The Instigator
qwertyman
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points

The Falkland/Malvinas Islands should be given to Argentina.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,392 times Debate No: 59434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

qwertyman

Con

I will be arguing that the Falkand/Malvinas Islands should remain a United Kingdom Overseas Territory.

Pro can start the debate or just accept, I don't mind.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

I accept this debate.

I will be arguing that the Falkland/Malvinas islands should be given to the nation of Argentina opposed to my opponents argument that they should remain a territory of the United Kingdom.

Honestly, I am not all that knowledgeable about the matter, but as I have an interest in colonialism and that particular era, this debate was especially interesting for me.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
qwertyman

Con

I think that most of the English speakers on this website probably wouldn't know much about this subject. Good luck!

I, along with the vast majority of the British population, believe that the Falkland Islands are British. I probably wouldn't have an opinion on this subject if it wasn't for the continuous propaganda from the Argentine government, and also the referendum in 2013 where 3 people voted for the islands to become Argentinean out of 1650 citizens.

That is the main point in a British viewpoint on this issue. Almost everybody from the Falklands wants to be British, and the people who want to be Argentine will probably move to Argentina.

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if it wasn't for the Argentine government letting the situation lay dormant since 1982, and then suddenly bringing it up around the same time that 30% of their population was under the poverty line, and their government was in massive debt. I'm sure that it is just a cheap way of stirring up patriotism.

Their claim is that "Of course the population of the Malvinas would say that they are British, colonials massacred the native population." When the British arrived on the islands, they were the only breathing organism on the islands. The Dutch previously came to the islands, as did the French and Portuguese. They all left. English is the only language on the island. Nobody speaks the Spanish that they speak in Argentina.

My final point is that the British had civilisation on the island, and had formally made it part of the empire 50 years before Argentina existed.

Forgive me for any typos, I am making this argument on my new tablet.
Atheist-Independent

Pro

I will be arguing that the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas) should be returned to Argentina.

Argument #1: Geographical Reasons

While this argument may seem self explanatory, it is still a legitimate argument. The Falkland islands are roughly 300
miles off the coast of Argentina, while they are almost 8000 miles away from the UK [1]. This raises the question of why does the UK fight so hard to keep an island that is an entire ocean away?

Argument #2 Oil/Natural Gas

Currently, the Falklands are view as the most valuable islands in the world due to the fact that they have enormous amounts of oil surrounding the island. According to a company named Premier Oil, the waters surrounding the Falklands contain as much as 400 million barrels of oil that can currently be retracted. Graph A displays how rich in oil the Falklands are (dark blue representing oil locations) [2].

Graph A:

This enormous amount of oil obviously raises the point that the only reason that both countries want to have the Falklands is so that they can become rich of of the profits of the oil and natural gas. This is certainly a major factor into this debate over who should own the Falklands.

It is easy to condemn Argentina, now that we know the true reason for their great campaign for the islands, however upon closer examination it becomes apparent that giving the islands to Argentina would not only be the right move, but it could become very beneficiary to many other countries as well.

Currently, Argentina has about 2.8 million barrels of oil in their country, while the UK has about 0.8 million barrels. Despite the difference oil supplies both countries require about the same amount of oil to sustain their countries. Also, current production of oil is dropping in the UK, and there need for oil has steadily increased over the past few years. These statistics all imply that it would be better for the Falklands to remain a territory of the UK. However, if the Falklands remained in British control then all of the oil would be spent on sustaining the UK. On the contrary, if the Falklands are given to Argentina then a vast portion of the oil would be sold around the world. This hypothesis is evidenced by the fact that Argentina has shown that they have always been a facilitator of oil. in 2011, Argentina sold 66,000 bbl/d of crude oil [3]. This, in fact, is a 40% decrease from what Argentina sells on average. If the Falklands are given to Argentina, then there will be a large surplus of oil, hence an increase of oil will be sold around the world. Graphs B and C display the differences in oil production in the UK and Argentina, respectively.

