The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 92515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The United Kingdom should remain a member state of the European Union. There is no reasoned argument that suggests it is a good idea for Britain to secede from the Union. All statements must be well qualified and backed up with citations where possible.

Round 1) Acceptance Con Opening Statement
Round 2) Pro Rebuttal Con Rebuttal
Round 3) Closing Arguments


The European Court of Justice-

When the Parliament passed the European Communities Act in1972 it recognised the power of EU law over UK law. This is an idea that over the following years was enforced by the decisions of the European Court of Justice.

"The ECOJ also resolves legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions, and may take action against EU institutions on behalf of individuals, companies or organisations whose rights have been infringed."

So the UK is under the authority of and can even be penalized by the ECOJ if it simply makes its own independant decisions.

The EU ordered the UK to take in more Syrian refugees in a "migrant quota", when much of the UK seemed to want nothing to do with it.

"‘This is scandalous,’ said Sir Gerald Howarth, a former Tory minister. ‘The tribunal should have no business in this matter. We have very strict laws on immigration and asylum that are set by Parliament."

Well, it looks like the UK resistance would have been the right choice. Europe soon began their freefall into a giant "migrant crisis", and many EU nations began shutting the doors and deporting refugees.

Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy Muslim nation decided to take no refugees as their sovereign right. The EU could have forced a "rape Jihad of Cologne", a Paris massacre, or Belgium airpot bombing-like situation down the throats of the UK by emotional decision making over logic, reason, and ability.

Poland didn't want any part of it. They have that sovereign right. 150,000 people marched against Islam. It's a clash of cultures, like it or not. Oil and water do not mix. Is it fair to innocent Muslims? Probably not, but innocent Muslims can migrate at a normal and established rate. Moving over a million Muslims into your country as Angela Merkal did in Germany, led to a clash of cultures that led to the introduction of "tahurrish Gamea" and over 1,000 sexual assaults and rapes in one night in Germany, namely Cologne, and violent clashes between migrants and Germans. They weren't raised in democratic societies and didn't understand it, most did not speak the native languages, and they had no way to get jobs. It created a migrant vacuum, Islamic ghettos.

Poland's 150,000 March-


You shouldn't run a whole continent under one anthom when countries have different needs, abilities, cultures, and languages. "One worldness" has not made the West better. It has put it in danger, and in the hands of its enemies. ISIS! Where? Where? Everywhere...

The UK has the right to fully govern itself and protect its people at its own discernment.


Debate Round No. 1


Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent straight off the bat has taken 2 of the standard 3 (Self-governance, Immigration, un-demoncractic EU) arguments used frequently in the debate surrounding this topic. I will now demonstrate why these arguments are fundamentally flawed in their logic and are not good cause to side with Con in this debate.

My opponent seems to believe that ECOJ exists to undermine on a daily basis the authority of the UK government. While it is true that EU law supersedes member state law, it does so for good reason. The EU exists to build a community of nations. Allies in trade, law and ideals. The European Communities Act 1972 sought to bring every member states laws up to standard, by bringing in a standard of laws that supersedes the laws of a member state. This is quite a simple idea and means that all people in all member states live by the rules. However, Con in this case, as would many of the Leave campaigners, would have you believe that the EU frequently dictates to or overthrows the laws of the UK. Con would most likely fail to find an unjust example of this case. I find this argument analogous to complaining about the laws set by Parliament superseding the laws of the local councils. The same logic applies. You cannot have a functioning communities of governments unless they all follow some laws set by a government higher than themselves.

The next argument Con brings up, although perhaps not very well structured, is centred on the topic of immigration. Con refers to the EU's mandate to the UK to take in a quota of refugees, which he mistakenly refers to a migrant quota, as refugees have a very specific definition set out in the UNHCR's guidelines. My opponent believes that because the UK wanted 'nothing to do with it' it is wrong for the EU to mandate that they take in x amount of refugees. This argument would try to convince you that it is morally more incorrect to have the EU mandate such a thing to a member state than it is for the UK to deny these people safe haven from conditions that are beyond their control and are denying them their access to fundamental human rights.

