The Instigator
sardar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Piffler
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

India should unite to what it was during the British Rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Piffler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 955 times Debate No: 12267
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

sardar

Pro

Today's Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Burma should all be one country called India under it's own rule.
Piffler

Con

My opponent has the burden of proof, and therefore I only need to negate my opponent's arguments, not necessarily present my own. However, as my opponent has not presented any arguments, I will start off this debate by making one key observation on why this would not be beneficial. I will present further arguments in the next round after my opponent has had a chance to present opening arguments.

1) Religious violence would increase dramatically due to the difference in populations between the countries, as the total number of Muslims in those countries is approximately 482 million and the total number of Hindus is approximately 926 million. [1] [2] Since the number of Hindus would be approximately twice the number of Muslims, Hindus would have a much larger representation in the government than the Muslims, yet the Muslims would represent a large enough demographic to protest this, likely leading to violent confrontations.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
sardar

Pro

I believe that they should work together no matter what religion just like the US. Everyone should just vote on a president.
Piffler

Con

In the last rebuttal, my opponent does not provide any logical support as to why these countries should unify. My opponent has not given a single benefit which could arise from this situation. Thus, as the instigator, my opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Additionally, the only argument that my opponent does make as a rebuttal to my point about religious violence is that religious violence can be avoided in places like the United States, so it can be eliminated in the Middle East. This is obviously erroneous since the United States was built upon religious tolerance but the Middle East region has had large amounts of religious conflict in the past, so the comparison cannot be made. [1] [2] Additionally, in my first argument I pointed out the problems that having elected officials in this scenario would create since a Hindu president would most likely be elected, which would anger the Muslim population due to a lack of representation. This would merely increase the amount of violence, something which is clearly detrimental.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.globalpolicy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
sardar

Pro

sardar forfeited this round.
Piffler

Con

Due to my opponent's forfeit, please extend all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
sardar

Pro

sardar forfeited this round.
Piffler

Con

Again, due to my opponent's forfeit, please extend all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
sardar

Pro

sardar forfeited this round.
Piffler

Con

Piffler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
sardarPifflerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06