The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Members of the EU should form a single state.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 13929
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First I would like to state that this is my first debate on this site and I'm trying to get a feel for this form of debating. Having said this, I am actually debating this live in a few weeks and thus I view this as a chance to experience the arguments for both sides.

As I believe the Pro have to open the argument, I will challenge the Pro to identify the points which must be proven in order to prove that this action would be a good idea and thus giving me something to oppose.
Not knowing the direction which the debate will go, I can only provide a hazy and general outline of how my contention will go. My points will be (assuming they are not disproved immediately)
1. The incompatibility of contrasting social mentalities
2. The incompatibility of separate economies
3. The incompatibility of general policies/laws of certain EU countries
4. The lack of an emotional 'glue' to hold such a state together.

Oh, one more thing, being unaccustomed to speaking in a debate in which stats are required, I am more likely to speak in general theoretical terms than using data.


I am new at this also so lets have some practice.
"The incompatibility of contrasting social mentalities" there is many different social mentalities everywhere. Look in your own home did you ever see eye to eye with your parents? or siblings? There is always incompatibility but given a goal or even a life threanting ordeal and people will join together to overcome this challenge. Take soldiers for example if the bullets are flying and the bombs are going off they join together to get eachother out alive. Another aspect is natural disasters, When a disaster happens people band together and help out those in need."The incompatibility of separate economies" Doesnt nearly all europe use the euro?
"The incompatibility of general policies/laws of certain EU countries" Ah most countires are very similar to the UN govenment. All countires will have a different laws but most can be integrated together because they are similar.
"The lack of an emotional 'glue' to hold such a state together" If given a goal and a challenge people will join together.
Debate Round No. 1


First I would both like to thank my opponent for taking part, that and apologize for wasting the first round by saying nothing important. Having said that, now on with the debate.

By EU countries form one state, I interpret that a single state is one with 1 set of laws and 1 government.

In order to prove that it would be a good idea to have EU countries to unite, I challenge my opponent to prove
1. All participants in such a reform would be better off.
2. This state would hold together long term and short term.
3. Minor European countries would not become irrelevant and functionally cease to exist.

As opposition, I will attempt to disprove as many of these as possible while being aware that disproving only one would still be enough to show that this would be a bad idea.

4. (out of the original order) The lack of an emotional glue.
My opponent while refuting my argument headings made the following statements: "given a goal or even a life threatening ordeal and people will join together to overcome this challenge. Take soldiers for example if the bullets are flying and the bombs are going off they join together to get each other out alive. Another aspect is natural disasters, When a disaster happens people band together and help out those in need." In his case my opponent has outlined various scenarios in which people will get best differences in order to overcome a challenge.
However, in each example given, he has outlined and emotional 'glue', e.g. war, natural disaster. Fundamentally the argument states that in times of need people will unite. This is exactly what does not apply to Europe. In Europe, there have been recently no wars, disasters, or for that matter any form of a common enemy (the most effective 'glue' of all)
Therefore such reasoning provides no evidence to suggest that such a state consisting of countries who have historically been enemies more that allies could keep together.

1. Contrasting Social Mentalities.
When I say social mentality, what I mean in the general approach of a society to work and to law. My statement is that a country consisting of contrasting mentalities won't function well. My proof: consider a country with 2 portions of the population: one which believes in hard work and the other which does the minimum work in order to have he maximum leisure. In such a state, needless to say the hardworking region would have a much stronger internal economy than the lazier one, thus it would be better developed. Why is this important? Because the job of an state is to spend money where need is greater. In such a scenario, the need is in the less developed region (i.e. the lazy region). Therefore with such contrasting mentalities as these, the hardworking fund the lazy. Thus the hard working suffer from such a system and lazy benefit. Thus a society is created in which there is no motivation to work hard, thus creating what is fundamentally a welfare state.
Now lets apply this to Europe. You have Germany which efficient, hardworking, and law abiding. Put this in one state with a country which is (relative to Germany) underdeveloped and less hardworking like Italy, and the above scenario occurs. Therefore having the EU countries unite creates a system in which the 'engine room' of Europe: Germany, suffers, and would therefore be unhappy with such a reform. Thus there would be no incentive for Germany to remain in this super state, thus making its the state quite unstable.