Con refers to the 'freefall into a giant migrant (refugee) crisis'. A crisis caused by member states not picking up the slack and doing what they agreed to do when they joined the EU as a member state. When member states close off their borders and begin passing the baton when it comes to looking after refugees it just generates an enormous burden for a handful of respectable dedicated member states.

Saudi Arabia are not a member state of the EU so you argument has no bearing here.

Poland is a case of an attack on Islam as a culture (which should be attacked as it is a vile culture that doesn't merit protection under any law) and muslims. One can practice Islam and be a strict adherent to the culture in which you practice it (i.e Western Culture) and the UK should be one of the finest examples of this as many practicing muslims live here and have done since they were children and have incorporated well into society (Islam as a culture is a separate debate in and of itself and should be avoided here). Germany was a horrible event and was a consequence of poor management of refugees, but to use it as an reason for the UK to leave the EU? Non-sensical. How can any nation expect to solve, or contribute to solve problems like a mass immigration of refugees in a short space of time without being part of an international community that can pool its resources, set laws and standards to ensure that every nation pulls its weight, to ensure that such burden can be managed effectively and not allowed to over-boil in any member state.

The EU is a place to solve problems and develop a community of nations, not discriminate or isolate out of fear or hatred. Those in favour of leaving the EU believe that rather than address issues it is easier to just walk away. The UK has power in the EU, it has a voice, it has the ability to change things. Sadly though, they have MEP's like Nigel Farage who won't even go to European Parliamentary meetings and by doing so, fail to give the UK a voice.

I look forward to my opponents rebuttals.


The UK needs to get away from the EU before it is too late and their entire culture is erased from planet Earth...


"The EU is a place to solve problems and develop a community of nations, not discriminate or isolate out of fear or hatred."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim-

"In the real world, equal respect for all cultures doesn't translate into a rich mosaic of colorful and proud peoples interacting peacefully while maintaining a delightful diversity of food and craftwork. It translates into closed pockets of oppression, ignorance, and abuse."

Fear can be bad. Fear can be good.

-According to (, "If we couldn't be afraid, we wouldn't survive for long. We'd be walking into oncoming traffic, stepping off of rooftops and carelessly handling poisonous snakes."

According to Psychology Today,"We all know what it's like to feel overwhelmed by fear, but few of us know what it's like to be unburdened by fear. We imagine it would make us bolder and braver. In reality, it would make us stupider. Fear, as it turns out, is a fundamental part of making good decisions."

Nigel Farage has said that he is against Muslim immigrants who are "coming here to take us over", pointing to Australia as a government to mirror on this point. He refers to a "fifth column" of Islamic extremists in the United Kingdom. He has claimed that the "basic principle" of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood speech" was true.

And the EU has tried to push as many migrants down the throat of the UK as is possible.

Walid Shoebat, ex Muslim-

"Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex Muslim-

"I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Withholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. The experts may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

(Video proof of how Muslims intigrate into Western socirties. They don't usually, and the ones who do are waiting for reinforcements.)


It is all a blind, misguided effort at multiculturism, but that is not what is happening. This is a takeover..

And it is quite the clever ruse. How could you takeover an entire continent.

-Use their liberal mindset against them, such as labeling anyone who opposes you as a bigot or hate mongerer.

-Move in, overwhelm the welfare system.

-Kill on one side and play nice from the other as if "moderate Islam" actually exists.

"Sharia patrols" are being instituted in parts of Britain and all over Europe. The Hungarian government says there are over 900 Islamic no go zones across Europe.

(Sharia patrols for video reference)

("UK go to Hell" for video reference)

("Your laws can go to Hell" for video reference)


Muruna- allows Muslims to sow division and confusion in the Western world. Muruna is literally accomplished by permitting behavior normally so eschewed by Sharia that Westerners logically assume a more moderate version of Islam actually exists, when such prohibitions are suddenly permitted. Westerners' eyes are, in fact, deceiving them.Muruna is about going to great lengths to gain interests through a much deeper level of deception while simultaneously lowering the guard and gaining the support of the infidels.

The 9/11 hijackers went undected. Why? They violated Islam and went to bars and strip clubs, looking like "moderates", and then they killed over 3,000 people in one day.

