The European Union should be abolished
First Round for Acceptance ONLY
'This house believes the European Union should be abolished'
This would mean the European Union would cease to exist and any EU treaties would become null and void, including the Schengen Treaty.
Debate open to anyone, EU or not who wishes to take a PRO stance to this motion.
I look forward to the debate :)
Yes, the purpose, and I repeat: purpose, of EU is to benefit the the member countries, but it has only lead to economic downfall. Also, the EU can choose your country's leader. This organisation has too much power over your country.
Looking at this organization through how it has executed instead of planned- it has very simply, failed.
The economic benefits of the European Union are massive and easily identifiable. A company in Croatia can trade with a company in Sweden as though they are part of the same country, totally tax free, totally free market. As well as this, the EU guarantees freedom of movement of workers around the EU. If your country is too big or too small, too hot or too cold, the EU gives you options. This includes Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein. Europeans can move to any other European country in search of a new life and this is an incredible advantage to EU citizens.
Most EU countries are in the Schengen Zone. This means that citizens can move around freely with no passport or travel documentation. This obviously has its benefits both for European citizens and corporations.
How can this beautiful union of 28 European brothers and sisters be any bad at all?
tanquish123 forfeited this round.
As you can see, some wonderful commitment from my opponent here.
I hope (s)he can make it for the next round.
On http://www.economist.com..., Mr. Henkel states that:
"First, politicians broke all promises made in the Maastricht agreement. Not only was Greece let into the European Union for purely political reasons, but the fundamental rule, "no member to exceed its yearly budget deficit by the equivalent of 3% of GNP", was broken over a hundred times. Mandatory punitive charges, provided for such cases, were never applied. To top it all, the no-bail-out clause was wiped out in the wake of the first Greek rescue package.
Second, the "one-size-fits-all" euro turned out to be a "one-size-fits-none" currency. The euro itself caused some of the problems politicians are now trying to solve. With access to interest rates at much lower German levels, Greek politicians were able to pile up huge debts. The Bank of Spain helplessly watched the build-up of a real-estate bubble without being able to raise interest rates. Deprived of the ability to devalue their currency, countries in the south lost their competitiveness.
Third, instead of uniting Europe, the euro increases friction. Students in Athens, the unemployed in Lisbon and protesters in Madrid not only complain about national austerity measures, they also protest against Angela Merkel. Moreover, the euro widens the rift between countries with the euro and those without. Bulgaria and Romania would surely love to join and enjoy German guarantees, but does anybody believe Britain or Sweden will ever find it attractive to join a transfer union?
Instead of addressing the true causes of its illness, politicians prescribe painkillers for the euro patient every time another Greece, Portugal and Ireland pops up. It suffers from three discrete diseases:
1. As a result of the financial crisis, many banks are still unstable.
2. The negative effects an overvalued euro has on the competitiveness of the southern states, including Belgium and France.
3. The huge level of debt of some euro-zone countries."
Additionally, you fail to site your sources throughout the whole debate, so your claims and statements are all now null and void.
Also, using the word 'beautiful' with union is just your form of sweet talk. You are just exerting opinion and feelings rather than hard, solid facts and evidence.
Please review your grammar, using "as well as this" is very childish, so please use sophisticated language.
Finally, you are displaying poor conduct by showing sarcasm when you state, "As you can see, some wonderful commitment from my opponent here."
In conclusion so far you arguments are equal to nothing and your grammar and conduct are very poor and very unpolished.
I really see no problem with using phrases such as 'as well as this', Pro seems to be attacking me more than my argument.
Using emotive language is a key part of writing to argue and persuasive writing. Debate is not just facts, figures, stats and pure boredom. Debate is about passion, emotion, belief, determination. I have a passion for, I am made emotional by, I have a belief in and I am determined to see prosper my Europe, my continent. THAT is debate and for Pro to suggest otherwise shows he really has no idea what the true meaning of debate is.
I also find it hilarious that Pro says I should improve on my spelling and grammar when he himself spells the word 'cite' as 'site'.
Pro also stated that my arguments amounted to nothing, but this is rich coming from someone who decided to copy and paste a quote from a website, then follow it with a series of ad hominem attacks.
Whilst we're on the topic of your argument...well, where on earth do I begin?
Firstly, it isn't an argument, it is simply a quote.
Secondly, you haven't written anything about the quote. What can we infer from this, that, whatever. Do you believe this? Why should WE believe it? Very simple debating skills that are necessary to use DDO.
I'm not sure where my opponent is from but he doesn't seem to know Europe very well at all. His quote is entirely about the Eurozone, not the EU and whilst most EU member states are euro zone countries, a strong minority are not.
In summary, overall I have to say it has been a disappointing debate. Pro made absolutely no points opposed to the EU and it has been very difficult to rebut him as a result of that. His lack of carefulness and his healthy doses of ignorance have proved that he is unable to distinguish the EU from the Eurozone and that he was able to focus only on one economic (I hesitate to call it an argument) quote which was pasted straight from an online web article, it included no opinions of his own and was littered with ad hominem fallacies.
Vote Con, vote unity, vote diversity.
Rebuttal to your childish claims and accusations:
"I'd like to start by reminding you that I'm British so sarcasm is inevitable." - Wow! Are you a child? Bring professionalism into your
debates. And, if you really believe in this statement, then consider your conduct points gone.
"Using emotive language is a key part of writing to argue and persuasive writing. Debate is not just facts, figures, stats and pure boredom. Debate is about passion, emotion, belief, determination." - That actually had me, but you are at an imbalance; you write with only emotion, yet there needs to be some facts. So, my point still stands that you have absolutely no argument throughout this debate.
"I also find it hilarious that Pro says I should improve on my spelling and grammar when he himself spells the word 'cite' as 'site'. - Yes, careless of me, but please improve your sense of humor and revise you own arguments briefly.
You cannot end sentences with linking verbs as I learned in first grade. (I have a passion for, I am made emotional by, I have a belief in and I am determined to see prosper my Europe, my continent. THAT is debate and for Pro to suggest otherwise shows he really has no idea what the true meaning of debate is.)
You should use is with singular nouns (Very simple debating skills that are necessary to use DDO.) and ( a strong minority are not)
- I know that might be tough, after all I learned that in grade 3
"Pro also stated that my arguments amounted to nothing, but this is rich coming from someone who decided to copy and paste a quote from a website, then follow it with a series of ad hominem attacks."- You are still not realizing the point: I have sited reliable sources and facts where all your information is coming from your heart.
You tell me how to debate the 'right' way when your debate doesn't even amount to a debate. You are disgracing debates when all you do is accuse me and not even stay on your topic. My fellow debater you are taking this too personally and need to remain focus on the task at hand.
Also, the euro zone is an outcome of the European Union, so please research more about your own continent. You have wasted my time and simply upset me by not producing an actual EU argument to oppose.
1. The EU costs the UK £6.4bn. - wasn't the purpose of the EU to benefit the countries economically.
2. You said that the free movement of people was good but actually, Free Movement of Labour has caused problems of overcrowding in UK cities. The UK’s population is set to rise to 70 million over next decade, partly due to immigration. This has pushed up house prices and led to congestion on roads.
3. More bureaucracy less democracy.
4. Loss of autonomy - countries no longer has total control over their laws and economic policy
5. Inefficiency and corruption. There have been examples of money being wasted in the complicated bureaucracy that makes up the EU
(1-3:http://www.economicshelp.org..., , 4-5: http://www.modernstudies.org.uk...)
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|