Does Canada "suck"
Debate Round Forfeited
Wylted has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open with Elo Restrictions||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||1 month ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||305 times||Debate No:||96136|
Debate Rounds (4)
There are, of course, some small reason why it isn't so great, but the Pros vastly overpower the cons.
Please don't say meaningless reason like "Canadian Women are ugly", "They are idiots" (proved that wrong)(Also one stupid waitress doesn't mean all Canadians are dumb) Or fake dumb laws from a comedy website.
Let’s get clear on the definition of “sucks”, because it is a slang term and easy to misunderstand for non native English speakers.
Sucks- "Is bad, is rubbish" http://www.internetslang.com...
Bad is clearly a moral statement. If something is not good, it is bad. Canada Sucks. It is bad in the moral sense of the word. Most of my energy will be showing that Canada is immoral, but I will certainly also touch on the fact that it is a shittty place to live. My opponent is Canadian, so you can see the type of individual that comes from such a place, and it is despicable.
Canada is a political area. Given that Canada is a political boundary, it is safe to say that Canada is it’s government, though it certainly contains it’s citizens known as Canadians. It is important to keep in mind that Canada is a political boundary, that it is a government. Without the government there is no political boundary, and without the political boundary there is no government. They are one in the same.
NAP is Love NAP is Life
NAP stands for non aggression principle. It is a principle most of us follow, and also expect others to follow. We intuitively know it is the ethical thing to do. Well what is the NAP? I’m glad you asked.
The Nap is Murray Rothbard explains it the following way:
“no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the ‘nonaggression axiom.’ ‘Aggression’ is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.”
We as individuals recognize this to be true, but we somehow forget this truth when going to the ballot box. Perhaps having the government do our dirty work for us, makes us feel less responsible for the violence. If Canada helps America kill kids in the middle east, than we can blame politicians instead of accepting we have done something bad by voting for a person who would do such evil. Murray Rothbard in the following statement mentions other evil’s the Canadian government engages in.
“The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls ‘war,’ or sometimes ‘suppression of subversion’; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls ‘conscription’; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls ‘taxation.'” https://kuyperiancommentary.wordpress.com...
The state does all this stuff and more. Canada in emergency situations will call for conscription, and they undoubtedly tax their citizens as well as engage in wars, including the Iraq war, WW2 etc.. They also initiate force against speeders, people who pull their penis out in public and people who smoke crack.
Let there be no doubt that the Canadian government violates the NAP on a daily basis, and is evil for it. (aka bad/sucks)
We know the non aggression principle is a moral absolute. We don’t steal from people, because it is wrong. Even if I get 5 of my neighbors out and we all vote to steal your property it is wrong. That is what taxation is, your neigbors voting to steal your property.
We know that it is wrong to tackle your neighbor if you see him doing a drug, and cuff him and then lock him in a 5 by 5 room. It doesn’t make this action okay just because you pay some money in the form of taxes to a hired gun in the form of a cop to do it for you. The non aggression principle is an undeniable moral truth, we inherently know it, society operates better when nobody is aggressing against others whether that be stealing from you or raping you. Canada sucks because it violates the NAP.
The State is evil
We know the very existence of the state violates the NAP, and is therefore bad. However if you don’t accept the nap than you should know that the state is still bad for other reasons. In the best case scenario the state is unnecessary, in the worst case scenario it is just plain evil. There are 4 possibilities when looking at the distribution of good and evil people in society.
Scenario 1- All men are good.
If scenario 1 is true than a state is not necessary. Men can govern themselves instead of being governed by force.
Scenario 2- All men are evil.
Stefan Molyneux says:
“In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups.”
This makes sense in scenario number 2 giving evil men control of the state leaves them unrestrained from doing great harm.
Scenario 3- The majority of men are evil, and a minority good.
In this scenario a state cannot be allowed to exist because evil people will naturally gravitate towards positions of power, and god men being outnumbered at the ballot will help this process along as well. We can not allow an evil majority to hold the reigns of government an entity that has a monopoly on force.
Scenario 4- Most men are good, and the minority evil.
In this scenario evil people will pretend to be good and seek positions of power to shield themselves from good people. This puts a bunch of evil people in control of the state which has a monopoly on force and all the good people will be at their mercy.
We can see in all scenarios a government cannot be allowed to exist, and since a government exists in Canada, Canada sucks.
Here is what else Stephan says about these scenarios.
“It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a State can logically be allowed to exist. The only possible justification for the existence of a State would be if the majority of men are evil, but all the power of the State is always and forever controlled by a minority of good men. This situation, while interesting theoretically, breaks down logically because:
1. the evil majority would quickly outvote the minority or overpower them through a coup;
2. there is no way to ensure that only good people would always run the State; and,
3. there is absolutely no example of this having ever occurred in any of the dark annals of the brutal history of the State. https://www.lewrockwell.com...
Canada sucks because it has a government when all scenarios are examined it is stupid to have one.
Sucks is a slang word that means bad, a moral statement. We have now determined that Governments are inherently evil because their existence violates the non aggression principle as well as just being unnecessary even in the best of the 4 scenarios I mention.