Here is a "Stealth Jihad" concept. Move in. Outbreed them. Become their politicians, police, teachers, out-repoduce them. Slowly gain control.

(A Muslim openly speaks of the concept - video reference)




"The believers are but a single brotherhood."


"The unbelievers are unto you open enemies."


The UK needs to eject as quickly as is possible, if it's not too late already. It's already here...

Debate Round No. 2


Ladies and Gentlemen, at least those of you still reading, my opponents argument has descended into nothing more than a racist rant attacking Islam culture. While I do not condemn my opponent taking a stance on such a topic I believe that they have greatly diverged from the motion at hand. Consequently they have failed to intellectually engage with my points and have failed to generate a stimulating debate. I believe this draws this debate to a sad close and I would gather that it is easy to discern, not who won, but who lost in this debate.



"Ladies and Gentlemen, at least those of you still reading, my opponents argument has descended into nothing more than a racist rant attacking Islam culture."

My entire family was raised in Islam.

1)Islam is not a race.

And if we defined Islam as a race, it was started by? Arabs. Guess what I am...


This would be an example of a retreat.


1)Movement away from an enemy because the enemy is winning or has won a battle

2)movement away from a place or situation especially because it is unpleasant, etc.

This would be a slight of hand technique used by those who are defeated with no logical rebuttle.

This would be ad hominem.

Ad hominem:

A logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.



"racist rant attacking Islam culture."

1)I was raised in Islam. Pro has declared me to be on a racist rant. So by Pro's own admission, quoting the Quran sura for sura(verse for verse), is in fact...racist...

2)Islam is not a race. It's a religion.

3)Even if Islam was defined as say, the Arab race, I am of the Arab race.



According to Muhammed himself and Islam itself, Muhammed was accused of demon posession as a child and as an aduly, and in fact says Muhammed got his "revelation"(The Quran, Sunna, and hadith) from a demon.

"Demon" definition:

1)an evil spirit; devil or fiend.

2)an evil passion or influence.


Hillary Clinton and Liberals say they are for LGBT rights and womens rights, yet 20% of Clinton's financial contributions come from Saudi Arabia, a nation under the Sharia, which commands the death of homosexuals, killing them in brutal fashion, chose to burn down Christian churches(true bigotry kkk style), and declares the testimony of a woman as half that of a man in the legal system. To declare support of LGBT and female rights, and freedom of religion, yet be supported by the largest anti homosexual and anti female rights nation of all nations on planet Earth, which is responsible for 9/11, is hypocrisy beyond hypocrisy, mounted on heaps of hypocrisy, heaped upon racism in it's purest form, which is? The bigotry of double standards and low expectations on one group (Muslims)and the decleration on whites as racists by default (a race I am not biologically a part of by the way). THAT my friends is


Reverse Racism-

This would be what Pro looks to have going on.

A phenomenon in which discrimination, sometimes officially sanctioned, against a dominant or formerly dominant racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons often initially as an attempt at redressing "past wrongs". It has been described as "preferential treatment, discriminating in favor of members of under-represented groups." Which is RACISM. Being in opposition towards whites is...racism. Being in opposition against Christians is...bigotry...Expecting less of a particular group (Islam in this case), is the bigotry of low expectations. Technically, by definition, being anti Nazi is "bigotry", the intollerance of an intollerant group. It's meaningless.


It looks like Pro is guilty of what we call "self hate".

"The mistake ninety-nine percent of humanity made, as far as Facts could see, was being ashamed of what they were; lying about it, and trying to be somebody else."

-J.K. Rowling


It took a broken heart to teach me that guilty, white Liberals aren't the solution to the West's racial strife, but a part of it.

-Joan Wolfe


Pro declared that it was "not Islam". I gave a list of quotes from Islam's Quran showing Pro is incorrect, which is fully enguaging Pro and his argument.


Why should the UK leave the EU? Here's why.

-Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.

-Ability to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of their own citizens.

-Ability to control their national borders.

-Ability to deregulate the EU’s costly & massive plethera of laws.

-Ability to create major savings for UK's consumers.

-Ability to improve the UK's economy & generate jobs.

-Ability to regenerate UK's fisheries.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.