of American culture, as the Britsih empire is no more, as free trade and open borders is the stated objective of both countries,".
First of all, anyone who thinks Canadian culture is indistinguishable from American culture obviously has never been to Canada before. And second of all, if open-borders is a sign of illegitimacy, then the European Union makes all of the countries in Europe illegitimate, as well.

Lastly my opponent stated that "[Canada] serves no legitimate purpous."
No purpose other than to govern its people... the same purpose that pretty much every other country exists for...

Canada is a perfectly legitimate country. There is no proof to show that it does not meet the definition of a country, and it is no more or less "useful" than any other country.

SOURCES:
(1) http://www.mcgill.ca...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3) http://www.historyofnations.net...
Debate Round No. 2
Hellvisse

Pro

One: I fail to see how winning over Canada's French population to the monarchy in any way excuses Canada's Anglos from rejecting democracy. I see no need to argue this point further.

But since my man con bring up the French Canadians, this might be a good time to point out that Qu"bec, Canada's only French-speaking province, has NOT ratified Canada's constitution, and that every one of it's governments-even the most staunchly unionist, federalists governements-have refused to do so.

If only for that reason, Canada is illegitimate.

Two: No one argues that as a land mass with a government Canada is a "country". The point is that a country founded on the rejection of democracy is not legitimate by modern standards.

Now you might be tempted to bring up the repatriated constitution of 1981 which sort of "re-founded" Canada on a better foundation. But considering that this was done despite the opposition (see point One) of both French (then 25% of Canada's population) and Native Canadians, I fail to see what legitimacy can be claimed from that document.

Three: CON claims that I can't ever have been to Canada. Yet, I'm as Canadian as that guy in that Molson's commercial. Therefore I maintain that although English-Canada does have a distinct culture, it is NO MORE distinct from North East American culture than Texas Culture is distinct from California is distinct from Black Georgia, is distinct from the bayou, is distinct from New Hampshire Hipster culture.

Canada is a country that was founded on the rejection of democracy and liberty and has consistently failed to correct that historic mistake.

Canada is illegitimate.
Romanii

Con

I don't mean to be condescending, but many of my your main points are based on a completely invalid premise.
A country does NOT have to follow democracy to be legitimate. I don't know why you are so stuck up on that. Democracy is the foundation of USA as a country; it is NOT the definition of any country anywhere in the world.

And even if democracy WAS the prerequisite to becoming a country, Canada is STILL legitimate. It may have not been a democracy in the past, but in modern times, it has become thoroughly democratic in nature (1).

You also talked about how Quebec rejects Canada's constitution. However, this does not make Canada illegitimate. It makes Quebec a semi-autonomous region within Canada. Sure, it wants independence, but there are devolutionary movements like that in many, many countries around the world (e.g. Spain, Italy, Brazil, Great Britain)

Then you went on to state that "although English-Canada does have a distinct culture, it is NO MORE distinct from North East American culture than Texas Culture is distinct from California is distinct from Black Georgia, is distinct from the bayou, is distinct from New Hampshire Hipster culture."
Texas culture, California culture, and Black Georgia culture are VERY VERY different from each other, and you would know that if you had actually been to those places (I travel a lot). So by stating this, you have just invalidated your own argument.

Your seemingly favorite argument to use is based on the faulty premise that Democracy makes a country legitimate, and it is faulty for two reasons:
1) Democracy DOESN'T make a country legitimate, according to the fact that there are many other forms of government
2) Canada's current form of government IS democratic...

Canada is legitimate.
Your arguments, however, are not.

SOURCES:
(1) http://www.parl.gc.ca...;
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Galal 3 years ago
Galal
Would be more fitting if your were referring to the U.S.
Posted by Hellvisse 3 years ago
Hellvisse
That sound like a follow-up debate to me.
Posted by MaxLascombe 3 years ago
MaxLascombe
If Canada should no longer be independent, which country would it fuse with?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by supershamu 3 years ago
supershamu
HellvisseRomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: That was an interesting debate. Con's rebuttals were fatal in pointing out Pro's arguments do not point to illegitimacy. Well done to both
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
HellvisseRomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well done to Con for pointing out the flaws in Pro's arguments. I think Pros arguments were based mainly n the fact that democracy is equivalent to a legitimate country, but this is faulty logic. Sources go to Con as sources were offered. Conduct and grammar are split. Sorry Pro, I have to side with the Non-Canadian :)