The Instigator
efifnghamnathan
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Grovenshar
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 88810
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (2)

 

efifnghamnathan

Pro

In a world where global warming is a stark, and undeniable, reality, the United States should begin to plan for the new world that is coming.

Reasons:
- Canada would give access to the newly opened (due to warming) arctic ocean for mineral exploitation and trade.

- Control over Canada would give the United States access to a larger pool of fresh water in a world facing water scarcity

- The United States should take preemptive action to protect against potential future aggression by Canadian actors (or Canadian-backed non-state actors).

- The action of annexation would demonstrate U.S. strength in an increasing multi-polar global political landscape.
Grovenshar

Con

This annexation wouldn't benefit the U.S. nearly as much as it would harm it.

Reasons:
1) Nuclear War:
Nuff said
2) Justin Bieber:
If we were to annex Canada, we would be stuck in a hell where teenage girls would suddenly migrate north to meet Justin Bieber. Given that guys like girls, they would change themselves to be just like Justin Bieber. Unfortunately, Justin Bieber is a jerk. Therefore, to avoid a mass migration and, subsequently, a generation of jerks, we should not annex Canada.
Debate Round No. 1
efifnghamnathan

Pro

In a world where global warming is a stark, and undeniable, reality, the United States should begin to plan for the new world that is coming.

The annexation of Canada would carry no risk of nuclear war. They are not a nuclear armed nation, and their primary military ally is the United States. Other allies (The U.K., E.U., etc) would not risk engaging against an obviously unhinged United States.

The benefits far outweigh the small, almost non-existent, risks.

I concede the Bieber point, I had not factored that in to my thought process.
Grovenshar

Con

I admit it. Global warming means we should migrate to Canada in order to avoid heat stroke. The biggest issue though is still found in nuclear war. If everybody in congress and the military is willing to go through with this, other countries will respond. Nuclear war may not occur, but war on some scale will. Whatever happens will be negative. In order to survive, we should instead concede all of our land to Canada. We would, in fact, own Canada, just from a backwards perspective.
Debate Round No. 2
efifnghamnathan

Pro

I will concur that a full, unconditional surrender to our northern overlords would be the most peaceful option. However, a nuclear war might just be the solution to global warming, via nuclear winter. Our nation, under the preeminent leadership of President (for life) Trump, needs to demonstrate a clear and strong response to the threat of global warming. Our 'huge hands' should "quickly and decisively bomb the heck out of Ottawa", forcing mother nature to cower in fear.
Grovenshar

Con

I'm afraid that I have to cow to your superior logic. I concede anything and everything, except for one lost thing. We can annex ourselves into Canada, and then we can nuke Ottawa because "New Canadian Lives Matter".
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
@grovenshar. Of course, that was obvious to anyone who read the debate.
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
Grovenshar
This was a debate round that I was thoroughly joking for. The concession at the end was just a small way of congratulating my opponent on a fun debate, while simultaneously giving me a way to put in one last argument. It wasn't really a concession, just a miswritten congratulations and thank you.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Sure.
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
Grovenshar
May I clear up one thing?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
As I said to tej, I'm not certain that a full concession occurred in this debate, hence the vote was still moderated. Fully conceded debates aren't moderated. That's why I posted it that way.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
Although I don't think it was a concession because it had an "except" clause. But hey, voting rules are like god in their mystery and power.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
Oh wait. Sorry. My mistake. You think that that"." is referring to the concession...

I see it all now.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
@whiteflame are you sure you removed the right vote? Everything wrote ".". Famousdebater had the rfd that mentioned the concession.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con is a genius. The US should annex itself to Canada (as con argued in rounds 2 and 3). This would solve the main issues Pro raised (see comments for list) but better, and avoid war (as pro conceded in round 3).

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the above RFD, by itself, is insufficient to explain the decision (merely stating what each side argued without explaining why one side's argument was more effective, but the extension in the comments does sufficiently explain why the voter is buying/not buying certain arguments, and thus is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] While Pro could be viewed as having conceded the debate, the voter has to at least point out the concession in order for the vote to be sufficient, as it's not altogether clear in this instance. As such, this vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
efifnghamnathanGrovensharTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession in the final round.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
efifnghamnathanGrovensharTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is a genius. The US should annex itself to Canada (as con argued in rounds 2 and 3). This would solve the main issues Pro raised (see comments for list) but better, and avoid war (as pro conceded in round 3).