The Instigator
thefact
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points

Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/14/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,776 times Debate No: 7841
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (10)

 

thefact

Pro

Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy and can not produce any hansard record showing when Canadians became free from the BNA Act and colonial rule .To believe Canada is a democracy and you were not indoctrinated you have to produce the following documents:
1. Hansard record of a British bill declaring all Canadians sovereign and free from British rule and the Queen.
2. A copy of a referendum ; stating Canadians vote to be free of the British bill the BNA Act. and the queen.
3. A copy of a referendum ; approving Canada's sovereignty and freedom and a constitution ratified by the people of each province , agreeing to give a federal government the powers they want a federal government to have.
4 . The legal definition of a democracy as provided BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY.
My last debate proves my point Canada is not a democracy ,but you believe it is ; only because you were told it is, that is indoctrination.
alto2osu

Con

Thank you to my opponent for introducing this debate.

To preface, as my profile states, I am not Canadian. I'll just apologize for that now. :) However, I do believe that, without producing any of the aforementioned documentation, I can effectively argue that Canada is, essentially, operating under the democratic principles which my opponent refers to. I can do this because my opponent's resolution is not "Canada is not a sovereign nation." The resolution is simply "Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy."

First of all, we need to define a democracy in exact terms. If my opponent wishes to use the Black's Law definition, so be it:

That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.

I will assume that we are speaking in practice, rather than in label, although the monarchies to which I will refer to are now parliamentary systems of government.

To the arguments!

1.Though no official notation of sovereignty exists within the BNA Acts or Hansard record from my research, neither is necessary to prove that a particular country is not living in a democratic state.

Essentially, I simply need to prove that either Canada or its "parent" country, GB, uphold democratic principles of government via their nearly mutually exclusive parliamentary systems, and I'll have the debate. Let's start with GB.

GB's Crown is only Crown in name; the queen is, essentially, ceremonial by all legitimate sources the inform about the nature of the British government. Parliament is bicameral, it is elected, and the PM is chosen via majority party control, which is very similar to the United States, if we may use it as an example of contemporary democratic government. So, if we assume that GB has sovereign control of Canada, then we assume that Canada lives under said parliamentary system which espouses democratic values, namely voted-in government officials or officials appointed by those who are voted in, as well as a government with sufficient checks and balances via an executive (Crown/PM), legislative, and judicial branch. Hence, Canadians who believe they live in a modern democracy are not indoctrinated. At least, no more so than a United States citizen is indoctrinated to believe that its government rests on democratic ideals.

2.Even if GB's government isn't enough, the creation of the Canadian parliament, PM, and the appointment of the only representative of the Crown, the Governor General, indicate that GB is instilling democratic rights onto a country that is only a territory by ceremony.

So, Canada has its own elected parliament, entirely separate of that in GB. The catching point is the Governor General, who is appointed by the Crown to oversee its affairs in the nation. However, the acting PM in Canada advises the Crown on its choice of Governor General. His/her advice is taken as it would be a huge mark of disrespect to not do so. Now, the acting Governor General appoints the PM of Canada after a national election, but the choice is generally given to the ruling political party or a minority government with the most popularity. Never in practice does the Crown make these decisions without the express will of the Canadian majority (or minority, as it were) behind it. Hence, the same democratic principles in action within the US and the UK are being rigorously protected in Canada by the very government the affirmation accuses of deceiving the Canadian people.

In conclusion, though the letter of the law does not make Canadian sovereignty explicit, all current practice within the governments of Canada & GB affirm that Canadians citizens, indeed, enjoy a democratic system of government. Now, if the Canadian people were being treated as those countries in Africa or South America during the colonial invasions of the past, the affirmation would be able to make the distinction between the Canadian government (which would be entirely supplanted by its ruling nation's government, and with no equal representation) and the GB government. As it stands, though, I don't think this can be proven. Though my opponent may try to argue that, because the semantical issue of being "free" within the Black's Law definition, the Canadian people are not living in a democracy, hence brainwashed into thinking so, I submit that, in practice, Canadians are just as free as citizens of the United States. They enjoy all of the core rights which citizens of the United States and GB enjoy with respect to controlling their own governance.

