The Instigator
questionmonkey
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

why should Canada keep paying the native for not doing anything

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 6 votes the winner is...
DoctorDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 28977
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

questionmonkey

Con

Why should Canada keep paying the native Americans for a mistake the our founding fathers did.

I agree that we did wrong by them but we really did it wrong by their ancestors not by them

My other argument is that
I m Jewish and my people where abused for way longer then the native
So where is my check
DoctorDeku

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and I hope to have both a fun and enlightening round.

It will be my intention in this debate to disprove the argument of the Con that Canada should cease paying reparations to the Native Americans. I will take several routes in order to warrant my advocacy, if any of them are effective I urge a vote for the Pro in this debate.

My first route will be to prove a constructive argument for the Pro, and my second will to refute the argument(s) of the Con.

The argument of the Pro is as follows-
When one takes the property of another it is only just for them to provide something of equal worth to the person they have taken property from. For them not to do this is a violation of the principles of justice; meaning that they are doing something they shouldn't do.
Furthermore this matter is made worse when the transfer of property among differing parties is done involuntarily as was the case with the original settlers who colonized Canada. Not only did they violate the principles of justice by not providing something of equal worth for the property they took, but they provided nothing in return.
Canada's later action of providing reparations is the least (and I do quite literally mean the least) that the country could do to help consolidate their original action of taking Canada's property in the first place.

At this point I would like to cite Robert Nozick's Entitlement theory to warrant my prior analysis. This theory was originally proposed in his 1974 book 'Anarchy State and Utopia[1]'. Nozick states that "A person who acquire a holding in accordance with the principles of Justice is entitled to that Holding"; the canadian colonists did not acquire Canada in accordance with the principles of justice, thus they are not entitled to that holding.

But what about their children? Surely they shouldn't have to pay for their parents misdeeds right? Well according to the second prong of Nozick's entitlement theory they do "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principles of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.[1]" Since the original colonists were not entitled to Canada neither were their children

Finally Nozick argues that if good are acquired unjustly then justice in rectification must occur. For the Canadian government this takes place through the payment of reparations.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore were Canad to stop paying reparations to the Native Americans they would be violating the principles of Justice.

Onto my opponent's argument
Con provides no compelling warrant as to why Canada should cease paying reparations to the native Americans.

Con's argument concerning her own nationality is irrelevant as one injustice does not warrant further injustice.

I urge a vote for the Pro and hand it back to Con!
Debate Round No. 1
questionmonkey

Con

questionmonkey forfeited this round.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Aw man >->/*
If anyone else would like to have this same debate PM me and we'll hash out the details. I'd like it if someone could make a compelling Con argument utilizing Rand's writings.
Debate Round No. 2
questionmonkey

Con

questionmonkey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
questionmonkey

Con

questionmonkey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
questionmonkey

Con

questionmonkey forfeited this round.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Can I get 'dat vote?
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by janice.marquis3 3 years ago
janice.marquis3
Native chiefs are given millions of dollars every year to take care of their bands. Alot of the money is kept at the top, some have 5 homes each, fancy cars, boats, trips etc. First of all, the first white settlers of which I am one who came to canada in 1630- got along well with the natives for 150 years. We started the first settlements in north america, the salted fish trade, the lumber trade, the european fur trade, etc. Its when the english found out we were flourishing they got jealous and came over and kicked the natives and acadians out, killed some of them, some were shipped to lousiana. If anyone should be getting a speical cheque each month it should be my people. Jews were not here until WW2 and they were discriminated against in another nation not in canada.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by con.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: yep.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
questionmonkeyDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't like Con's face.