O Canada needs to be changed
Debate Rounds (4)
Change- to become different
I hold the position, if not by choice, that the canadian national anthem should be changed.
This is the change: "True patriot love in all thy sons command." some people want to change this to before gender neutral. I think this is ridiculous.
This song has been around for more than 100 years, and no one had a problem with it until now. Today, we are so politically correct we don't see any important issues. This is not an important issue and O Canada should stay the same. We don't need to change something that doesn't need to be changed. Changing it will not benefit anyone, nor will it make any dramatic difference. This was changed because of a dying mans wish, this was changed because the citizens were blinded by sympathy.
I guess we should take "Can" out of Canada because jars might be offended. We do not need to worry about such trivial ideas. You don't see any women being discriminated against in Canada! It would be outright stupid to change something because it would not benefit anyone. This is just another attempt at Feminist trying to change something. It's a waste of tax-payers money.
I would like to state two things Primarily:
It doesn't matter, It's a line in a song. So why not change it slightly to better reflect our society?
And this is not any form of censorship, or altering a historical song.
Allow me to elaborate on my second point; The original line was was "thou dost in us command" therefore the change would simply be reverting it closer to it's original line.
Another suggested change is the exclusion of god from the anthem. As a modern society that has progressed greatly since religion had a severe impact on people's lives, I don't have any qualms with this whatsoever, In order to show perspective on this point, imagine if the line contained references to Zeus, or another deity of a long dead culture. It would be removed because of it's irrelevance in society and frankly ridiculous nature. Affiliation with religion is decreasing overtime (from 4 to 24 percent in Canada from 1971 to 2011, if you look at other statistics you can see this trend is worldwide) all this would do is pre-emptively eliminate religion from the anthem.
Furthermore, Canada is a country that has restrictions on freedom of speech.
A child can face criminal charges for saying something mean to another child.
So, if you want to keep your national Anthem the same, that could be seen as hate speech in canada.
The sad truth is, Canada's exclusionary anthem breaks it's own laws since some people find it offensive.
Both of these are ridiculous, controversy over changing a line in a song in the very same country that has arrested people over a violent movie. If you want to keep the national anthem the way it currently exists, you should start by changing the ridiculous laws against freedom of speech.
You may be wondering what my purpose in writing the last paragraph was, it was highlight the nature of Canadian politics and it's draconian laws in a way that consecutively shows that the anthem being changed is not an issue, it is a minute, unimportant aspect of a broken system that is more vital to discuss than a song.
Altering- change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
There still is no need to change it because it used the word "God." We have accepted that it says that and if you don't like it, deal with it. Over 60% of Canadians are Christian, so the majority of Canada would agree with keeping it. Why should we change something just because a handful of people are upset about it? If that is what we did, we would still be living in huts and running around naked! I don't think it is necessary for people to change things that don't need changing. Most people don't care if one person gets offended. We get way to offended these days, it ridiculous. Many people do want to change it to a completely different meaning, not just back to the original version,
Canada's has a lot of freedom of speech, as long as it is justified. Do I agree with them? No, they should have all the rights of freedom of speech that we do.
Hate Speech- speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
Keeping it the same does not fall under Hate Speech. It isn't threatening anyone or insulting them. Like I said, we have much more important problems to face than a national anthem. People will get offended by anything, people just need to learn to deal with it and that life isn't fair. I don't control Canada's Freedom of Speech, heck I don't even live in Canada! If Canada's Freedom of Speech is broken, they should worry about those issues first, then deal with the anthem problem. Wanting to change the anthem is part of their rights, so Freedom of Speech doesn't have much say against it.
There is no harm in letting it stay the same. We have kept it like this for years, and only now people are complaining. We can't simply change something because someone is offended.
The next argument I would like to address is Con stating that we should not change something because "a handful of people are upset about it" This is completely false, there are some highly influential people who want this changed and it is being covered by many news organisations.
Regarding Canada's freedom of speech, I am completely disgusted with Con's attitude, he seems to believe that people should just endure it when things they do not agree with are ongoing. If humanity had this attitude in the majority, we would still be living in mud huts. Furthermore, I would argue that changing the flag is a small step towards Canada's people shifting the momentum towards more important changes, such as their freedom of speech laws. In the same way that you have to walk before you can run.
In Con's closing statement for the round, he states that things can not be changed simply because someone is offended. This is clearly undermining the power people can utilize when something offends them, people will rally against things that they deem wrong, and have done throughout history.
(I'd like to apologize for my lack of sources, but I had roughly two hours left to make this due to a mix of laziness and me being busy)
You are making assumptions. I never said that all people should just endure what they do not agree with. Just because s handful of people are offended, we shouldn't change anything. I have no idea how you interperated that differently. Canada is not changing its flag, I have no idea where you got that information from. Once again, you fail to understand what I am presenting, keeping the Anthem the same isn't hurting anyone.
I guess if we change it to be more inclusive, we should just abolish the whole anthem so it includes no one, so no one gets offended. Keeping it the same won't change anything., which,you have chosen to ignore. It's unnessaacary. Should we change Germans national anthem to include Hitler because of neo-nazis? Tradition is something that is rare now a day, which is good in some stances, others not. People will literally, yes literally, get offended by everything, sometimes you have to ignore the inconsequential complains, like this anthem changing.
Pro has failed to explain why we should change it, Pro has rather explained the rights of Canadian citizens. For that reason vote Con.
I am not making assumptions, Con literally said "people will get offended by anything, people just need to learn to deal with it" Furthermore, atheism IS on the rise. Con attempts to refute this argument by stating that 85% of the world has a connection with some form of religion, This is like arguing that a kettle isn't getting warmer because it's only 30 degrees.
My argument about influential people having an opinion makes complete sense, they're influential because people listen to them, and they have power. Therefore what they say matters to a large group of people, most of which, they will agree with.
Adolf Hitler, for example was influential. And his views reflected those of his massive amount of followers.
Excuse me for making a mistake, I meant anthem not flag. Thank you for pointing that out, as I believe it indicates that you do not have many rebuttals and are left with the desperation of correcting miniscule errors.
I'd like to examine his next statement, that the anthem should be abolished to be more inclusive. I believe the point of a national anthem is to represent it's nation. And therefore should be more inclusive. But abolishing it would include nobody, making it completely exclusive.
Con states that we should change Germany's national anthem to include Hitler due to neo-nazis. I would argue that neo-nazis are a minority that are not on any substantial, therefore should not be included.
Throughout the debate, Con has stated that keeping the anthem the same affects nobody, it is inconsequential and means nothing to everyday life.
Con, ask yourself. What's the difference between the inconsequence of keeping the flag, and the consequences of changing it. That is, if there are any.
Thank you for the debate, Con. Although I do believe the final round became too personal for my taste.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.