I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1
thefact

Pro

US declared it's independence from Britain-Canada did not. Canada was a colony and not a democracy as defined by Blacks law Dictionary. First you have to be free and sovereign and you have not produced any hansard record of any debate or bill stating Canada is free from British rule and is now a sovereign country. It may look like a democracy but just like a picture of you looks like you it is not you it is just an image of you. Just because you believe the indoctrination of the government saying it is a democracy does not make it a democracy. The people of Canada never had a choice of what kind of government it wanted , like the U.S. did. A colonial government can not one day be a colonial government and the same day be a sovereign democratic government just by saying so with no ratification by referendum by the people. You are arguing Canada is a democracy not that you have not been indoctrinated to believe so. You have to produce documents , not statements of what you believe to win your side. How was a democracy created in Afghanistan? How was one created in Canada? Canadian documents please, not comments.
alto2osu

Con

Good evening, affirmation! I'll be rebutting the round 2 response by breaking it up into pieces and addressing the parts with numbered arguments.

"US declared it's independence from Britain-Canada did not. Canada was a colony and not a democracy as defined by Blacks law Dictionary."

1. Black's law dictionary definition of a democracy, as stated above, is simply "that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."

The citizens must be free, but Black's Law makes no mention of national sovereignty. The two can be distinguished in a case such as Canada's, in which no human rights violations are being documented or perpetrated.. As I stated in round 1 in my conclusion, the citizens of Canada, empirically, are just as free as the citizens of the United States with respect to self-governance. Canadians vote in their parliamentary members, who form majority parties, who then have their pick of PM via a Governor General who is appointed by the specific advice of the Canadian PM position and who will inevitably pick a new PM from the majority party.

" First you have to be free and sovereign and you have not produced any hansard record of any debate or bill stating Canada is free from British rule and is now a sovereign country. It may look like a democracy but just like a picture of you looks like you it is not you it is just an image of you. Just because you believe the indoctrination of the government saying it is a democracy does not make it a democracy. "

2. I'll have to reiterate my previous analysis here, as you don't seem to be able to counter with anything other than "I am being indoctrinated by Canada to believe that Canada isn't practicing democratic principles." The principles are there, as outlined in round 1: if Canada is not a democracy, then why does its national government contain identical mechanisms to democratic GB and the US? I need no Canadian parliamentary records to show me that the Canadian parliament is acting in accordance with the citizens of Canada who elected its members. Hence, Canadians for all intents and purposes are self-governing, even if they are, in title or ceremony alone, still a territory of GB.

And, again, sovereignty is not a condition of democracy. Yes, in many cases, it has accompanied it. However, in the case of Canada, which is completely incomparable at this time to other colonial government situations, 100% official sovereignty has not been a prerequisite of a fair, democratic governing system. By all means, show me how the Crown is railroading Canada's government, when it clearly defers to it in all matters of self-governance (like the Governor General).

"The people of Canada never had a choice of what kind of government it wanted , like the U.S. did. A colonial government can not one day be a colonial government and the same day be a sovereign democratic government just by saying so with no ratification by referendum by the people. You are arguing Canada is a democracy not that you have not been indoctrinated to believe so. You have to produce documents , not statements of what you believe to win your side. How was a democracy created in Afghanistan? How was one created in Canada? Canadian documents please, not comments."

3. I'm not a citizen of Canada. Until this moment, I had absolutely no contact with Canadian government propaganda, nor have I been immersed in Canadian culture. I can, however, do research on the current incarnations of the parliamentary system in Canada. This, of course, is what I did. My arguments aren't formulated via indoctrination, because there has been no time to indoctrinate me. That requires a bit more than half an hour of research.

