The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Iamaconfederate
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The UK should become a Federal Republic.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 48580
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

I will argue that the UK should become a federal republic. Con will argue the opposite. Round 4 will be conclusion only, unless I extend it. One rule.

- You may only argue the federation part. Not the republic part, so be aware.

Iamaconfederate

Con

I believe that the United Kingsom should become a confederation, as a federation still gives too much power to the federal government.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Argument 1: It would help to end seperatists movements in the British Isles

Currently, the United Kingdom is a centralized government that controls the regions of Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland.




While each region is culturally, and ethnically different, they are all controlled by the same centralized government. At the moment, seperatist movements exist in all 4 regions, and the United Kingdom is certainly looking like some sort of split might happen in the near future. So what do we do, we let each region govern itself, while all contribute together to form a centralized government.






http://www.npr.org...

Argument 2: It would give citizens more rights and freedoms

Federalism is a system that divides countries into different states, and lets them govern themselves. For the UK, it would most likely break the kingdom into 4 different governments, who all contribute to a centralized "federal" government. Meaning, Scotland can make any law or provison, that does not interfere with the central governments laws or provisions. Simmilar to the US. This system would give Scottish, Welsh, and Irish citizens more rights, while also keeping the Union and national identity together.




http://www.federalunion.org.uk...
Iamaconfederate

Con

Argument 1: It still won't be over because Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people, and English people will still want to be "free" of each other. Like the song you posted, the Irish have been trying to gain independence for 800 years, sock don't think they'll ever quit until Ireland is one country, without any other British influence.

Argument 2: I agree with you for the most part, but a confederation would work towards giving the states and people many more rights, and federalism would be like the US, but the government is much too powerful there, so federalism will not give as many rights to the people as a confederation will.

Argument 3: I say that we break up the Unites Kingdom entirely. Wouldn't Scotland and and Wales be better off without England? Ireland has proven this, because it is operating Normally.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
Iamaconfederate

Con

Argument extended.
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

Argument 1: It still won't be over because Irish people, Scottish people, Welsh people, and English people will still want to be "free" of each other. Like the song you posted, the Irish have been trying to gain independence for 800 years, sock don't think they'll ever quit until Ireland is one country, without any other British influence.

I 100% believe it can work . They have been living under the same kingdom for most of history, and right now, not even a majority of Scots want independence. What must secessionists don't realize, is that many Scottish industrys are reliant on Welsh and English companies. That is why the movement has gained little educated support.

Argument 2: I agree with you for the most part, but a confederation would work towards giving the states and people many more rights, and federalism would be like the US, but the government is much too powerful there, so federalism will not give as many rights to the people as a confederation will.

Federalism does not have to mimic the US. Currently 25 countrys, comprising 40% of the population, are federal entities. Many are very successful, like Canada and Sweden.

I want to inform the audience what confederalism actually is. It is an outdated system, that has not been used for 200 years. It involves breaking up a country into seperate states, and making them pledge military allegiance. Within weeks of the US using confederalism under the articles of confederation, mass riots broke out. It is just not a reliable form of governance in the modern age. Confederalism was actually only popular in the Roman era, when tribes would form confederations, but I believe the US was the only western country to try it.

http://www.forumfed.org...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I ask the audience to think carefully, as my opponent hasd brought the BOP on himself by introducing a new proposal. Thank you for the debate and good luck.
Iamaconfederate

Con

"I 100% believe it can work . They have been living under the same kingdom for most of history, and right now, not even a majority of Scots want independence. What must secessionists don't realize, is that many Scottish industrys are reliant on Welsh and English companies. That is why the movement has gained little educated support."

The british have NOT been living under the same kingdom for most of history. The united kingdom of Great Britain (England and Scotland) was founded by a treaty in 1707. A majority of Scottish people DO want independence, so much that the Queen has said that she does not want the UK to fall under her reign.

"I want to inform the audience what confederalism actually is. It is an outdated system, that has not been used for 200 years. It involves breaking up a country into seperate states, and making them pledge military allegiance."

First off, the European Union is very similar to a confederation, so it is not completely outdated, and if it is, then the Confederate States of America was one of the last ones, and it existed barely 150 years ago. Secondly, what is wrong with pledging military alligiance? Nothing. In fact, citizens of Russia and royal family members are conscripted into the military, then they obviously pledge alligiance to the military, and they are federations! Thirdly, you are incorrect about confederalism. A confederation is a military, economic, and political alliance or union where the federal government only controls trade and the military. The rest of the power goes to the soveriegn states that make up a confederation.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Rebel, that was a vote bomb. Forfeiting one round does not allow you to give him 7 points. You only did so because his profile says confederate.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I want to point out to anyone who cares, Scotland has been historically under English occupation.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
NO MORE CONFEDERATION DEBATES. They are a system that failed dozens of times, and hae not been practiced in 200 years. It is medieval.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I can put any limitations I want in the first round. If you don't like them then don't accept :)
Posted by MrMagic 2 years ago
MrMagic
that is your opinion, which you are entitled to... though at least both of those debates were without provisional limitations.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
You have only been in two debates yourself and they are not exactly high quality.
Posted by MrMagic 2 years ago
MrMagic
if you're going to have a debate then have a debate, provisions on what may or may not be argued corrupts it's validity.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
"You may only argue the federation part. Not the republic part, so be aware."

Isn't that rather a large handicap for con?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Jifpop09IamaconfederateTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited a round, but had better arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Jifpop09IamaconfederateTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate actually comes a lot closer than it should. I see few warrants and no evidence from either side supporting their specific stance. The first link Pro gives me is the only source for positive impact, but both sides may garner it. So I'm left with the question of who makes the most holes in the other side's arguments. From Con, I get a lot of unwarranted assertions that Pro's plan is not enough, and no warrants as to why his is sufficient. From Pro, I get arguments that confederalism has led to riots and generally is untested, which is backed up by a decent link. The only response I get is that the Confederacy in the US did it, and look how good that turned out!... Seriously? Just... Wow, not helping. I get some other points from Con about how Pro doesn't understand his argument completely, but it never fully deals with this problem, just slightly mitigating it at best. So, whereas no side is winning benefits, Con is the only one who has guaranteed harms against him.