The Instigator
whatitsworth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The European Schengen Area seems to liberal, I thing It should go?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 75740
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

whatitsworth

Pro

Just the idea of no borders seems like a bad idea. I know most Europeans are chill to their neighbors but It seems like it promotes illegal movement. No documentation seems like people can live freely If they choose to do so. But it seems like Europe really doesn't want to care. I may sound stupid but, I still think countries should mark their territories, with people.
Lexus

Con

I will give my constructive case and then go on to refute my opponent's case, because there was no rule explicitly saying that this round was acceptance only or anything of the sort. The BoP is set upon pro by default, but I will provide a constructive case, just to keep myself safe and explain my reasoning.

Reduced costs of border patrol.
This is a pretty logical argument.
P1. You must pay for border control
P2. Border control requires a border
P3. The Schengen Area does not have any borders
C1. You must not pay for border control
Defense of P1: Any governmental activity that includes the mobilization of forces and creations of bureaus costs money. This is an intrinsic truth of government spending.
Defense of P2: The definition of border control is "measures adopted by a country to regulate and monitor its borders" [1]. Inherently a border control requires a border.
Defense of P3: The definition of the Schengen Area is "[an] area compromising of 26 nations that have abolished [...] border control" [2]. Again, because a border control requires a border, they have abolished all borders by very definition.
My conclusion is logically sound.
A reduced burden on a nation is intrinisically good, because it allows the reallocation of funds to occur; perhaps the money that would previously be spent on the Border Control can be spent into things such as education, or to lower tax rates across the area.

Refutations:
"it promotes illegal movement"
Because it is legal to move across the entire Schengen Area, this claim is false.
Legal movement does not promote illegal movement, because the movement is the same thing and was legalized.

"No documentation seems like people can live freely If they choose to do so."
This is the point of the Schengen Area.

"But it seems like Europe really doesn't want to care"
They do not.

"I may sound stupid but, I still think countries should mark their territories, with people."
First, you're not stupid for having a personal opinion. Don't let anyone ever say that, because they'd be wrong.
When the benefits of not having territories marked by people outweigh the cons (cons being illegal movement, although this is nonexistent), it is time to not have territories marked by people.


[1]. http://definitions.uslegal.com...;
[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1
whatitsworth

Pro

whatitsworth forfeited this round.
Lexus

Con

Sadly my opponent forfeited the last round. This would be a really cool thing to debate, too, so I am really disappointed.
In any case, vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
whatitsworthLexusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro, conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by daem0n 1 year ago
daem0n
whatitsworthLexusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits and fails to make any arguments. (Unless you count "it promotes illegal movement" as an argument -- but Con rightly points out that this movement is legal by definition.) Only Con cites any sources.