Canada as a political entity is bad/evil. Therefore it naturally follows that Canada sucks. Please vote Wylted.
I gave my definition of "suck" as the very first comment, which I am sure you have seen because you posted right after it. My definition of "suck" for countries is: "not a good place to live in comparison to all places to live." The reason I made that definition is because there is no choice of "No country" or "Make your own" for countries, it is either a country here or a country there, therefore they should be compared as in to find the most suitable place to live with your needs.
My counter to your argument:
Yes, we should all follow NAP, I heartily agree with you on that, but I ask you. What if people chose not to? How do you stop aggression without aggression? If someone is shooting children and you have a gun in your hand would you not shoot him because you follow NAP?
Of course, people violate NAP like killing children or bombing villages, but if we take a step back it's all part of getting NAP to rule again, we make mistakes, stupid soldiers kill children, and that is wrong. We will never achieve total NAP, but we can strive for it, and although we violate NAP to stop it, so far we have not found many other alternatives. The government simply sees it as Human rights>NAP.
(This is more war on terror, I prefer arguments actually regarding the internal function of Canada)
The reason I find you argument invalid here is because we cannot stop people from violating NAP. It is an undeniable moral truth. Just bad people don't follow it, and we have to use force to counter. Fight fire with fire. You wish for a country where no one violated NAP, so life would be almost perfect. The sad truth is, that country does not and will not exist. All we can do is get as close as we can, which Canada is better in this sense than most other countries by far.
(For example. to America:In more recent years, the USA as a country still typically has higher violent crimes rates. In 2012, the homicide rate in the USA was 4.7 per 100,000 residents, Canada's was 3 times lower at 1.6. Certain methods of homicide are used more frequently in each country; in Canada (0.59), stabbing homicides occur 51.3% more often than in the USA (0.39), however firearm homicides occur 440% more in the USA (2.7) than in Canada (0.5). In the USA, you are 3 times more likely to die being shot (17.4%) then being stabbed (5.3%)
Beyond homicides, the USA (112.9) has a higher robbery rate - 42.2% higher than Canada (79.4). Other violent crimes such as physical assaults or sexual assaults are not very comparable between the countries because of different definitions of the crimes. The disparity in property crime is not as large, however it still exists. The burglary/break-in rate in the USA (670.2) is 33.1% higher than in Canada (503.7), the theft rate in the USA (1959.3) is 33.4% higher than in Canada (1468.4), and the auto-theft rate in the USA (229.7) is slightly higher than the rate in Canada (223.5).
Your argument against the fact that Canada violated NAP, therefore is evil, is almost invalid as the fact that we violate NAP for the greater purpose and to stop others from, violating NAP. Also, how does the fact that Canada chooses to fight against terror have to do with it's internal function, such as all the reasons I stated in my first argument?
Yes, of course tax is part of it but tax isn't your neighbors voting to rob you. It's more like everyone contributes for the greater good and for Canada is general. However, this is a completely different debate and I would appreciate if you gave me direct reasons why Canada sucks.
"The State is evil"
Once again, no direct argument why Canada is bad.
It is missing a possibility. What if the majority of Canadians are good, and the minority bad, BUT the good people are in control? Maybe once in a while a bad person comes along but is outvoted because we have a democratic system and majority good people. That is Canada: We have majority good people and good people in charge (Maybe not so much Steven Harper but look, he was OUTVOTED) It works, as long as the organisation remains good. That's the problem in your argument. Situation 4 has another possibility.
Also, what do we do without a government? Organisation is key to all function. I cannot think of a way society works without organisation and laws. It would just be a big mess. All successful animals today have some sort of organisation, and a system that resembles a government. Bees, Ants, Mice, lions, chimps, and many more. Yes, we will never have the perfect society with the perfect government, but we can get as close as we can.
The reason why we have governments is because government includes elected officials who are supposed to create and enforce laws that support an infrastructure for the common good. Governments formalize laws and systems based on the ideals and values of the population the government serves.
Your argument would be better suited to a debate that goes by "Is governments wrong? in which you explain thoroughly why in your opinion governments are wrong. The conclusion for your entire argument against Canada is :
Governments are evil. Canada is controlled by a government. Therefore, Canada is evil.
Well I guess by your logic every country is evil. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Just no.(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
The fact that every country strives for a functional government is proof that governments are logical and needed. There is no way 7 billion people are all wrong. Even in history, the biggest, most powerful empires, Rome, Genghis Khan. the Aztecs, they ALL HAVE GOVERNMENTS. I think that means something. Governments with good people in control with a majority of good people under them accomplish magnificent things. It is a fact strengthened by history and the success of modern day countries with functional governments. (USA, England, Japan, CANADA)
I find the majority of you argument flawed and untrue, as well as indirect to living in Canada, where in that sense is one of the best places to live. My reasons for this is all stated in my first argument. I have disproved my opponent of his argument while my first argument still stands strong, Canada undoubtedly is a wonderful place to live, which my opponent yet has to disprove. Yes, like many other countries, our government has some problems, bad decisions, but, in total, taking everything into consideration, the positivity is many times stronger than the negativity in this beautiful Country.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.