The Instigator
philadam
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and all the countries that end with "istan"should make their own continent

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: 2/12/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,044 times Debate No: 2593
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (15)

 

philadam

Pro

This continent would be called Arabia or whatever they want to call it
one, it will stop the debate over which country goes into what continent, they would maybe feel more united, and honestly it would make life better
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

This is quite possibly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. For the purposes of this debate we'll consider your continent to consist of the following countries:

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan.

We'll ignore for the moment that this kind of leaves out Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Oman, Jordan, Israel, and Syria. Possibly Georgia, Azerbajain, and Turkey too. There are several distinct reasons why this should not be its own continent.

1. These countries are already on the same continent. There is a clear distinction between Europe and the Middle East. The Ural Mountains, and the Bosporus separate the Middle East from Europe. There's no clear separating geographical feature like that to separate these countries from the rest of Asia. They are already on the existing continent of Asia, and there is no reason to group them separately. If you desire to group them appropriately, then doing so by tectonic region makes much more sense. The Middle East is a distinct part of Asia. Would you want to call the Midwest its own country? It's simply a region.

2. Secondly, these countries are nothing alike. The closest thing they share is that there are a lot of Muslims in that region. However, there are several different "flavors" of Islam, if you will. Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabism, and several varying degrees of each. Consider - in Afghanistan, Muslim women must wear burkas. In Iraq, there is no such law. In Saudi Arabia, they recently outlawed Valentine's Day because it isn't a Muslim holiday and encourages sin. There is IMMENSE difference just in the Muslim population in this area. Furthermore, there are ethnic divides all over the region. The Kurds want to carve their own state out of three others, and Afghanistan has something like 7 major tribes in it that are all fighting for power.

3. Violating the self-determination of an entire region of the world, especially one that is fairly unstable, is a poor idea, and fairly egotistical of the West. Who are we to say that the Middle East should be its own continent? Additionally, this part of the world already hates the West (in general...) so why should we give them more reason to? If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision.
Debate Round No. 1
philadam

Pro

To start off, i wanted to put all those middle eastern countries in the title but my debate title only allowed 100 characters so i had to state th main ones.

it is not one of the worst ideas you have ever heard because it makes sense if you think about it
for all of those who are gonna vote, just think about it

when you consider asia, you think of all the eastern countries,
most people would not be able to place these countries in a continent. Since they practice similar religions, it wouldn't be that hard -- who said a continent had to be made up of countries with indetical beliefs anyway tarzan

you made a good point but you are not answering the debate,

we would not be violating it
wtf

this new continent would bring them unity

your last sentence:"If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision."
thats is exactly what i said, should THEY not us but THEY making it THEIR decision
you read this debate completly wrong
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>> "it is not one of the worst ideas you have ever heard because it makes sense if you think about it for all of those who are gonna vote, just think about it"

I just demonstrated that it DOESN'T make sense. When you think about it, why make a new continent from an existing one? If you take a slice of cake from the whole, it's still a slice, not a new cake.

>> when you consider asia, you think of all the eastern countries,
most people would not be able to place these countries in a continent. Since they practice similar religions, it wouldn't be that hard -- who said a continent had to be made up of countries with indetical beliefs anyway"

When I consider Asia, I consider the fact that the Middle East is part of Asia. I'm not sure where you learned geography. The ME is part of Asia. So is Southeast Asia... or should that be its own continent as well. Or Eurasia for that matter... why is that not one continent? I also demonstrated above that these countries DO NOT practice similar religions. That's like calling Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics similar.

>> "your last sentence:"If the people that live there want their own continent, let them make that decision." thats is exactly what i said, should THEY not us but THEY making it THEIR decision"

The people there haven't made their own continent because they recognize that it would be inappropriate to do so! Also, while it is their purview to "make" this continent, it is the international community's purview to accept it or not. Should they make a continent torn by conflict? Should the international community recognize this and redraw all their maps?

You ask if they SHOULD make their own continent. I answer no - for the reasons I've put forth already. Your single argument for them making this continent is that it would "make them feel more united." This is simply false. When the British government grouped the Kurds, Shi'a, and Sunnis in a location and called it Iraq, it did not change the way they felt about Unity at all. If you want the ME to unite by themselves, you're going to have about 25 completely new states on this continent. SHOULD the ME make this continent and destabilize the world's oil producing region with the inevitable secessionist wars to create these states so they can feel unity? I think not....
Debate Round No. 2
philadam