4. One more time: sovereignty is not a prerequisite, even in your own definition of democracy. Only free citizens are required to rule said government, and empirically Canadians are free citizens. And, as stated before, every mechanism of the government, even Canada's interaction with the Crown, is directly related to the citizens' popular choices for officials (see my Governor General analysis).

5. I am arguing indoctrination. My argument, to clarify, is that Canadians who believe themselves to be living in a democracy are correct; they are not indoctrinated. They haven't been fooled into thinking they are free while big, bad England rules with an iron fist. I'm saying that, because both GB and Canada have democratically principled governing systems, Canada must have a democratic government. Hence, Canadians who believe this believe correctly, or at least with incredibly significant empirical and political foundation.

6. I am presenting documents; granted, they are not the Hansard records that you seem to be single-mindedly defining as everything that encompasses Canada's ability to self-govern, but they are documented, empirical governmental practices that both GB and Canada partake in. I am presenting both logical and empirical warrants for every claim I make. I'm not just launching "statements" at you. I expect you to respond to those warrants if you wish to win this debate, and not just claim I am conspiratorily involved in the great Canadian indoctrination scheme...
Debate Round No. 2
thefact

Pro

That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens.. Who is the sovereign power in government - The Queen not the people . Who is the sovereign power in the U.S. government- the Queen? Why not. For the SOVEREIGN power to reside in the people they would of had to ratify a constitution giving the government power. The Sovereign power in Canadas government is the Queen; not a constitution. The people of Canada have never given the government any power. You refuse to admit you can't come up with any hansard documents declaring Canadas Independance and sovereignty because their are none, all you can come up with is government propaganda. The Queen is not the whole body of free citizens; only in your indoctrinated mind.
alto2osu

Con

Thank you for the quick responses :) This debate has a nice clip that I hope you are enjoying as much as I am. Onto arguments, once again organized by breaking up the affirmation's post into pieces.

"That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens.. Who is the sovereign power in government - The Queen not the people ."

So, I'll need to reiterate my round 1 posting again, as it doesn't seem that the affirmation has given that a full read yet. I conclusively prove, in #1 of my round 1 post, that the Crown is merely a ceremonial head of state. All power that the government of GB has is vested in the people via the parliament and their PM. The Queen isn't even given the sovereign power of her own nation, much less Canada's. And the power of the government, empirically, is vested in the Canadian people. I refer you to my detailed explanations of the appointment of the Governor General, the voting in of the members of Canadian parliament, and the appointment of the Canadian PM. The Crown, even in its decision of who its representative will be in Canada, defers to the Canadian people via their PM.

"Who is the sovereign power in the U.S. government- the Queen? Why not. For the SOVEREIGN power to reside in the people they would of had to ratify a constitution giving the government power. The Sovereign power in Canadas government is the Queen; not a constitution."

First of all, Canada has a constitution. It was ratified by all territories in Canada, save Quebec, in 1982 (and that was only its last incarnation—there were other versions prior). That is, as constitutions often are, the supreme law of the land in Canada. Though the document does not grant a 100% separation from GB, it guarantees the rights of both Canadian citizens and the Canadian government, as well as a policy for amending the document without a congruent amendment being approved by the British parliament. The British parliament also passed the Canada Act of 1982. Literally, the only pseudo-political power that the queen has in Canada is with the Governor General, and I've already explained the workings of that office.

"The people of Canada have never given the government any power."

The government of GB or the government of Canada? I'm confused as to how the Canadian citizenry hasn't given their own government any authority, and yet it still votes for its own parliamentary members each year…

"You refuse to admit you can't come up with any hansard documents declaring Canadas Independance and sovereignty because their are none, all you can come up with is government propaganda. The Queen is not the whole body of free citizens; only in your indoctrinated mind."

Since this doesn't refute my arguments regarding my inability to be indoctrinated by a country that I have absolutely no political investment in whatsoever, the affirmation has failed to prove my inherent indoctrination. For every empirical, logical, and politically sound argument I have raised, he simply says: "It's all further proof that the Queen of England has brainwashed you."

