The Instigator
Curtis_Mcgee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Quebec Should Form it's Own Sovreign Nation

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
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: 10/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,017 times Debate No: 13360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

Curtis_Mcgee

Pro

Quebec is often reffered to as "A Nation within a Nation" and rightly so. The vast differences between Quebequois Culture and the rest of Canada is quite frankly staggering.

According to stats Canada Statistics (2001) francophones make up approx 80% of the population with only approx. 11% making up the anglophones and approx. 9% speaking another dialect as their first language. Of all the French speaking citizens in Canada, 85% live within Quebec.

This language barrier has isolated Quebec from its English speaking counterparts since the days of Wolfe and Montcalm, and even since then its own mother-country France.
The people of Quebec have been isolated and undervalued and underestimated for centuries, by the English, the americans and the French and Canada. Alone within a smothering English community, Quebec is justified in its want to seperate.

I eagerly await my opponents own introduction.
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for the interesting topic.

Burden of proof:
My opponent, as the instigator and the one who is advocating for change from the status quo, has the burden of proof.

Framework:
My opponent seems to be arguing that the round should be weighed based on what policy action is most beneficial to the citizens of Quebec. I accept this standard, but further assert that my opponent must also defend the implications of allowing secessions. The topic says "Quebec should form," not "Canada should allow," so secession should be assumed.

Definitions:

Quebec, according to Princeton's Wordnet, is a province in Canada.

Sovereign nation: a nation that governs itself and is independent from other nations. [1]

Refuting my opponent's case:

He says: "Quebec is often referred [spelling corrected from original] to as ‘A Nation within a Nation.'" I will prove that there are dangers to taking metaphorical language literally. For example, hopefully a child will not take the following statement literally: "you look so happy you could fly."

My opponent points out that French speakers are a majority in Quebec. If language majorities are a sufficient reason for a province or city to become its own sovereign nation, then all the Chinatowns in the U.S. should become their own sovereign nations. Any area in California, Arizona, or Texas that has a majority of Spanish speakers should become its own nation. California, when Spanish speakers eventually overtake English speakers, should secede from the Union and potentially rejoin Mexico. His logic is a very slippery slope.

In addition, my opponent makes it seem like these French speakers are isolated from the rest of Canada, by virtue of the language they speak. However, it is a legal requirement that they all learn English, so they are actually all bilingual. Claude Belanger of Marianopolis College says, "Bilingualism is both a legal requirement and a fact of life in Quebec." [2] My opponent seems to be advocating that these Francophones not learn English. This would, however, put them at a huge competitive disadvantage when most of their trading partners and business opportunities would be in nearby English speaking areas. In addition, English is the language of international business. People in many other countries would die for the opportunity to learn English, since it opens up so many opportunities. Creating a situation where French speakers in Quebec are encouraged not to learn English would actually have detrimental impacts for the people of Quebec.

Building my case:

1. Border security/passports

If Quebec became its own nation, it would have to issue passports to its own citizens and it might even require that its citizens renounce Canadian citizenship. This would make it either difficult or impossible to work outside the province and commute back-and-forth. In addition, it would choke off commerce and business dealings between Quebec and the rest of Canada, since businessmen will find it more difficult to travel to Quebec if they must go through border security and present a passport. Many businesses would begin to locate outside of Quebec, for convenience's sake. In addition, tariffs would make it more difficult to trade. If Quebec were to adopt its own currency, this would further exacerbate the problems.

This is a move in the wrong direction. For example, the Eurozone has successfully made itself more prosperous by REMOVING barriers to trade, such as eliminating tariffs and adopting one currency (the Euro). Becoming a sovereign nation with its own passports, tariffs, and currency would make trade between Quebec and Canada more difficult, choking off much economic activity.

2. The cost of secession

If Quebec were to secede from Canada, it would suddenly need to pay a number of costs, such as the bureaucracy costs of forming its own sovereign government (such as setting up a tax collection system), as well as the costs for social services, such as universal health care.