Pro

To start off, that cake analogy is all wrong,
a country is a slice of a continent, and a continent is a slice of the planet yet they are still different in many ways.
just because they come from the same are does not mean they are identical.
Also, when you said "When I consider Asia, I consider the fact that the Middle East is part of Asia"
that may be true for you but i can name a few people who would not consider it. It s a matter of opinion. Some poelpe call India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, ect their own sub- continent and some dont. You might have been taught diferently.
O and by the way, i am not talking about the middle east, not lebanon, not israel, not syrie, not turckeyy
i am talking about the muslim part of that region that you call ME

Their purview would be represented and the international commitee would redraw all the mpas if necessary, as they will soo because of global warming :P

O and also, there is a diference between a country and a continent buddy
Just because they are under a sa e continent does not mean they will start fighting.
MAny if they were forced into their own country, then they would due to the government not pleasing everyone. Continents are not as important but are simply named to refer to a specific region with similar characteristics.
This whole continent idea would not change all the oild business as the types of governmentsor the way countries govern would remian the same

all that would happen is that the area i am designating would be easier to name and feel more untiy
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>> "To start off, that cake analogy is all wrong, a country is a slice of a continent, and a continent is a slice of the planet yet they are still different in many ways. just because they come from the same are does not mean they are identical."

Is not a region also a slice of a continent? and a country a subset of a region? It's like a multi-layer cake where a slice is a region and a country is a layer in that slice. The cake analogy holds.

Also, how can you advocate unity when you say that "just because the come from the same are[a] does not mean they are identical?" This is directly contrary to feelings of unity, ESPECIALLY when you consider your statement below:

>> "O and by the way, i am not talking about the middle east, not lebanon, not israel, not syrie, not turckeyy i am talking about the muslim part of that region that you call ME."

Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey have immense Muslim populations. Actually, so does Israel, but it considered a Jewish state. I have demonstrated several times that there is considerable DISunity among the Muslim sects in this area of the world. Why would you exclude these countries from the ME? Should they be their own continent too?

>> "Just because they are under a sa e continent does not mean they will start fighting. MAny if they were forced into their own country, then they would due to the government not pleasing everyone. Continents are not as important but are simply named to refer to a specific region with similar characteristics.
This whole continent idea would not change all the oild business as the types of governmentsor the way countries govern would remian the same."

I'm not sure what that first sentence means, but I assume you mean to say that grouping the nations together will not cause fighting. Actually, it almost certainly will. To group themselves, they have to actually display some sort of unity, which is not present at the moment. Someone will need to speak for Afghanistan, and there is nothing remotely describing unity there at the moment. There WILL be a fight over who gets to speak for Afghanistan. There WILL be a fight in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey as the Kurds want to speak for themselves and form Kurdistan.

>> "Continents are not as important but are simply named to refer to a specific region with similar characteristics."

What the deuce? Hello? Europe? Asia? Both are continents with VAST differences across their lands. This is a completely wrong claim. Continents are recognized based on a discrete, separable geographical area, regardless of the people or similarity in terrain of the region.

>> "This whole continent idea would not change all the oild business as the types of governmentsor the way countries govern would remian the same."

This is also wrong. Again - consider Afghanistan. There is no real operative government in the country. Before it can speak, it MUST change. As I said above, there WILL be conflict in this region of the world. Historically, conflict springing up in the ME has ALWAYS affected the oil business.

>> "all that would happen is that the area i am designating would be easier to name and feel more untiy"

Again, wrong. The people that live there do not feel unity as is. They are not going to feel unity after we start calling them the Middle East as a continent, rather than a region. Classifying the region as a continent will only cause a fight over who gets to speak in self-determination, and change nothing about the unitary feeling in the region. We must recognize the IMMENSE differences in the region, and also recognize that these people want to maintain their separate identities, not be grouped as a Muslim Continent.

No - the ME should not form its own continent. Especially not under the terms you suggest - that leaves out several countries in the region, as well as ambiguates where a distinction in ideologies should be made. North Africa is also very Muslim. Should it be separate continent too? India has more Muslims than a lot of Muslim countries. Should it be on this Muslim Continent? What about Indochina? Another continent?

The 7 continents should remain as they are - there is no reason to draw new distinctions based on political and sociological traits when continents are traditionally and historically divided based on geographical distinctions.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
I'm going with the comment below
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Philadam, you beat yourself in this debate even if you didn't have a challenger. How do you say "they should for a continent because they are the same and they will feel unity" yet "they are not the same just because they are in the same region"... duhhh... That's the argument against your premise, genius!
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by danny445 9 years ago
danny445
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mikemc5921 9 years ago
mikemc5921
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by visionsofdylan 9 years ago
visionsofdylan
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by philadam 9 years ago
philadam
philadamJustCallMeTarzanTied
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