The Instigator
elemenope
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The European Union should be abolished

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...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 59261
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

elemenope

Pro

1. The EU Promotes Crime and Instability

2. The EU Weakens Europe's Cultural Defenses

3. The EU Promotes a Bloated Bureaucracy

4. Excessive Regulation and Centralization is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity

5. The Lack of a Real Separation of Powers in the EU Invites Abuse of Power

6. The Lack of Transparency Leaves the EU Vulnerable to Hostile Infiltration

7. The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech

8. The EU Fails to Consult its Citizens and Insults Them When Doing So

9. The EU Undermines Political Legitimacy and Connections between Rulers and the Ruled

10. The EU Spreads a Culture of Lies and Corruption
Daltonian

Con

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I wish them good luck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Plagiarism

Shortly after I accepted this debate and typing out my entire response - *sigh* - I found that my opponent had plagiarized the entirety of her argument from this source:
(http://gatesofvienna.net...)

Whilst it is partially my fault for accepting the debate before verifying if she had plagiarized or not, this is still unfortunate.

B. Clarification
My opponent has made a variety of statements without offering any support for them, rendering her argument thus far as entirely inadequate. Still, I will address each point as if she had actually properly presented it.

C. Rebuttals
1. The EU does not promote crime by definition of the word.

Definition of 'promote':
promote|prəG2;m!3;t| verb [ with obj. ]
1. purposefully further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage:some regulation is still required to promote competition.
2. advance or raise (someone) to a higher position, office, or rank

Contrarily to this given definition, the EU actually promotes a variety of anti-crime initiatives, forming their own anti-crime and crime prevention committees. [1]

2. My opponent states that the "EU weakens Europe's cultural defenses". This statement is not only odd, but confusing.

To even legitimize this point for consideration, you must ask:

* What is the EU defending from?
* Why does the EU weaken Europe's Cultural Defenses? The EU is simply a political and economic association of closely allied member states. What does this have to do with culture?
* What is Europe's culture? To suggest that Europe's culture is being weakened, you must find that Europe as an entity has one distinct culture.

3. "The EU promotes a bloated bureaucracy"
My opponent may be having a fun time claiming this, but is unable to back up their claims with detail or any sort of evidence whatsoever. They hold the BoP in proving that the EU promotes this.

4. "Excessive Regulation and Centralization is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity"

* In what way does the EU excessively regulate or centralize? The vast majority of decisions are still made by the individual member states. The majority of EU law tends to avoid subjects that are knowingly controversial; rather, most of it relatrs to basic human rights standards, taxation, and etcetera. Additionally, all decisions made by the EU are made voluntarily by the respective elected governments of each member state, thus making the regulation far from excessive, if not entirely voluntary. [2]

5. "Lack of separation of powers"
I don't understand what my opponent - or rather, the person my opponent plagiarized - is getting at here. The European Union is exactly that, a union, which in this context is defined as:

"1. A political unit consisting of a number of states or provinces with the same central government, in particular"

Notice how I have bolded the word 'unit'. Acting as a unit defines acting unitedly, or as one. The entire purpose of the European Union in it's essence is to promote togetherness of Europe as allies, so saying that the EU should promote separation makes little sense.

6. "Transparency"
Whilst it is true that a lack of transparency can lead to corruption, my opponent has given little explanation to how the EU is not transparent. The EU strives to be as transparent as possible, forming an entire organization dedicated to forcing EU transparency [4] and a transparent register, [5]. Other political unions, like that of the United States of America, is the opposite of this, and instead uses non-transparent agencies like the NSA. In this regard, the EU is transparent by comparison to other international bodies.

7, 8, 9, 10 - Whilst all of my opponent's previous stances seemed to have at least some understandable merit, these are just ginormous blanket statements made with no explanation warranting them being true whatsoever.
* No explanation provided as to how the EU leads to less freedom of speech
* The EU holds mass citizenship consultations annually [6]
* No explanation for point 9, or any explanation to how point 9 is relevant at all
* Point 10 is just a hollow statement, void and null with no evidence to back it.

D. Arguments as to why the EU should not be abolished

1. EU citizens living in other member states
725 million people live in the EU. As of 2011, 2.5% of those people lived in another member state under EU law, or nearly 20 million people [3]. If the EU was abolished, the homes and possessions of these 20 million people living in foreign member states would be rendered void, and they would have to return to their respective nation. The result would be disastrous for the economy.

2. As other areas of the world form unions and join together, the EU as a whole would be weakened in comparison
In recent years, other continents have followed the path of the European Union, forming alliances like the African Union and the Union of South American Nations. Both the reputation and world respect of Europe would shudder if it was to fragment itself as the rest of the world comes together

3. The EU simply has a positive effect on the economy of countries who join it

169629-4074-f76ma-a.jpg

Above - (sorry if it isn't loading properly for whatever reason) - is an example of increasing GDP in member countries after joining the EU, compared with what they would have been had they not joined the EU. The EU allows for increases in trading, creating jobs in all countries involved. Trade within the EU has increased by 30% since it's formation.

References
1 - http://www.eucpn.org...;
2 - http://europa.eu...
3 - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...;
4 - http://www.transparencyinternational.eu...;
5 - http://ec.europa.eu...;
6 - http://ec.europa.eu...

Debate Round No. 1
elemenope

Pro

A. This is not a big deal, if you are going to accuse me of "plagiarism" then you just may as well include English and every other language. Is plagiarism simply copying words? Or is it more complicated than that? The dictionary defines plagiarism as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Plagiarism, then, is not just lifting sentences from another writer's work and claiming them as your own.

The European Union (EU) is not good for prosperity in Europe. Perhaps it would have been so if it had remained a free trade zone, as it was first claimed to be. However, the bloated and excessively centralized bureaucracy of the EU today is clearly harmful to ordinary Europeans. It is nonsense to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive. The EU does not protect the peace in Europe. On the contrary, it undermines stability in the continent by dismantling border controls at a time of the greatest population movements in human history. Many immigrants come from unstable countries whose instability spills over to European states. Through its senseless immigration policies, the EU may become partially responsible for triggering internal conflicts in several European countries. It may be remembered as the 'peace project' which brought war to Europe again. The European Union has created a borderless region from Greece to France and from Portugal to Finland, yet the citizens of these countries still pay most of their taxes to nation states whose borders are no longer upheld. It is ridiculous to pay up to half of your income to an entity that no longer controls its own territory or legislation. Unless national borders are re-established, the citizens of EU member states no longer have any obligation at all to pay taxes. The EU promotes a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, yet street crime goes largely unpunished. Laws are used to punish law-abiding citizens while real criminals rule the streets, although this flaw is admittedly shared with many national governments. European authorities make a mockery out of the social contract every single day as they fail to uphold law and order. In Scandinavia, the cultural critic and columnist Kasper Støvring published a book in early 2014 making many of the same arguments: the EU does not promote 'peace' in Europe. On the contrary, it could be sowing the seeds of future conflicts by systematically breaking down dozens of European nation states at the same time. The open borders through its Schengen Agreement and the legal and illegal mass migration promoted by the EU's policies are particularly dangerous. What has changed since 2008? Nothing. At least, nothing positive. If anything, the problems are worse today than they were some years ago. The financial crisis was then just beginning. It turned out to be so serious that the euro, the common currency for many (but not all) EU member states, could have collapsed. It hasn't, at least not yet. But the crisis has still not been resolved. It has hit many countries in southern Europe hard, including Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. The public debt keeps mushrooming. The euro currently seems like a bad idea. Greece does not have the same economic level or industrial output as does Germany. It is artificial for these countries to have some same currency. In fairness, a few of the problems we are currently witnessing are not unique to the eurozone. Britain, which is a member of the EU but not of the euro, also suffers from spiraling debt. So does the USA, and for that matter Japan. In all of these big economic blocs, the central banks have for years been extremely aggressive with money-printing, although this hasn't solved the underlying issues. The EU is not the cause of all of Europe's ills. Many of them are common to the entire Western world. A few of them are even more pronounced in North America than they are in Europe. However, the EU makes many of these fundamental problems worse, and adds several more on top. It would be worthwhile to debate whether the EU was fundamentally flawed from its very inception, or whether it was a good idea that turned bad somewhere along the way. I used to be more pro-EU as late as in the 1990s, but then I was young and naïve. When I read about how Jean Monnet and other key players from the beginning wanted to sell a planned European political federation as merely a free trade zone, I am tempted to conclude that the EU was indeed flawed from its very inception. It was born in lies and deceit. Regardless of whether the EU may once have been a good idea or not, the actual organization as it exists today has become thoroughly corrupted. It is increasingly totalitarian and wedded to dangerous Utopian ideas. Can the European Union be reformed? I find the possibility very unlikely. The entire organization is now rotten to its core. It has, sadly, managed to bribe and seduce the political establishment throughout much of the European continent. The EU cannot be reformed; it can only be abolished and completely dismantled. An unresolved question is how the dissolution of the EU will take place, if it does. Ideally, the common people should rise up against the small elite that has usurped power and is grossly abusing this power. At the moment it seems probable that economic tensions stemming from a badly constructed union could ultimately fuel the demise of the EU. The final outcome remains to be seen. In terms of money and largely unchecked and unaccountable power, however, it seems unlikely whether the ruling EU elites will give up their lucrative positions without putting up some sort of resistance.

