The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,807 times Debate No: 45577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)




I am of the opinion that Eritrea should cede all of their lands to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. After which, they should dispose of their government immediately.

Rules: You can just accept round 1 or begin your arguments right away. Round 2 and 3 will be up to you. Round 4 will be a brief closing. If you want to keep debating into round 4, please notify me. I will be using google drive due to computer issues, and in return, you may use any tool to write your arguments with.


I accept your challenge

I will use round one to discuss definitions and the value critireon.

I am assuming that this debate will be wieghed on net benefits. The side that produces the most good and the least harms wins the debate.

Government - the political body that controls the function of the state

"dispose of government immediatly" would mean all elected officials who are not neccessary for the day-to-day administration of the state immediatly resign from their positions.

I will argue for the benefits of Eritrean independance, and show the harms of resigning an entire government.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro point 1: Ethiopia and Eritrea historically part of same realm

This is a ridiculous reason for denying the independence of Eritrea. The Chinese have subjugated and domineered East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Tibet for centuries. Does this mean that Tibetans, Mongolians and Turks have no right to self-determination without Chinese overlords?

Eritreans are culturally and ethnically different people who as a whole want their own nation.

Pro point 2,3,4: Eritrean government is not perfect.
That's understandable. No country is perfect, and they are still developing. It is bad that they have human rights violations, but that has nothing to do with SOVEREIGNTY. If a country does not behave properly, it should be punished, but should not be revoked its right to exist.

Even when the Nazis committed horrible atrocities against the world, the UN did not just let Germany get annexed by other countries, Germany still held its right to exist.

Pro point 5: claims

Much territory in the world is disputed. Ethiopia lost territory in a war, and wants it back. This is understandable. But the real question is, does Ethiopia have the right to claim that land?

Eritrea has shown that it definitely does not want to be a part of Ethiopia (1)(2)

According to international law, the referendum was overwhelming in favor of Eritrean independence, and the wishes of the people should be respected.

Harms of Pro case:
The Eritreans are tired of Ethiopian rule and will fight to preserve their own independence, as shown by the War of Eritrean Independence (3) and the Ethiopian-Eritrean War (4).

Ethiopia clearly does not intend on ruling Eritrea kindly as evidenced by massacres against rebellious Eritreans during the war (5)

If Eritrea is handed over the Ethiopia, it is very likely that a civil war will occur, where the Eritrean people will rise up and take arms to re-establish their own government.

Benefits of Con case:
Under self-rule, Ertireans can have their problems solved peacefully with cooperation from the UN and the international community. If change comes from within, it will be much more accepted. Peaceful resolution means the country can develop without fear of violence.

I ask the judges to weigh:

Con case: Status Quo, minor human rights violations that can be solved with the UN peacefully.
Pro case: massive and bloody civil war tearing the region apart.

Clearly the Con side provides more benefit and less harm.

Debate Round No. 2


If I can open one persons eyes to the evil. It will be all worth it. We can't pretend Africa's not there forever. It's time to reunify Ethiopia.


Point 1: Historical ties of domination
Pro has conceded that historical ties can not determine which nations have or have not a right to self-determination.
The only historical ties that linked Eritrea and Ethiopia were of domination. It is no surprise that Eritreans, even keeping their "historical ties" in mind, want to make their own separate country.

Point 2: Government vs State
My opponent used the example of North Korea vs South Korea, saying that Since South Korea takes better care of its citizens, it should own all of Korea.

My counter is that my opponent is confusing the difference between state and government. A state is a physical thing that can be seen and touched. It is the people who organize and run the administrations. The state is the thing that is visible on the map. A government is a political body that runs the state. The state is the horse, the government is the rider. Governments can come and go, usually through planned and regular elections, thus the rider can swap out for a new rider to take the vehicle of the state in a different direction. But the state is the absolute base.

I agree that the Eritrean government is not the best, nor the most legitimate, however the question here is about the fundamental existance of the Eritrean state.

