The Instigator
OLAN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
abard124
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Would The US and Canada go to war

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 5 votes the winner is...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,531 times Debate No: 11623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

OLAN

Pro

Would the US and Canada go to war? I base my argument on the civil war when American fought American. So why should he not fight the Canadian?
abard124

Con

This looked like a fun debate that could potentially become very interesting.

My opponent has argued that, since Americans have fought a civil war, it is not too far off for Americans to fight their nearest neighbors. That is a valid point. However, there are a few things I must point out. First of all, the American Civil war was caused because the confederacy seceded from the Union, and we wanted them to come back. Canada is not really like that. At all. Also, the Civil War happened in the mid-19th century. It is now the 21st century. With the internet, planes, and other things, the cultural differences aren't nearly as glaring as they used to be. The southern states seceded because of the cultural differences, but now, while cultural differences still exist, they are much less glaring. Also, the Civil war had to happen because we had states leave the union and we wanted them back. Canada has never been part of the United States (Although about half of British Columbia was part of the Oregon territory). Since our country doesn't hold the imperialistic idea of Manifest Destiny anymore, we have no desire to annex Canada. We are at good terms with them, so there would be no reason to go to war.

I am looking forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
OLAN

Pro

My opponent has said: Since our country doesn't hold the imperialistic idea of Manifest Destiny anymore, we have no desire to annex Canada. well during manifest destiny we went to war with Mexico for states like Texas or California. We've dealt with our southern neighbor so why not our northern one?
abard124

Con

As I've said, we no longer have the idea of Manifest Destiny. Not to mention, going to war with Canada would be absolutely horrible for the United States. Sure, we could get land, but we have plenty of room. We don't need land. Canada has not done anything against us. But they are under the rule of the Queen of arguably our most important ally. Also, there are many French people in Canada. So, if we did go to war against them, we would easily have 3 of our biggest allies against us (UK, France, and Canada). Australia also belongs to the Queen, so they would also be against us. Going to war with Canada would cause way more harm than good.

So say why not, but really, the better question is why should we? And I can't answer that question. That's your job.
Debate Round No. 2
OLAN

Pro

Yes war would be horrible for the US but we've been through 20 of them the worse being Vietnam. And the queen would intervene but we held a revolution against her country and we'd do it again.
abard124

Con

War would be horrible, and that goes without saying, but defying all of our alliances would make it much worse. We revolted against England because they were taxing us without representation. and various other reasons. We have no reason to break such an integral alliance for no reason. And we couldn't stage a revolution against the queen because we're not under her jurisdiction.

Canada is one of our biggest allies. So are France, the UK, and Australia. We would lose all of those alliances if we went to war with Canada. With that, and the fact that my opponent didn't really have any arguments, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anonymous9304 4 years ago
anonymous9304
CON WINS. Con had better pints and rebuttals.
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 4 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
Yeah, I guess it didn't take much effort to refute this. I think it would have been quite interesting.

@ Ninja_Tru: Actually, I believe that the United States could deliver a quick military defeat and could even take control of Canadian oil assets. The question is more of how long they could hold on to them before they would decide to leave Canada because of the uproar it would cause. How long will the American people support such a war when the bombings aren't on T.V.? The Economic after-effects of being made to rebuild Canada (which would undoubtedly happen), and having a reluctant oil supply would also be on the table.

Things sure have changed since 1865.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
@Johnny_Canuck: All excellent points. I would have thought harder if I were going against more than a sentence.

@Ninja_Tru: I had heard that fact as well. I probably should have used it, but I didn't think about it. A very good point, I must say.

@imotz12: That it will...
Posted by imotz12 4 years ago
imotz12
Hockey will cause wars
Posted by Ninja_Tru 4 years ago
Ninja_Tru
I like Johnny_Canuck's points. Plus, the US imports a huge amount of its oil from Canada, much more than the Middle East.(1)
If the US went to war with Canada, a lot of its tanks and planes would run dry real fast, not to mention the cars of its civilians..

(1) http://www.eia.doe.gov...
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 4 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
All points to CON. Although pro should've pointed out the fact that they would lose all of NATO and ANZUS. They may still hold Saudi Arabia and Israel as Allies though, but what good would that be. I would also like to point out that a Canadian insurgency would be much worse than a third world one. 30+ million pissed off, well educated, insurgents who could easily hide in American society and cause more havoc than any Iraqi or Saudi could.

Think about it.
Posted by abard124 4 years ago
abard124
@Ninja_Tru: Thank you. You are right about the civil war. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the civil war, so I missed that.
Posted by tBoonePickens 4 years ago
tBoonePickens
If I could vote both to loose I would.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Too bad that Pro Massacred would could have potential... Congrats, Aburd. I agree with the majority of your arguments. Being firm allies mutually depending on one another for militaristic and economic purposes, war is extremely unlikey. I think that supposing a Global War ever occurred, NATO nations undoubtedly would stick together (unless one of them was the unjustified instigator).
Posted by Ninja_Tru 4 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Good job, Con. Effectively answered all Pro arguments, but I also wanted to comment about what you said about the Civil War. It's true that a major catalyst was due to cultural differences, but a much bigger reason for the Civil War was the issue of state's rights. The federal government (to which the South was losing more representation each year) was passing policies, like tariffs, that slowly hurt the Southern way of life while benefiting the North. So, the South (having not too long ago seen the Revolutionary War) decided to do that old "right of the people to abolish any government that becomes destructive of the unalienable rights" bit and secede.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Dandaman09 4 years ago
Dandaman09
OLANabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 4 years ago
Ninja_Tru
OLANabard124Tied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Johnny_Canuck 4 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
OLANabard124Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by willyjr1994 4 years ago
willyjr1994
OLANabard124Tied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Fazwe 4 years ago
Fazwe
OLANabard124Tied
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