Daltonian

Con

A. Plagiarism
Pro, copy pasting of text in any fashion whatsoever is a big taboo on DDO, unless it is in quotations and clearly cited. However, I am still willing to debate plagiarized content, I just thought that the plagiarism may be relevant on the topic of conduct points.

It's unfortunate you had to plagiarize the remainder of the debate. My opponent seems to also not want to debate this topic that much anymore, so I'll be nice in the fact that I won't rebut as strongly as I could have so this ends quicker.

If my opponent likes, we could both agree to forfeiting the last round. She could clarify so by saying "I forfeit this round" after I rebut, and then I will do the same.

B. Brief Rebuttals
It should be noted that Con's paragraph is again a very broad, blanket statement that still doesn't really have much explanation to back it up. It labels points that are anti-EU, but fails to justify how they make sense in any way.

B1 - Immigration: The EU's immigration policies are far from senseless. Allowing free passage between allied nations creates bonds between neighbours, not conflict. Why would a country be more resentful or inclined to be aggressive towards another knowing that millions of its' citizens live there?

B2 - Borderless region: Whilst the Schengen Area does allow free passage, this in no way justifies any fallacy in the obligation of citizens to pay taxes. The government, social programs, and all sorts of other functions are not realistically effected if people can cross the street from the Netherlands to Belgium without getting a pat-down.

B3 - Crime: Whilst this statement is untrue regarding crime statistics in Europe, it isn't even the obligation of the European Union to solve local crimes. This would be the obligation of each nation's federal government, or even perhaps the local police department. The EU is simply an alliance between governments, not some sort of mass crime enforcement league.

B4 - "The EU wrecks the economy" - I tried posting a photo before and it didn't work, so here's the link: http://www.debate.org... In this chart, the actual and per capita GDP of nations are compared. One line is estimate whilst not in the EU, the other estimate is for the nation included in the EU. The results clearly show an economic benefit.

All in all, I have won this debate so far as my opponent has failed to explain why her anti-EU points are valid, all she has done is copy plagiarized content with no explanation as to why it is legitimate. The EU promotes friendship between nations, the solidification of alliances, and allows economic growth through free trade.
Debate Round No. 2
elemenope

Pro

"Pro, copy pasting of text in any fashion whatsoever is a big taboo on DDO, unless it is in quotations and clearly cited. However, I am still willing to debate plagiarized content, I just thought that the plagiarism may be relevant on the topic of conduct points."

This is a matter of opinion, though the voters will decide. You may be using sources, but you cannot claim that my arguments are not valid.

B1. Free passage is senseless, you are allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry into the country, and the problem with that is, a countries population matters when it comes to an economy. Example being, it's the tax payers who fund those who are not working. So what you think happens to those that flood into the country and go onto the benefit system. You're forcing tax payers to pay higher taxes. This forces wages to be driven down, because you then have to compensate for the high taxation because they cannot afford to pay the wages of the people. It's common sense.

B2. Look up the definition of Obligation, then Commitment, I quote the definition of Commitment "an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action." If these people are free to pay taxes, what it really is, is slavery, theft. As for the social programs, they need binned, not protected, it's the social programs that are destroying the economy and incentives to work. As well as government, it needs limited.

B3. Lies, Westminster government was powerless over an immigrant prisoner and cannot deport him because of EU law. Most of Britain's laws are made in Brussels, you should know this. If you don't believe this, you can look it up.

B4. What is that for logic, comparing countries like Germany who have strong free market principles, and then comparing Socialist countries outside the EU, as if this is some how a good comparison. Tell me, has the EU saw growth in its 40 years? If that's the case, why was there a Eurozone Crisis? Exactly, it's heading into collapse. Do you really think the Euro in decline is economic growth?

These are just simple reasons that shows UKIP is going to win 2015.

The EU is Socialist because it is Centralized. Part of what Socialism is about is Collectivism. What you think the EU is? It's Collectivized, it has one currency and one government that spans across all nation states collectively. Uses Central Planning which is part of what defines Socialism. As well of course as subsidizing, that is Socialist. What you must understand is that Central Planning doesn't work. Tell you what you should do, read 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt as well as the Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism. You'll get a clearer understanding. Centralization cannot work, it's impossible. The EU was not setup to protect you from war, it was setup as a cartel that is used for political power, was the foundations of global governance, it's anti-democratic.
Daltonian

Con

Thanks to my opponent for providing a thought-worthy and far more respectable conclusion to her debate. It's a shame she only gave them in the last round, as now she will not have time to refute my refutations.

I will now refute my opponent's various points.

A. Plagiarism
You are right that it is a matter of opinion on the behalf of the voters. So, voters, I will ask you: is plagiarising an argument as your own a signal of good conduct?