Just because a country has a bad govenment doesn't mean that the people no longer have the right to their own country. Imagine, if countries with "better governments" could just outright annex others. That would be like the U.S.A. claiming that since the Mexicans can't deal with their drug trade and organized crime problems and corruption, the U.S. Army is going to take complete contol of Mexico and integrate it into the U.S.A. because America has a better government and can take care of Mexicans better.

The Eritrean people have a right to their own country, and no one can take that away from them. If Eritrea's government needs to be replaced, that is an entirely different issue.

Point 3: referendum

My Proof that Eritrea wants to be an independent country comes from no where else than the UN report (1)(2)
The only sources that contradict the validity of the referendum are of, unsurprisingly, Ethiopian origin.

Point 4: self-determination
My opponent concedes that Eritrea was "justified in the war of independence". If a country has a right to fight for it's very existance, how is that different from the following Ethiopian-Eritrean War, when Ethiopian armies tried to undo the democratically chosen independence of Eritrea? If a nation is going to fight for its very survival, it is not surprising that it would resort to mass conscription. In fact, all total wars in history involved mass conscription on all sides, and not even all participants in total wars were fearful for the very existance of their nation.

My opponent is trying to demonize the Eritreans for maintaining a strong stance on self-determination.

point 5: on civil war
"It would fail too. Ethiopia has 19,000,000 people compared to Eritrea's 3,000,000. Ethiopians have a lot more guns and technology. They already have defences within Ethiopia and Eritrea."

This is a logical fallacy that more guns = more victory.
Insurrections and guerrila wars have shown that even vastly superior firepower cannot hope to defeat a determined enemy in their home environment. Think Vietnam. Or Afghanistan.

Even in an open conventional war, Ethiopia failed to conquer Eritrea, evidenced by the fact that after the peace in the late 90's, Eritrea is still independent.

All these arguments still ignore the cost of war. No matter who wins, there will be a massive toll, the brunt of it be bore by Eritreans.

point 6: nationality
My opponent agrees that the region of East Africa is extremelt multiethnic, with many nationalities as evidenced by the statement: "Ethiopia's many ethnicities." What if one or two of these nationalities want their own nation? Are we to deny them? Even worse, are we going to take a sovereign nation that already exists and force them back into a nation they no longer wanted to be a part of?

point 7: other arguments

I did not propose war. I proposed that the government should cede it’s territory and be disposed.

this would be cause enough for war. The Eritreans would revolt, just as they did to get their independence in the first place.

About sources. The pro has called into question my sources on the referendum. It is my turn to call into question the pro's sources on propaganda.

In none of the articles provided is there any hint of Eritreans being fed misinformation in order to vehemently hate Ethiopia.

Since the pro has provided ample evidence on off-topic human rights issues, I have determined that pro was unable to come up with proper sources proving that Eritrea worked hard to make the people hate Ethiopia and thus brainwash them into wanting to be independent.

Since the people were not brainwashed, as the pro would have shown if he could, then their desire for independence is genuine.

However, I will make a comment on the frivolities that pro attempted to pass for reputable sources (the first two in his cited section) by admitting that there are in fact some very interesting pop-art portriats of the revolutionaire Che Quevera. How this is relevant to the debate at hand, I can only wonder.

On a more serious note, on the subject of sources, I have proven my sources to be impartial and neutral, as they come from well knwon and trusted organizations such as the UN and Freedom House. In return, I ask the pro to explain why we should trust his sources.

Concluding Statements

No matter their form of government, Eritreans have a right to their own state. Taking away their state because of their government is the same reasoning that imperialists have used for centuries, claiming paternalism, that "we are here to help", when in reality their objective is to exploit and oppress. How else would one explain Ethiopian war aggression against Eritrians, including civilian massacres (3), all to hold their grip on power over that land.

Pro case: Oppression and the resulting civil wars that would occur.
Con case: peaceful and bilateral cooperation for gradual improvement.

Vote CON

Debate Round No. 3


I have come to two realizations.

1) The pro is in fact an Ethiopian nationalist, who is merely projecting his irridentialist desires of territorial revanchism for Ethiopia.

Was a video of the Ethiopian national anthem really neccessary?

