I thank con for his rebuttals.
Predation is when states work against one another in their own self interest. Collaboration is the opposite of that. A federal system is inherently a disincentive to predation because you're part of the same government. Governments that work against themselves are inefficient and tend to be voted out for governments that don't.
We feel that ceding a small amount - and, crucially, not all - of sovereignty allows a nation to determine what's best for itself on issues of national importance, while allowing for a broader dialogue to provide meaningful opportunities on other issues. I've provided many examples already, but I'll give one more - the common defence. Half of Europe seem to maintain armies designed exclusively for defence against other nations in Europe. Imagine if those resources could be pooled, as they are in Canada, Australia, or the USA, three nations with among the most powerful militaries in the world.
Quick point about Turkey: con brought Switzerland into this debate, so I figured he'd implicitly extended my model to non-EU states. I was happy to accept that, insofar as those states benefit from the four arguments I presented, and notably, Turks do consider themselves Europeans. We further note that Turkey has been in discussions to join the EU, and hasn't come around to it yet. Regardless, sovereignty is hardly diminished by them joining the EU and becoming more powerful as a result.
If you look at the culture of Kentucky, New York, and California, doubtless three different images come to mind. That's because the culture is different. Many more differences need to be lived to be understood. Federalisation preserves culture by keeping "cultural" aspects of government local, while respecting a shared identity. I don't think it's fair to say the US government has done nothing about wealth inequality, but neither do I think that's only an outcome of corrupt politics. A few European states also have high Gini coefficients, and the USA doesn't even have the highest coefficient in North America - not by a long shot if you include the Caribbean! If European politicians NOW have ok economic policies, there's no reason to suppose these won't continue under a federal system.
My opponent's point about the US response to the Ferguson riots presupposed that the US is entirely corrupt AND self-interested at the expense of other nations, two points that he has yet to prove. He has also not shown why the UN is "unignorable" despite their poor record.
One reactionary policy implemented by a federation does not mean federations are more reactionary than non-federations. France tried to ban face-veils in schools a few years back. We could go on and on with examples and it wouldn't prove anything.
Somehow my opponent is still ignoring the R1 issue of regulatory certainty, and is still talking about democracy.
My opponent says he "would argue" Catalonia has had more pressure from the EU than Spain. I'd like him to argue this. In my view, it's far easier for a larger collection of states to see points objectively than it is for one state, and thus rather than doggedly determining each minority should self-govern, work out what's best for Europe as a whole. I don't think the Serbs are more widely disliked than Floridians, but regardless they already have their own state. Oh, and Serbia's not in the EU. One person, big bias. Many people, the biases are averaged out.
The point is, all these cultures are European.
Clearly the logic con discusses isn't true, because it doesn't happen RIGHT NOW.
But if you really want to get down to the logic, I used 4 points to prove X, and these 4 points do not necessarily hold true for Y. Not every nation has a shared identity, for example. Nor has my opponent even proven the harm of a world government. He has given us a case of gaps.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-09 01:06:06 | Speak RoundStick (CON)
Clearly the logic pro discusses isn't true, because it (federation of European states) doesn't happen RIGHT NOW.
Pro has not shown by which magic states interests will disappear if they were part of a federation. Why would all people of Europe magically get along and put aside centuries old disputes? Where would meaningful unity come from? Simply asserting that they have an anthem and therefore unity is absurd. The US and Canada function because there is some degree of shared identity and there is nationhood above and beyond that of individual states. So long as this identity exists, so can collaboration. But if it doesn't, such as I have argued to be the case in Europe, then opportunity for predation presents itself. If there is anything other than a nation-state, then in any government there will be big winners and big losers. I provided the examples of the Serbs, Scots and Catalonians. I highly encourage pro to google around EU responses to these groups. Put very briefly and simply, I have argued that the 'tyranny of the majority' is exacerbated in a non-nation-state. This can easily reach the point of predation. As I showed in round 2: Greece is in the EU but the EU was the main force that bankrupted Greece. If having many people in a state made all of their biases "average out", then surely the countries with the smallest population would be the most bias and unequal and the countries with the largest population would be the most equal. But they aren't. In large states the majority has a much larger voice to drown out the minority, and powerful states are in of themselves disincentives to external intervention.
Without a nation-state, there can be no pooling of anything. When there is coercion as opposed to cohesion, when interests conflict, as they do in Europe, pooling cannot work as there will be no shared goals. This is why not a single country in Europe would support such a move. In fact momentum has been moving in the other direction with states such as the UK and the Hungary articulating their dismay at EU policy. Also, on the UN point, please re-read my round two, think it was somewhat misunderstood.
The regulatory certainty point that pro keeps proclaiming is so far removed from discussions about democracy isn't. In pro's opening he outlined that what he meant by his point is coercive inclusion and coercively forcing states to strive toward common ends. Me pointing out that this is tyrannical and undemocratic is not a tangential point. These "opportunities" states are "missing out on" would be imposed upon states by a majority - ie tyranny of the majority, ie predation. I have shown that certainty is coercion and that coercion is bad, using examples, but this analysis has been ignored throughout.
To negate a slippery slope argument it is not enough to say that something is proven by different logic, it must be shown. The majority of what I have been arguing is that there IS NO SHARED EUROPEAN IDENTITY and NATION STATES SHOULD EXIST. Asserting that there is one because someone in Brussels made an anthem up once and ignoring international relations and history is blatantly fallacious, but pro has insisted on it throughout. Lastly on this, I did not go into the harms of world government because pro accepted it was bad by vehemently arguing that it wouldn't happen. If it was good, would he have bothered?
Lastly, I let pro completely define the moot, and only used Switzerland as a random example of a federation that is highly reactionary. It is Pro that extended this moot to include non-EU states, such as Turkey. In any debate, it is the role of a pro to clearly define the moot at the beginning, which was not done.
Repeating an obviously flawed and false argument three times does not make it true. People should determine their own futures and not have them dictated to them. As pro has conceded in both his second and third rounds, this resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-09 06:39:13 | Speak Round