B. Rebuttals
B1. The validity of lax immigration policy varies upon the country in discussion in exactly how beneficial it is, and in some countries, like the UK, it can turn out to be actually inefficient, but that in no way warrants the entire disbandment of the EU. Often times, in cases of inter-EU migration, the people migrating will come from economically advancec countries like France, Ireland, Portugal, or etc. Those who come from non-advanced countries like Poland are far outnumbered by those from the advanced countries.

For example, in the UK in 2011, the following 10 countries had the most immigrants to the UK, as an example [1]
- India (129,000)
- Australia (62,000)
- Poland (60,000)
- USA (53,000)
- China (52,000)
- Pakistan (50,000)
- France (40,000)
- Spain (36,000)
- Republic of Ireland (34,000)
- Germany (30,000)
- Bangladesh (26,000)

Out of those top 10 countries, only 5 were EU countries, and 4 of them were in the bottom 5. This could account that the majority of the UK and other country's immigration crises can be attributed to non-EU immigration. The two EU countries on the list which could be argued as being at a drastically lower class economically than the UK - Poland and Spain - accounted for only 90,000 immigrants total. Compare that to the 100,000 from France, Ireland, and Germany, and the beneficial immigrants outweight the non-beneficial ones.

Besides, if people are willing to work and travel from accross the continent to get to a certain country, like the UK or France or etc, then it's likely that their work ethic isn't too shabby either.

B2. Here, I don't really get what my opponent is getting at at all. The European Union is not obligated to do anything other than assure cooperation between it's member states, share economic benefits, and forge political alliances. Almost all social programs are the business of each federal government; the only thing the EU mandates socially are human rights (example: EU member states cannot discriminate against homosexuals when employing) and basic logical principles that prevent political conflict.

Obligation and commitment are indeed a nice pair of principles, but I am completely lost as to why they are relevant. My opponent's argument here is a confusing arrangement of improper sentences and irrelevant principles. Had she proposed it earlier in the debate, it would have been easier to clarify.

B3. Whilst I would like to appreciate my opponent's argument here, she hasn't really specified the details of this case. In certain situations, a criminal caught in one country that is a citizen to another or rightfully under the judicial system of another nation should be sent there. In a broad sense, the EU is not responsible for crime management. That is all the responsibility of federal and local governments alongside local police.

B4. Again, very weary of my opponent's words. She's ranting about socialism in this paragraph, which doesn't have much to do with point B4, which forecasted the predicted GDP of individual countries in scenarious in which they didn't join the EU and the GDP they have with the EU. Denmark, the UK, and Ireland are longtime members of the EU, so I dont know why my opponent is saying about "comparing countries like Germany to socialist countries outside the EU" [2] Perhaps she is unable to see my chart? I'll try linking it again:


D. Conclusion
Whilst my opponent has gone through an emotional ride with me and this debate, I would commend her for successfully finishing it.
So far, Pro has made unsourced, plagiarised, and unfounded blanket statement allegations about the EU without really explaining her argument. I have successfully produced evidence and valid reasons as to why abolishing the European Union would have negative effects on Europe, and on proving how my opponent has not fulfilled her side of the BoP.

I have won this debate, no question, as pro only even began to argue in the last round.

For these reasons, vote con.


---References---
1- http://www.theguardian.com...;(this is actually an anti-immigration oriented essay, criticizing the UK and other country in particular's lax stance on non-EU immigration, to verify it has little bias in terms of the EU)
2 -http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Hello, Royalist.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Thank you, Pro, for finishing the debate respectably.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
ya, plagiarism wont lose you the debate but it hurts your sources points.
Posted by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
Pro is just quoting her whole debate from source that Con points out. http://gatesofvienna.net...
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Bah, my chart can be found here:
http://www.debate.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
Progressivist
elemenopeDaltonianTied
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: Good debate. I think Elemenope can use this as a learning experience. Her points in the the last round were GOOD, unlike the stuff she plagiarized which didn't really convince me. it was out of context and not really too relevant. S&G was about equal, both sides had a few minor errors. Pro used no sources. Conduct to Con for plagiarism. I was also more convinced by Con's arguments, because con cited actual evidence. Elemenope totally won on the B3 point, but it seemed like Daltonian won on B1, B2, and B4. If Elemenope hadn't posted her GOOD arguments so late in the debate, she might have done better.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
elemenopeDaltonianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Sources goto Dalton due to plagiarism, Dalt also gets Spelling and grammar due to the typos in the walls of text that pro presented. Dalt: Don't paste new info in the last round, it doesn't allow your opponent the ability to refute. I had to give pro the arguments though, point B3 went un-refuted at the end, you had plenty of time to refute her. The other points I feel were all addressed and carried through well. keep up the good work.