Quebec would actually be worse off in this regard because its citizens are poorer than the average citizens in Canada, meaning that they currently enjoy a disproportionate share of social services. According to Quebec's official immigration site, the average income in Quebec is $17,740, versus $19,310 for Canada generally (in 2005 US $). [3] If Quebec left Canada, its citizens would receive fewer (and lower quality) social services because they cannot afford the same living standards that Canada currently provides to them.

3. Civil War

The United States' Civil War began when the South tried to secede from the Union. It can be assumed that Canada would not look favorably upon Quebec's breach of Canadian sovereignty and authority. A Canadian civil war would result in countless unnecessary and preventable deaths.

Because Quebec's citizens would clearly be worse off from secession, I urge a vote for the con.

My opponent offers little in the way of argumentation in his first speech: if he makes new arguments in the next speech, I reserve the right to craft new arguments of my own.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://faculty.marianopolis.edu...

[3] http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
Curtis_Mcgee

Pro

Yeah, again I've got nothing.
I'm anti-separatism...
bluesteel

Con

Sigh...whatever

My opponent says in the comments section that he intended to use this round to plagiarize my arguments and use them in a school project. Independent reason to vote con.

He then promised me a good debate to make up for it - oh well. He could have at least tried to answer my somewhat preposterous Civil War argument.

Extend my case.

Language is not a good reason to secede.

Secession would impede trade and business by requiring the use of passports when crossing into Quebec.

Quebec would be worse off if paying independently for their social services, since citizens of Quebec are poorer than those in Canada proper.

Lastly, unilateral secession from Canada could lead to civil war.
Debate Round No. 2
Curtis_Mcgee

Pro

Again, I am sorry.
I didn't use the civil war comments as that was already discussed by my professor.
Vote con by all means. I was merely a desperate student, as surely some can relate to being screwed over at the last minute on some project or another and having to rush.
I didn't mean any offence or insult. I am sorry if I did and I assume I broke conduct on this site.
You may be consoled to know that I did cite this website and your own remarks in my debate.
bluesteel

Con

Lol, well I guess if you cited "bluesteel at debate.org" then that makes it okay.

Extend my case - vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Curtis_Mcgee

Pro

Agreed.
Vote con.
bluesteel

Con

jinx you owe me a soda
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Quite right, too. A soda is the least you can do, after a stunt like that.
Posted by Curtis_Mcgee 6 years ago
Curtis_Mcgee
Damn...
Not only did he beat me but now I owe him a soda...
Posted by Curtis_Mcgee 6 years ago
Curtis_Mcgee
Seriously :P
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Seriously...?
Posted by Curtis_Mcgee 6 years ago
Curtis_Mcgee
@ larztheloser
Hey, this is my first debate on this site
I had no idea what I was doing when it came to set up
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
I find the likelihood of a Canadian Civil War slim.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
@Curtis_Mcgee - why four rounds then?
Posted by Curtis_Mcgee 6 years ago
Curtis_Mcgee
You've actually been very helpful to me bluesteel.
I was going into a debate today at my school a bit unprepared to to my teams lack of willingness to do anything.
I was debating they shouldn't leave Canada actually and needed something to work with. I had only one day and needed some information fast.
Thanks to your arguments and a little research done myself I won. Sorry for using you and this site like this but I was desperate. It was my first debate of the semester and the first proffesional debate I had ever done.

If you would like, I can do more research on the side of seperatism than the basic rebuttal info I found and we can debate this topic in manner proper. However I quite honestly have very limited knowledge supporting seperatism as it goes against my own beliefs, so I need a day to do some research.

Again, sorry for using you like this. Now I owe you a debate in its full.

And about the bad spelling....It was late and I was freaking...my bad...
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
lol, m93, I swear I was thinking of you the whole time
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Bluesteel: The burden of proof... reminds me of a different debate ;)

Btw I think you killed this debate straight out of the round. Great round 1
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The purpose of this debate was poor conduct on Pro's part. Pro had few arguments that were easily refuted by a non-Canadian. Con used sources.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Curtis_McgeebluesteelTied
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