The Instigator
Ryanguy28
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ZzThomps
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The USA government should take over Canada

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,720 times Debate No: 15580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Ryanguy28

Pro

It sounds like a preposterous idea. Why would the peace-fostering, freedom-loving USA invade such a similar country as Canada? I'll tell you why: it makes sense.
Canada has a weak military, lots of land, and abundant natural resources. With our hyper-advanced armed forces, we could topple the insignificant Canadian troops and claim the endless bounty that lies to the north. Very few lives would be lost, if any.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world, bigger than the USA itself. We would have ample land to exponentially increase food production and farming research, eliminating the deaths of millions of malnourished kids in third-world countries.
Canada's energy-producing abilities are largely untapped, and could end Western dependency on foreign oil. The amounts of renewable energy sources there are staggering, from wave power to geothermal to biofuels. We could free ourselves of costly Middle East turf wars, and save money on everything from food to cars to televisions, all because transportation would cost less.
The diplomatic cost of such an takeover would be minimal, as minimal Canadian lives would be lost, less than one hundred, and the country would effectively be taken over by a more efficient and progressive government. Approval by European countries who may be concerned about the well being of citizens would be easily won, as the USA would let the Canadians run their lives normally, just with more prosperity and efficiency.
The takeover of Canada could be a jumping-off point for the fixing of Mexico as well; a more powerful and stable US could more easily topple the drug lords in control of the Mexican streets. We could restore peace for the Mexican people, and solve our country's drug problems as well.
Lets review our impacts.
-The USA would gain food production abilities ,possibly saving the lives of millions of hungry third world families.
-The lives lost would be minimal, as Canada would quickly surrender when faced with the USA military might.
-The USA could eliminate dependence on foreign oil, allowing us to save yet more lives and money by not engaging in Middle Eastern wars, also cleaning up the environment by using renewable energy.
-The international community would be in full agreement, as the USA would not change Canadians' way of life, culture, or religion, only make their country more prosperous and efficient.
-The more-powerful USA could possibly fix Mexican and Central American drug wars, eliminating lives lost and removing the USA drug problems.
ZzThomps

Con

I accept this debate and negate "The USA government should take over Canada". Despite going to war simply being unethical, there are many more reasons against it. I will start with my case.
- Canada has more than fifteen million people available for service in the Canadian Forces. Many lives would be lost.
- Taking over such a large country means an even greater amount of territory to govern over, and governing over such a large addition to territory at once is difficult.
- The United States is often viewed as a peaceful country (in general), and if it was to go to war, it would set a bad example.
- Furthermore, if the US went on to attack another country without good reason, (besides simply wanting to control and conquer them) other places will surely view it as a threat.
- The US doesn't even have good reason for doing so, and as part of the United Nations, is prohibited in actions as such. Not following these rules could cause a number of problems including, a loss of allies, dislike and contempt from others, and this would overall be a step backward.
- The US has been going through problems, like with the economy, on its own and declaring war would only lead to even worse ones.

For my opponent's contentions:
- You have no evidence to show that minimal Canadian lives will be lost.
- Canada would have to comply with U.S. government rules, which would not be their normal lifestyle.
- And as for his impacts, all of the impacts benefit the US, but not the population of Canada.

(I am running out of time, so I'm going to post this incomplete argument now. I will return for more refutations and arguments in the second round.)
Debate Round No. 1
Ryanguy28

Pro

Ryanguy28 forfeited this round.
ZzThomps

Con

My opponent has informed me that they are out of town, and are unable to debate at this time. He will (hopefully) return in the next round, and I ask you please do not deduct points from him because of this. In this round, I will build upon my previous argument.

You have no evidence to show that declaring war on Canada (and then assuming the US won) would cause the US to be more powerful. I, on the other hand, think you logic is backwards. By declaring war, The US would inevitably be weaker. My evidence to support this is that we would be more vulnerable to attack, more focused on the war (and most likely not on the drug problems), and would definitely have our hands full trying to sort out this entire war situation. This shows that there is indeed more encouraging, than discouraging, the growth of drug problems

Like I have said, it may not be hard to conquer Canada, but it will certainly be hard to control them. That isn't even mentioning the US's own people. There will be people unhappy with the war on both sides. As for the lifestyle's of the US and Canada, they are very different. Canada and the US alike are used to their way of life, and there are sure to be problems that arise because of these differences. One obvious example is Canada's health care policy, and government in general.

As for the idea involving Canada having vast amounts of food, I disagree. My opponent claims that the food obtained from Canada could possibly feed millions of hungry families. This is highly unlikely. Conquering Canada would increase the food the US has, but it would also increase the people the US has to feed a lot also. In the area of the new US, with Canada conquered, there wouldn't be any more food produced, just more in terms of the food in the US and in Canada being combined. If Canada and the US had food to spare before (that could have been shared with the rest of the world), how would US conquering Canada cause them share it now, since they didn't before?

In terms of energy, I do not see how it could save lives. And once again, conquering Canada wouldn't really change anything in this situation either (unless we adopted their style of energy production, which is unlikely). Canada would still need to use the energy they produced, with the only benefit being the reduced transportation costs should the US import energy from Canada/the new US. The only way this would change the dependency on foreign oils is by making them no longer foreign.
Debate Round No. 2
Ryanguy28

Pro

Ryanguy28 forfeited this round.
ZzThomps

Con

My opponent is still unable to debate at this time. Once again, I ask that you please do not penalize him because of this.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Agree with quarterexchange here. I am just curious: you posted the comment 4 months ago but voted just now?
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Invading Canada would be very simple. They have 1/50 the amount of airplanes and 1/20 the amount of total manpower and 1/15 the amount of land based weapons the U.S. has. A lot of Canadian military equipment is U.S. made and the U.S. military is meant for fighting conventional fighting forces. Attacking and taking over Canada would be a cake walk. But we shouldn't do it because Canada is an ally, it would make the U.S. look like a warmongering nation especially since Canada is so weak and a U.S. ally, and we'd be killing people for no good reason.
Posted by possible08 6 years ago
possible08
You really underestimate the Canadian military. No it would not be easy. Yes many many lives would be lost. What a dumb idea.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Ryanguy28ZzThompsTied
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: Pro seems to assume that Canada is a stretch of empty land with scattered indigenous populations where US military can go conquer, Americans can use the energy, grow food etc. He doesn't seem to realize that Canada is an actual country with a government, and millions of people living there.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Ryanguy28ZzThompsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and Con refuted his arguments