Graph B:

Graph C:

Argument #3: Colonialism

The final argument consists of a moral argument as opposed to a statistical argument. The UK has the the infamous reputation of being the largest colonial power back during the age of European dominance. Today, the UK has lost most of its colonies with the exception of a few islands in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, including the Falklands. This rises the debate of whether or not it is morally right for the UK to continue to hold some of these lands, given the violent history of some of its previous colonies. Even the British themselves thought that their seizure of the Falklands was not right as John Troutbeck, former head of the FCO's American Department stated that:

"our seizure of the Falkland islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by as the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits" [4].

Conclusion:

There are many good reasons as of why the Falklands should be returned to Argentina. Whether it be economic reasons or moral reasons, the facts show that the Falkland islands deserve to be returned to Argentina.

Sources:

[1] http://www.mapcrow.info...
[2] http://www.economist.com...
[3] http://www.eia.gov...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...


Debate Round No. 2
qwertyman

Con

I can see your first point about geographical proximity, but the United Kingdom has many Overseas Terrories. For example, nobody claims to Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands or the British Virgin Islands, just to name a few. Nobody claims to own Saint Martin, Clipperton Island, Saint Pierre and Miquelon or Guadeloupe (all territories of France). Nobody claims to own the Canary Islands (Spain), the Azores (Portugal), Greenland (Denmark) or Guam (United States).[1]

Your point about the oil I can also see, but it contradicts your point about colonialism. Taking away land from aother country, without the locals' consent, for your own gain is colonialism. I understand the moral argument, but if Argentina decided to take Argentina in this current situation, they wouldn't be any better than the British invading an uninhabited island.

Also, Britain uses all of the oil because, as your graph shows, Britain needs oil. If the Falkland Islands were handed to Argentina, the United Kingdom would get no Falkland oil, and they would have to buy it from elsewhere. With the current financial state of the UK[2], this is not something that they would want to do.

John Troutbeck apparently went to my school when he was a child, so I'm glad you brought him up. He is one person, out of 24 million British people. He didn't state any facts either, he just said his opinion.

Don't forget that many members of the United Nations[3] and all of the European Union[4] recognise the Falkland Islands to be British.

I also found a nice thing called the Arana-Southern treaty, signed in 1850. The agreement was that the government in Argentina wouldn't ever make a claim for the Falkland Islands, and in return, the United Kingdom and France would stop the blockade of the Rio de la Plata (which was started by an attack by Argentina). This means that Argentina are breaking international law by repeatedly claiming that the Falklands belong to them.[5]

Sources:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org...

2: https://www.google.co.uk...

3: http://web.archive.org...;

4: http://en.mercopress.com...

5: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Atheist-Independent

Pro

Rebuttal

Due to the fact that my opponent has not provided any sources to back up his arguments, I will just assume that his statistics are valid.

The majority of my opponents argument is that the people of the Falklands are British and therefore should not join Argentina. I acknowledge this, however this raises the question of whether or not the islands deserve to be British in the first place.

The argument that the vast majority of British people want the UK to keep the Falklands is partially true, as one poll showed that half wanted to keep the islands while the other half preferred to have a shared unity with Argentina [1]. This option could prove to be very successful, as the UK could partially solve their oil problems, while Argentina could satisfy their people and also relieve some of their own oil concerns. Also, it means that the British people of the Falklands could remain British citizens if that is what they wished.

However, to be fair, it is important to analyze the Argentine point of view on the matter as well, as my opponent neglected to mention this in his argument. It is very clear that nearly all Argentineans believe that the Falklands are Argentine (view source) [2].

As for the next point, this is technically not true as Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego/Patagonia) had inhabited the island, however this was in prehistoric times and they were gone before the Europeans ever arrived [3]. This however raises the point that Argentineans were the first on the islands, and therefore their claim is more legitimate. Also, I would like to clarify how the British came to take control over the islands. After Argentina's civil war against Spain, the islands, while technically under Spanish rule, became mostly uninhabited. However, Spain left in 1811 and therefore the new nation of Argentina assumed that the islands were theirs. In 1832 British forces arrived and forcefully took the islands from the Argentine Confederation [4]. This background gives Argentina a legitimate argument for the islands due to the fact that they were essentially annexed from Argentina by the UK.