2. Incompatibly of separate economies
Most EU countries use the Euro it is true, but this does not mean that they have one economy. One only has to look back at the time of the economic boom when Ireland was already into it, while France and Germany was only entering. At this time the ECB (European Central Bank, which decides interest rates for all of Europe) set low interest rates across the board. This was a stimulant for the German and French economies, because the timing was correct. For the Irish economy however, which boomed at a slightly different time, it was disastrous. Ireland were artificially given a much bigger than was real, causing them to over spend, over build, and over expand. Thus when the recession came, they had gone too far (due to the pro-cyclical policy of the ECB) and fell that much harder. This didn't only effect Ireland negatively, now it has gone so far such that it is harming the rest of the EU as well. When it is taken into account that this was caused ultimately by the ECB, a central dominant bank, you really have to question the logic in putting many countries whose economies boom and bust at different times under on policy maker, especially which this model has already failed.

4. Incompatibly of policies/laws
My opponent believe that these differences can be integrated together. While this may be true for petty minor laws, those are not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about laws which to certain parties are a matter of life and death or policies which determine the entire way in which an economy is run.
I. Abortion, Some EU countries accept it and others don't. In such a matter there can be no compromise, thus someone must end up unhappy, and as this is a matter in which most are emotionally involved in, it will make the loser very unsatisfied.
In this case, Merging the EU would confirm Benjamin Franklin's quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch," merging the EU would allow big countries to bully smaller ones around by forcing them to accept the opposite of what they already have and want.
II. Economic policies. This goes into the fundamental Capitalist, Socialist debate which is ever present. In Europe, some countries like Ireland are relatively Capitalist (low taxes, yet few government services provided), on the other had we have Sweden which is relatively socialist (high taxes, yet many government services provided) These two policies are polar opposites. Both have benefits and both have faults, yet no 'best' method has yet been discovers. Thus in this as well one party will be forced to accept the opposite of what they have, thus creating dissatisfaction.

In my argument, I have attempted to show why certain significant countries will be worse off by such a drastic reform as this. In addition I have tried to show that it will lead to an unstable state. Unstable states of course are all to likely to: at best separate, making the motion pointless, or start a war, making the motion a bad thing.


Vaughn forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Um, well, I repeat my previous argument and will add in this point. In Germany, the attitude towards laws is that they are meant to be followed. In Ireland, the attitude is that they were meant to be broken. As in a single country, there must a a universal interpretation on the law, it would mean that between these countries, it would get messy.


I forefit
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by USRugbyfan 7 years ago
For anyone who reads this, please put arguments that defeat me or ones that support me; because the function of this debate, or at least the intention was for it to be preparation for a later live debate which I'm speaking in.
Posted by USRugbyfan 7 years ago
Thank you very much Chrysippus, I'll keep this in mind.
I was used to a system in which the prop have the privilege/responsibility of defining the motion, and, as that will be the way of things in 2 weeks time, I figured I was better off doing it that way here.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Welcome. The way it's done here is somewhat different necessarily from how you are used to debating; it may take a little getting used to at first.

Make your case for Con. As the instigator, you have a crucial opportunity of getting the first word, first definitions, and initial arguments in; giving that to your opponent is unwise. Don't wait for your opponent to open; it's both bad form and gives an opening for someone to twist the debate away from what you intend.

Give a clear resolution, define important terms (to thwart the trollls), build a strong case without giving away everything you have in you hand, and cite your sources (if any). As you pointed out, this is more of a philosophical debate; but if you mean to apply theory to the real world situation, you'll need to post links to reliable, unbiased sources online.

That said, good luck here!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50