This debate was never meant to be about Eritrea, but about how Eritreans should roll over and surrender their sovereignty freely for the benefit of "Greater Ethiopia"

2) Pro is not concerned with actually discussing the Eritrean state and instead focuses on the percieved evils of Eritrean corruption, the failures of the judicial system, and other topics that are not related to the actual existence of the Eritrean state as an entity free of external control


This debate is weighed on net benefit.

Pro: territorial revanchism and paternalistic imperialism
Greater Ethiopia should get its land back, and Ertitreans can't take proper care of themselves, so we must take up the burden of caring for our little brown brothers. Sounds familiar.

Con: Let the UN and organizations designed specifically for these purposes peacefully solve Eritrea's problems, without handing everything over to the one country wich has an ax to grind.

The Pro case will only incite conflict with the locals, as has already happened in the past, while the Con case actually leaves room for cooperative, non-violent progress.

Vote CON
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 6 years ago
Come on. We need some votes.
Posted by Jifpop09 6 years ago
I am tempted to continue arguing you, but then it will never end. I must be confident that my arguments were strong enough. I double checked my argument three times, and I forgot to take the link off , as I told myself I could remove it at the end. Oh well, at least people had some music to accompany the debate.
Posted by Seeginomikata 6 years ago
@ jifpop09
I have little personal attachment to either of the countries mentioned in the debate. I debate for the sake of debating.

The character limit mattes a lot. I remember there was a debate where a person lost because they managed to exceed the character limit by having text in his pictures. It's a rule so that no debater can post more content than the other, giving both sides equal and fair chance at making an argument.

What do you mean the link to the video was not supposed to be there? O.O It was right at the top of your document...
Had a good laugh when I saw what it was though :D

Unlike me, you seem to be quite knowledgable on the situation. I'm under the impression that this is not the last time that you'll try to argue with someone over this issue. I recognize that you had some very interesting points, but that they would be best suited for a different prompt. Revoking the status of an entire country is no light matter!

Anyways, good luck :)
Posted by Jifpop09 6 years ago
Cons claims that I'm an Ethiopian nationalist are ridiculous. I do not live in Ethiopia, and whomever has read what I've wrote on this site, knows that I'm an American nationalist. Anyways though, good debate con, and may the best debater win! That link was not supposed to be there to.
Posted by Jifpop09 6 years ago
I set it at the top. The character limit should not matter if I was the one to set up the debate, but I might be wrong.
Posted by Seeginomikata 6 years ago
@ Kc1999 only that it's an incredibly destructive force that divides people everywhere around the globe, causing animosity at best and genocidal wars killing tens of millions at worst.

@ Ragnar I think it was 10,000. I'm not at all worried about the Pro going over the limit by posting arguments off-site. It should be okay, if that was what you were thinking.
Posted by Ragnar 6 years ago
What was the character limit on this debate?
Posted by Kc1999 6 years ago
Lol Con.......what's wrong with being a nationalist?
Posted by Jifpop09 6 years ago
Oh, your right. Never been much into grammar or writing.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 6 years ago
Read the title of the debate... -.-

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate by both, but I think Pro had the upperhand becuase he showed how Ethiopia is somewhat like North and South Korea.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 6 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Some of Con's cases underplayed issues. Like his case about how all nations have problems... Not all nations have THOSE problems... I read that, and the first thing that came to mind was "Oh, Justin Bieber killed someone? Well we all make mistakes!!" Con underplayed major problems. While I can't say all of Con's arguments were solid, and many seemed full of emotion and an attempt at Voter's hearts instead of their minds. I felt bringing in Pro's personal characteristics and intentions was unnecessary, and Con didn't refute much in his last round. I do, overall, have to side with Con. Pro's arguments could have won a debate on removing the Eritrea government, but not this resolution. Much of Cons win was because of the more anti-Eritrean position Pro took. Pro could have argued a Pro-Union position instead of a more Anti-Eritrean position. Spelling and Grammar was good. Con bringing in Pro's nationalism wasn't necessary, and seemed a bit to personal. Both sides had good Sourcing.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.