The Canadian parliament is, for all intents and purposes, the ruling body of Canada. No documentation is required to prove this simple point, though I do offer plenty of evidence which proves this point. Note that the affirmation has addressed not a single piece. I refuse to admit nothing; I have simply proven that I don't need to furnish those specific documents, nor must they exist for Canada to be a democratic nation.
Debate Round No. 3
thefact

Pro

You keep making statements as a indoctrinated person would without any documents ; claiming you don,t need any proving that you are indoctrinated. If you had documents to back up your claims you could then claim you based your statements on them, and were not indoctrinated; but you refuse to do that. I wonder why you want to demonstrate how indoctrinated and uninformed you are about Canadian politics . It took the government 100 years of propaganda to indoctrinate the people and it seems like it will take you that long to understand Canadian politics. Read the Synagogue of Satan and you may understand how the government works on their principal.
You state in your research you have not found any notation of sovereignty exist ; and yet haven't the ??? to understand sovereignty is a requirement before a democracy can be established. Their is nothing in a dictatorship that stops that government from operating like the Canadian parliament, assuming power, allowing elections, as long as those elected swear allegiance to the supreme ; appointing corrupt judges, passing any law it wants. ,
The creation of the Canadian parliament was a colonial government not a sovereign government.
Wrong - the governor general is anointed by the Canadian government not the crown.
The governor general does not appoint the P.M. You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge on Canadian politics.
If you think you have some knowledge on Canadian politics other than your indoctrination post the letters of patent for the governor general. You claim of elected members is a claim of democracy; then using your indoctrinated reasoning
all communist or dictatorship governments which have elections are democracy's.
Your refuse to acknowledge first the people must be free before a democracy can be established demonstrating your indoctrination of what a democracy is.
If you believe Britan could give Canadians a democracy without the people having any input or right of ratification; then you must believe the U.S. could of passed a bill giving Iraqe a democracy insted of creating one by means of a war and allowing the freed people a vote on a constitution.. You have demonstrated you have no understanding of what a democracy is or how one is created. You just believe Canada has a democracy because of your indoctrination beliefs , without any documentation to prove Canada is a democracy. All you have demonstrated is Canada is still goverend by colonial laws, and as such is not a democracy but you believe it is.. As a colony was Canada a democracy in your belief? What changed ? Canadians never ratified a constitution in 1982 as you claim. If you claim Canadians ratified a constitution except Quebec ; then you have to claim Quebec is not part of Canada because it didn't ratify the constitution. Your indoctrination is proven.
alto2osu

Con

Good evening-- nearly morning :) I look forward to the last round, and wish you a good night. Same format:

"You keep making statements as a indoctrinated person would without any documents ; claiming you don,t need any proving that you are indoctrinated. If you had documents to back up your claims you could then claim you based your statements on them, and were not indoctrinated; but you refuse to do that. I wonder why you want to demonstrate how indoctrinated and uninformed you are about Canadian politics . It took the government 100 years of propaganda to indoctrinate the people and it seems like it will take you that long to understand Canadian politics. Read the Synagogue of Satan and you may understand how the government works on their principal."

I think 5 rounds may be a bit much for this debate, the simple reason being that you are quite literally refusing to consider any of the empirical evidence which I have laid before you as documentation to my claim that the Canadian government is, in fact, a practicing democratic mechanism. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again (where's my parliamentary document proving that Canada ditched England permanently?) without actually stating what is inaccurate about my portrayal of the system of government.

Does Canada not have a parliamentary system? Are those members not elected by Canadian citizens? Is the PM not an appointed member of parliament from the largest represented political party within the legislative branch? What am I misconstruing about Canadian politics? You are, funnily enough, doing precisely what you can only accuse me of. You are repeating the same unwarranted claim over and over again, and hoping for a different result.