Conclusion:

Argentina's claim on the Falkland islands are not only legitimate, but are stronger than the UK's claim on the islands due to both the citizens greater desire to control the islands and the history of the islands themselves.

Sources:

[1] http://en.mercopress.com...
[2] http://www.bbc.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
qwertyman

Con

The online poll from the Telegraph was a majority vote for Argentina, I know. I have the vote poll in my sources.

That is because, as the poll acknowledges, there was an Argentine social media campaign about the poll, meaning that the vast majority of the votes came from inside Argentina or Spain (who we have the Gibraltar issue with). Inside the UK, voting looks like this:



In the Falklands, it looked like this:


I understand that shared soverignity would be useful, but out of the 20,000 people that voted in the Telegraph poll, 567 people wanted to be British. It may be useful, but nobody wants it. [1]

Also, I am supposed to be aguing that the Argentine viewpoint on the issue is wrong, ans why the British viewpoint is right. I used the British opinion as an argument because the United Kingdom own the Falkland Islands at the moment, and they clearly don't want to give it up.

Also, on your source 3, it never says anything about the Falkland Islands. And on the Wikipedia page that says anything about the Fuegians and the Falklands, it says that they MAY have visited the Islands[2]. And also, if they did actually inhabit the Islands, then why aren't there any structures there? [3]

Britain took the Islands in 1833, the year after a mutiny of Argentine forces on the Islands[2]. Also, the Falklands weren't originally Argentine. In 1764, they were French, then British in 1765, then Spainish in 1771, then British again in 1774. They were inhabited for 18 years before the United Provinces (southern Brazil) took them in 1829, then the United States took them in 1831, and then they were uninhabited for a year until the Argentine forces took them in December 1832, and had control of them for a period of about a month. The recent World Cup lasted longer than the Argentine control over the islands from December 1832 to January 1833. [4]

You can't use that conclusion either, then you are saying that the United States or France have an equal right to own the Islands.

The main point of my argument is that Argentina may have a strong claim, but the citizens of the Falklands want to be British, and Argentina would be breaking international law if they took the islands against the will of the Falkland Islanders.
Sources:
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;

2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Second Rebuttal

Argument #1: Geographical Reasons

My first argument about geographical proximity is less of an argument than it is just stating facts. I don't believe that Argentina gets a greater claim on the islands due to the fact that they are closer to them then the UK is. I believe, as I have stated in my previous arguments, that Argentina deserves to regain the islands due to the fact that no country should be allowed to own colonies/territories anymore. Following this argument, I think that the territories that you mentioned do not deserve to be owned by a foreign nation.

Argument #2: Oil/Natural Gas

My argument about the oil surrounding the Falklands is that the islands should be returned to Argentina due to the fact that it would prove to be more beneficiary to more people/countries than if they remained with the UK. My opponent seems to agree with me on this point, as he does not give a counter argument to this claim.

The rebuttal that the UK needs the oil on the islands is valid, but this does not give any reason for why the UK has a greater claim on the Falklands. If anything, it shows that the UK wants the islands solely for the natural resources.

Argument #3: Colonialism

Troutbeck's quote about the seizure of the Falklands may be his opinion, but that does not mean that his opinion is false. Colonialism, by nature, is arbitrary. The fact that the UK took the islands by force only worsens the situation.

Also, the Arana-Southern Treaty that my opponent mentioned is not so much a advantage to the UK as it is a stain on their reputation. The treaty was signed by Argentina because they had been blockaded by both the UK and France for over five years simply because the UK wanted to keep control over a pivotal island that, at the time, had no claim to [1]. This, along with the invasion of the islands in 1832, clearly shows how the current claim that the UK has over the islands was fabricated out of violence and blatant violations of human rights.

Conclusion

Both the violent history of the UK's presence in the Falklands and the obvious fact that the UK wants the islands solely for the natural resources leads to the conclusion that the UK does not have a legitimate claim over the islands and should therefore be returned to Argentina.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
qwertyman

Con

Last round now. This is my closing statement.