"You state in your research you have not found any notation of sovereignty exist ; and yet haven't the ??? to understand sovereignty is a requirement before a democracy can be established. Their is nothing in a dictatorship that stops that government from operating like the Canadian parliament, assuming power, allowing elections, as long as those elected swear allegiance to the supreme ; appointing corrupt judges, passing any law it wants. ,"

I'm not sure what the "???" is supposed to mean, but I'll take on the rest of the argument you present. I actually did find said notation that you speak of. That would be the Canadian Constitution, ratified in its last incarnation in 1982 and now considered the supreme law of the land in Canada, also ratified in the same year by the British parliament. I also don't see any of the human rights violations occurring in Canada that would be inherent to such corruption. What evidence can you bring to the table that shows this corruption? What human rights violations? What corrupt elections? Just because you assert a conspiracy theory doesn't make it true.

"The creation of the Canadian parliament was a colonial government not a sovereign government.
Wrong - the governor general is anointed by the Canadian government not the crown.
The governor general does not appoint the P.M. You have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge on Canadian politics."

"The Canadian Governor General is selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, although the formal appointment is made by the Queen. The term of office of the Governor General is usually five years, but it is sometimes extended up to seven years. There is a tradition of alternating between anglophone and francophone Governors General in Canada." (http://canadaonline.about.com...)

Notice, please, that this source, as well as approximately half a dozen others I have found, clearly supports my previous statements. The Crown officially appoints the Governor General, but it is advised on her choice by the Canadian PM (see round 1 for my original comments), and it always takes the Canadian PM's advice. Where's the offense here? You are helping me prove that Canada steers its own democratic destiny by having its PM pick the Crown's representative in Canada. The Crown, therefore, has only ceremonial jurisdiction over Canada, which basically means absolutely nothing in terms of sovereign power.

"[Duty of the Governor General:] inviting the leader of the party with the most support in the House of Commons to form the government. That party leader becomes Prime Minister." (http://canadaonline.about.com...)

Again, though the official appointment of Canadian PM is an invitation from the Governor General, the appointment is always the leader of the majority party elected to the parliament. Thank you, once again, for reaffirming my round 1 argumentation. You offer no offense, as you've only confirmed what I already said.

"If you think you have some knowledge on Canadian politics other than your indoctrination post the letters of patent for the governor general. You claim of elected members is a claim of democracy; then using your indoctrinated reasoning
all communist or dictatorship governments which have elections are democracy's."

It isn't just elections that make something democratic. The Canadian parliamentary system mirrors the US system, which was our example of democracy throughout the round. They have a bicameral legislation, a system of checks and balances, as well as their very own Constitution, amendable by only the Canadian territories without considering of the British parliament. All of these things are things I've already outlined.

"Your refuse to acknowledge first the people must be free before a democracy can be established demonstrating your indoctrination of what a democracy is.
If you believe Britan could give Canadians a democracy without the people having any input or right of ratification; then you must believe the U.S. could of passed a bill giving Iraqe a democracy insted of creating one by means of a war and allowing the freed people a vote on a constitution.. You have demonstrated you have no understanding of what a democracy is or how one is created. You just believe Canada has a democracy because of your indoctrination beliefs , without any documentation to prove Canada is a democracy. All you have demonstrated is Canada is still goverend by colonial laws, and as such is not a democracy but you believe it is.. As a colony was Canada a democracy in your belief? What changed ? Canadians never ratified a constitution in 1982 as you claim. If you claim Canadians ratified a constitution except Quebec ; then you have to claim Quebec is not part of Canada because it didn't ratify the constitution. Your indoctrination is proven."

Unfortunately, you really still haven't proved I'm brainwashed by anything. I've not argued national sovereignty because I don't need to. And, you haven't once referred to my analysis on why we don't need to look at national sovereignty. You just repeat that a nation must be sovereign to be a democracy. The definition which you hand-picked for this resolution simply states that free citizens have sovereign rule of their government.

I have shown, in fact over and over and over again, that in practice the citizens of Canada have this ability to self-govern. You've shown that you aren't reading my arguments entirely prior to responding, as you've called me ignorant of the workings of the Canadian government, when clearly I am not, as is evidenced by the above citations. Not only that, but you have entirely sidestepped the Canadian Constitution from the last round, which is yet another reason to negate on face (and, considering Quebec has attempted to secede from Canada, maybe it doesn't want to be part of the country...I'm not sure why this stops a set of supreme laws and rights which are inherently democratic from being enforced throughout the country, since empirically they are). You've yet to give me one instance in which the Canadian government's decisions have been undermined by the Crown, or by British parliament in any sort of a modern sense.
Debate Round No. 4
thefact

Pro

You consistently refuse to prove your argument that you are not indoctrinated into believing Canada has a democratic government as defined by Blacks law Dictionary.
You have not prove Canada is not a Democracy; that leave you to prove that you have documented evidence by Hansard record or a bill passes claiming Canada's independence from British rule, and Documented record and results of a referendum ratified by all the people in Canada by a majority vote in all the provinces.
The U.S passed a declaration of independence.
Post the bill the Canadian government passed declaring it's independence : so that it would satisfy the requirement of independence, freedom and sovereignty,. Post a referendum by all the people of each province ratifying a constitution.
That is all you have to do . Everything else you post is just a demonstration of your evasion of proving you have been indoctrinated into believing Canada is a democracy as defined.
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...
Where does it say the 1992 referendum was passed?
Canada a country without a constitution by Walter F kuhl
http://www.detaxcanada.org...
As presented in parliament The BNA. Act could not be considered a constitution neither in law or in fact.
Your indoctrination has transcended all facts presented.
Canada's and the U.S. constitutions are not the same and their creation are not the same.
The American states created a constitution as sovereign states; the Canadian provinces had no say in creating the BNA Act as a constitution as it was a British bill passed as to how the British wanted to govern the colonies they united.
You have not posted what changed from the government being a colonial government- which is not a democratic government ; to the present government ;but you claim it was because of your indoctrination reasoning as the people still have the same voting ability.
post the required documents that are required of you to demonstrate your beliefs are based on facts, not on government propaganda and indoctrination..
alto2osu

Con

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for this opportunity to debate. I'll be organizing some voting issues for the readers via his round 5 post:

"You consistently refuse to prove your argument that you are not indoctrinated into believing Canada has a democratic government as defined by Blacks law Dictionary.
You have not prove Canada is not a Democracy; that leave you to prove that you have documented evidence by Hansard record or a bill passes claiming Canada's independence from British rule, and Documented record and results of a referendum ratified by all the people in Canada by a majority vote in all the provinces."

1. Canada does have a democracy, according to my rounds 1-4 analysis. You haven't addressed any of my arguments, but instead repeated the same unwarranted statements about my apparent Canadian indoctrination in the hopes that it looks like evidence. The Crown is a meaningless figurehead; its around for ceremonial purposes. The Crown doesn't control its own control, much less lord over Canada with a big stick. Although, if all of these conspiracy theories are true, it does manage to walk far more softly than Teddy Roosevelt…

2. The Hansard records you continue to harp on prove absolutely nothing about the state of reality in Canada. You still have not been able to refute my arguments regarding the sound, democratic practices of the Canadian government as they stand. Essentially, you want voters to affirm on your blind assertion that GB is literally falsifying a parliament while undermining the Canadian ability to rule sovereignty with no proof whatsoever. I have cited the basic workings of the Canadian government for you. I can do no more than to lay out the parallelism that the Canadian government has to the democratic government of the US.

"The U.S passed a declaration of independence.
Post the bill the Canadian government passed declaring it's independence : so that it would satisfy the requirement of independence, freedom and sovereignty,. Post a referendum by all the people of each province ratifying a constitution.
That is all you have to do . Everything else you post is just a demonstration of your evasion of proving you have been indoctrinated into believing Canada is a democracy as defined.
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...;

3. I take it that, as this is round 5, my opponent is refusing to address any analysis I've given in the past 4 rounds about why national sovereignty is not necessarily a prerequisite to a democratically functioning government. Canadian citizens have control over their own political affairs via the mechanisms of Canadian government and the Canadian Constitution, a constitution that was ratified by Britain. Interesting that such an overlord government would choose to ratify a document that guarantees the rights of Canadians to politically self-govern…why is that? Where's that iron GB fist?

4. As for the link you provide within this quotation, that would be Quebec explaining why they didn't ratify the Canadian Constitution in 1982. As your own link explains, it is because Quebec didn't feel that the draft represented them as their own sovereign culture. They even attempted to become their own nation in 1995. This doesn't prove that the Canadian Constitution isn't being applied across Canada- Quebec is still part of Canada by popular vote, at least since 1995, according to your own source. None of this is offensively viable, unless you had tried to prove that Quebec is being systematically dehumanized, marginalized, or disenfranchised, which MIGHT give you some footing in claiming that the whole of Canada isn't a democracy, but I could easily disprove that AND you never made those links.

Also, this source even calls Canada a sovereign nation-state in the first paragraph. However, I need not prove national sovereignty to win, as has been shown.

"Where does it say the 1992 referendum was passed?
Canada a country without a constitution by Walter F kuhl
http://www.detaxcanada.org...;

5. I appreciate the link from my opponent to this supposed book by Walter F. Kuhl finally. I appreciate it because the book was published in 1977, by a man who was in parliament from 1935-1949. Though I will admit that the Canadian Constitution was not ratified in its current form until 1982 (not 1992), it has gone through multiple stages, including the BNA Act. The Canadian Constitution of 1982 subsumed and added on to the BNA Act. Hence, this book was written prior to the ratification of the document that is formally known as the Canadian Constitution. Hence, any of the books points, being made 30 years ago, are most likely outdated and inaccurate, not to mention the work of a political pundit who is most likely highly biased. My sources on the inner workings of the Canadian parliament and its interactions (or lack thereof) with GB are far more neutral.

"As presented in parliament The BNA. Act could not be considered a constitution neither in law or in fact."

6. http://laws.justice.gc.ca...

A link from the justice department of Canada with the text, in case you don't believe said Constitution exists. The BNA is only one form of the Constitution. It was officially ratified as a constitution, with provisions characterizing it legally and factually as such, in 1982.

"Your indoctrination has transcended all facts presented.
Canada's and the U.S. constitutions are not the same and their creation are not the same.
The American states created a constitution as sovereign states; the Canadian provinces had no say in creating the BNA Act as a constitution as it was a British bill passed as to how the British wanted to govern the colonies they united."

7. I refer you back to my analysis on the Canadian Constitution. Also, this is patently not true. In 1952, the Canadian government began writing and ratifying pieces of the BNA Act all on its own. Canadian parliament enacted another piece in 1952 adjusting the seats available in the Canadian parliament. After 1965, all changes to the BNA Act were being fully and sovereignly enacted by the Canadian parliament.

"You have not posted what changed from the government being a colonial government- which is not a democratic government ; to the present government ;but you claim it was because of your indoctrination reasoning as the people still have the same voting ability.
post the required documents that are required of you to demonstrate your beliefs are based on facts, not on government propaganda and indoctrination."

In summation, I'm really not sure what other facts I can present to you. Rather than belaboring points I've already made, I shall leave the voters with a request to compare the number of arguments that both debaters have presented, and with what logical or empirical evidence the debaters have chosen to back up those arguments.

I ask you to vote on the clear, empirical, practical links I have made to working democracies within the world. My opponent asks you to affirm because I have been "indoctrinated by the Queen of England."

I remain in firm negation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zeister 8 years ago
Zeister
The prime responsibility of a modern western style democracy is to defend the legitimized freedoms & liberties of ALL citizens.

There has been an erosion of historic rights in Canada over the last 40 yrs. Gun control in the form of the Firearms Act has degraded an historic culture and right of firearms ownership clearly enunciated in the English Bill of Rights, 1689. The Firearms Act justifies confiscation and unusual search & seizure provisions. The purpose of this Act is to manage the population assuming that some 'might' in the future commit a crime! The Act was sold as a 'public safety' requirement even though the science does not support the proposition. The Firearms Act is an example of the 'tyranny of the majority'. Successive Liberal governments have failed to protect these minority rights but rather cynically gleaned votes by denying the historic existence of these rights.

Sadly, all the parties on the political left in Canada are part of this 'anti-democratic' alliance. It leaves all those with a commitment to real democracy, liberties, freedoms and rights but one national party to vote for and that is the Conservative Party of Canada. It is disturbing to hear those that give lip service to democracy cherry picking which 'rights' are politically correct. That is neither just nor democratic!

The primacy of Parliament. Orders in Council manage most funding with little or no debate in Parliament. The PMO wields great power again bypassing Parliament. The Supreme Court and not Parliament interprets the meaning of our rights and freedoms. Government that does not protect the rights and freedoms of ALL citizens does not have a moral legitimacy nor do bad laws command the respect of the populace. The recent history of Liberal governments corruption and their dogged insistence of giving us more of a failed program, i.e. more gun control, put them out of serious contention as a standard bearer for democratic rights and freedoms.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
look i really didnt read the debate ... can you blame me ?

also canda is a democracy fact wheteher you like it or not ...

unless sometihng happended overnight of course ..
Posted by asyetundefined 8 years ago
asyetundefined
Congratulations for keeping face ALT2OSU against the troll! THEFACT will eventually wither away in his own conspiracy-loving psychosis.
Posted by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
"thefact", alto has treated you with the utmost respect, and yet you insist on launching persistent ad hominem assaults against her. Your insulting behavior does nothing to promote the spread of factual information.
Posted by thefact 8 years ago
thefact
I congradulated you for winning the debate; and loosing the debate is of no concern to me; only puting out factual information is.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I'm not the one who attacked your professional competence not only here, but on another, unrelated debate. I will report posts that seek to personally insult me. That is the TOS of using this website. Whatever happened in our debate is our debate. You need to leave my personal life outside of this website out of our conversations, or you are violating the rules posted by debate.org. I debated you to debate you. Winning or losing is a biproduct of said process. I apologize if losing per the users of the website is of high concern to you, but there is little I can do to control their opinion of the debate.

I can, however, ask you to stop posting disparaging remarks about me on this website.
Posted by thefact 8 years ago
thefact
the worst kind of debater is one who debates a subject which they have very little knowledge of and resorts to lies and rethoric.
Posted by thefact 8 years ago
thefact
The debate was on an education site ; I expected some education value the readers of the post could learn; not a teacher who wanted to win a debate by her own teaching rethoric is better to win a debate than logic or facts. No wonder we have such a deplorable bunch of people in government , if this is what they are thought. you won the debate ; is't that what you wanted? I was more interested in posting factual information ; which you were not, congradulation.Move on .
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Sticks and stones. Ad hominem arguments are a sign of the worst kind of debater. The next sign is stalking around my other, unrelated debates posting disparaging remarks. I will report you if it continues. Let it go. We debated, and now it's over. Move on.
Posted by thefact 8 years ago
thefact
alto2osu as a debating teacher who believes in rhetoric not logic in a debate that requied questions of law you insisted on using rhetoric; what a shameful display of your teaching skills.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by seeley.linda 8 years ago
seeley.linda
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by asyetundefined 8 years ago
asyetundefined
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sedylitz 8 years ago
Sedylitz
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LuxEtVeritas 8 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nathan.fraly 8 years ago
Nathan.fraly
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by commonprotocol 8 years ago
commonprotocol
thefactalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
thefactalto2osuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06