It seems that Argentina's claim (and my opponents counter argument) is a bit hypocritical. The UK would want the Falkland Islands just for their natural resources, so does Argentina. The UK wants to keep the Islands so the people can remain happy in a stable government, rather than join the 24% poverty[1] of Argentina.

I maintain my claim that Argentina has no right to claim the islands. The United Kingdom took the islands, and then invaded the Islands back after the month-long Argentinian reign. There was no international law in place, and the Empire was doing what it thought was right at the time. Now, Argentina want to take the islands against the will of their people, which is against international law. (Security Council Resolution 502).

Colonialism is dead, but Argentina is trying to bring it back to life by taking the Islands against everybody's will. Nearly all the arguments that Argentina, and my opponent, can give are hypocritical.

I'll just leave you with some news articles about why the Falkland Islands do not want to join the mess in Argentina at the moment. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is just a simple way of stirring up patriotism in a country that is an LEDC, compared to the more advanced United Kingdom.[2][3]

Sources:
1. http://www.economist.com...

2. http://www.bbc.co.uk...

3. http://www.theguardian.com...
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Concluding Statement

My argument has consisted of two focal points that I feel that my opponent has not sufficiently rebutted. These are:

a) Not only does Argentina have a claim on the Falklands, but it is stronger than the UK's.
b) The returning of the Falklands to Argentina would prove to be beneficiary to multiple countries.

Point a has been evidenced by multiple historical examples. Argentina's claim on the islands originates from the fact that they were owned by Argentina following the civil war against Spain, and therefore the Falklands belonged and still should belong to Argentina. The only reason why the islands are not controlled by Argentina today is because the UK invaded the Falklands in 1832 due to the fact that the new Argentine government was too weak to defend its country. This also villainizes the UK because it shows that the claim that they have on the islands was fabricated out of violence.

Point b can also be evidenced given the fact that Argentina has a vast supply of oil, and the addition of the Falklands would certainly lead to the distribution of the oil throughout the world. This will not happen if the islands remain in control of the UK because the UK has a massive deficit between oil produced and consumed, therefore most of this oil will remain in British control. My opponent fails to show how this is not the case and his only defense is that the UK needs the oil so therefore they deserve to have the oil.

Given these two points, it is clear that the returning of the Falkland islands is both the morally correct thing to do and also would be more beneficiary to other countries.

On a side note, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as I have definitely learned more about the matter.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Using the Canary islands as an argument for British colonialism is a form of taking advantage of the audience's ignorance and a disgusting abuse of history.
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
...yielding greater global benefit.

Vote pro
Posted by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
This was a somewhat close debate. Con wins that Argentina doesn't have a moral claim to the islands. This eliminates some of Pros offense. In the end I am weighing cons claim the the existing population wants to stay British and Argentina has a bad economy against pros claim that Argentina will spread around the oil wealth. Unfortunately I don't think com adequately developed his claim that Argentina would somehow mismanage or hurt the islands. Pro did a marginally better job convincing that Argentina will sell oil globally
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Is the final round just for a closing statement and not a rebuttal?
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
I will be away for the next week starting on Monday, so is it possible that you could publish your argument on Sunday? If not, that is fine but it will result in my forfeiture of the final round. Thanks.
Posted by qwertyman 3 years ago
qwertyman
That's pretty much the point of my argument. The Falklands are British.
Posted by StevenJD 3 years ago
StevenJD
The people of these uk overseas territories don't want to be part of Argentina. It's like giving hawaii to mexico.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 3 years ago
BillBonJovi
qwertymanAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. I cannot agree with Pro's conduct as he ignored human rights and international law. 2. Con undoubtedly had worse spelling and grammar. 3. While I think BOTH debaters lacked knowledge on actual truths about this debate, I have to say Pro failed to justify how the human rights of the Falkland Islanders are irrelevant to the dispute and Pro also failed to justify how his arguments overrule international law, and also if geographic facts have any effect in international law. I think human rights are paramount. 4. I don't think either one used great sources.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
qwertymanAtheist-IndependentTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments