Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

Brexit was a mistake


The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Required rating
Contender / Con
Points: 2
Bris Johnson looks like an albino Baboon fitting such and absurd Monkey Creature is the champion of such a dog turd as brexit
Round 1
Brexit was a bad idea and hurts everyone all around 
RESOLVED:Brexit was a mistake

Tables of Contents
  • Introduction
  • Definitions
  • Opponent's Argument
  • My Argument
  • Conclusion
  • Sources

Thank you billbatard for starting this debate, I hope we can have a valuable conversation on Brexit.


Instigator did not provide definitions, so I will do so to get on the same page

Brexit-the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
Mistake-an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.

Definitions Via Google Online Dictionary{1}

I am Con, My opponent is Pro.

Opponent's Argument

My Opponent's Argument is:

Brexit was a bad idea and hurts everyone all around 
Really bill? One sentence in a 10k Character debate. There is NO evidence, no facts and just a sentence. Pro will be ignoring this because this is a simple opinion sentence. Please put more effort next time?

My Argument

Brexit was not a mistake because Brexit is good. The European Union is a disaster and leaving it brings back British Pride and the economy. I have gathered six Reasons.

Reason 1:Tariffs negatively affecting Britain-EU consumers are paying an average of 17% above world prices on food because of tariffs. Only 8% of UK companies trade with the EU,however- 100% of UK regulations are determined in Brussels, which includes the 92% of UK companies that do not trade with the EU.It is bad.

Reason 2:Bad budgeting by the EU-Take the EU Budget: 40% of it goes to farmers, mostly to the richest farmers with the largest farms of course. Yet agriculture accounts for only 1% of GDP across the EU.

Reason 3:Aging Demographic-Europe’s share of the world’s population will fall from 7% today to 4% by 2100 and 90% of global economic growth over this period will occur outside the EU.

Reason 4:Helping Tensions With Russia-As Briefings for Brexit reports-”as a result of its 2014 ‘Association Agreement’ with the Ukraine, which Russia interpreted as an encroachment on its sphere of influence. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko described the agreement as Ukraine’s ‘first but most decisive step towards EU membership’.”Basically all countries in EU are forced to hate Russia and their allies. Why force people in this world?

Reason 5:European Migrant Crisis-The EU is responsible for the migrant crisis and it’s called a crisis for a reason. As the Guardian reports:”By 2050, the population of Africa is predicted to have doubled to 2.5 billion. Continued inaction will turn the hundreds of thousands we are seeing now into millions seeking a better life in Europe, with devastating consequences, both if Europe cannot cope, and for those seeking to migrate: some  in the Mediterranean over the last three years and many more have perished in the Sahara.”

Reason 6:Economic Problems in the EU-The EU failed to address the economic problems that had been underway since 2008, like how there is 20% unemployment in southern Europe. This has lead to questioning of the Brussels central bank.

{2} {3}


My Opponent's Argument is very simple and basic while I have provided 6 good reasons why Brexit was not a mistake.


Round 2
You want evidence look at the three right circus England is right now, its practically at war over this  rubbish it isnt very hard to see how this issue has hurt Britain politically and economically it will hurt everyone and it will hurt the uk us and all its allies its a disaster
The Turmoil is because it's not a good idea, it's because they can't make a deal, but neither way, Brexiters win

After Theresa May's deal was defeated, the Brexit deadline was extended to 31 October.
To avoid a no-deal Brexit on this date, the UK government must pass a Brexit divorce plan into law, obtain another extension from the EU, or cancel Brexit.
Many politicians are against no deal and Parliament has passed a law that could keep the UK in the EU until the new year.
Opponents of no deal say it will damage the economy and lead to border posts between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
But some politicians support no deal and say any disruption could be quickly overcome.
What would it mean for trade?
Under a no-deal Brexit, there would be no time to bring in a UK-EU trade deal.
Trade would initially have to be on terms set by the World Trade Organization (WTO), an agency with 162 member countries.
If this happens, tariffs - taxes on imports - will apply to most goods UK businesses send to the EU. Some companies worry that could make their goods less competitive.
The UK government has already said most tariffs will be abolished for EU goods coming to the UK, if there is no deal. But the EU doesn't have to do the same.
Trading on WTO terms would also mean border checks for goods, which could cause bottlenecks at ports, such as Dover.
No deal would also mean the UK service industry would lose its guaranteed access to the EU single market.
That would affect everything from banking and insurance to lawyers, musicians and chefs.

The rest of my opponent's arguments serve no purpose and is gish gallop
Round 3
Brexit was reckless a bad risk and people should have expected this fiasco which is about to rupture Britian's spleen  Legally, the UK will cease to be a member state, EU laws will cease to apply, and the UK will be treated like a “third country” by the union. A deal would have meant a transition period during which trade would continue as now while the two sides negotiated a future relationship. No deal means a cliff edge; the full panoply of checks and tariffs will be imposed on our exports to the EU, and cross-border trade in services will face new restrictions.
Emerging from no deal will, in other words, be extremely difficult, intensely time-consuming and politically fraught. And all the while, trade with the EU will continue to be hit by tariffs and checks. Those hoping for an early denouement to the Brexit saga are likely to be sorely disappointed. No deal will just be the start.
This will hurt everyone but especially Britian and Britian may never recover .
Round 4
I wish to point out bad conduct unless opponent presents a sick note from mom he has no excuse
again and you mark my words the british have sentenced themselves to a slow suicide by exiting the EU for purely jingoistic reasons
Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests.[1] Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others—an extreme type of nationalism.
The term originated in the United Kingdom, expressing a pugnacious attitude toward Russia in the 1870s, and it appeared in the American press by 1893.  June 23rd, 2016 voters in the UK surprised financial markets by voting to leave the EU. The final result was 51.9% Leave to 48.1% Remain.  Adding to the shock was the resignation announcement from Prime Minister David Cameron effective in October. Where does the UK go from here?  The decision to leave the EU will now lead to a 2-year period of negotiations with the EU and finding a new Prime Minster that can develop a course of action with the split from the EU.
Economic Impact
  • Slower growth in the EU and UK although currency declines will cushion the blow.
  • Monetary policy to remain highly accommodative; potential rate cut in the UK.
  • Export activity and business investment in the UK to slow; UK trade with EU is 45% of their total trade.
  • Banking activity to shift from London to France or Germany over the next few years- loss of high paying jobs.
  • Limited impact to North American GDP growth as trade with the UK represents only 3% of total trade of Canada and US.
  • US dollar-a safe haven, to rise.
  • Canadian dollar--downward pressure due to strength in US dollar.
  • US and Canadian corporate profits for exporting companies will shift down slightly however, the UK accounts for only a small share of North American trade.
  • Fed on hold until September at the earliest.
  • Bank of Canada on hold until 2017 or later.
  • Canadian bond yields to remain at low levels to year end or longer.
  • Small negative impact on oil price due to slower growth in EU, UK and strength in the US dollar.
  • GDP growth in Canada and US down slightly.

Round 5
ask yourself why lONDON is no longer the banking center it was and why banks are moving to France Germany or Spain, brexit will hurt the British economy badly and was done for a silly egotistical reason
bad conduct to forfeit btw
RM's vote is borderline and will be allowed to stand
--> @Virtuoso
RM's vote is misleading
"2-sentence reply in R2 only."
Are you kidding me
the eu is on no way a bad thing it has flaws they are minor, everyone involved benefits tremendously its like complaining about to much success, sure a traffic jam is a pain but when you remember many of these societies were horse and buggy 30 years ago you see the absurdity of their complaints, its like compaling a n ebola vaccine leaves a scar , but you forget it saves you from a fate far worse than death
--> @billbatard
If you lower the voting period to one week then I'll take you up on this debate. This isn't troll is it?
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Neither debater won in terms or conduct - CON disappeared, of course, but PRO's instigating description was unprofessional, and it's quite obvious that the only consistently articulate points he made (either side of fragmented pieces of diatribe) were plagiarized from elsewhere. Because of this, neither debater won in terms of argumentation either - as pointed out by others, CON's opening case was stronger than the cumulative case set forth by PRO, but his absence meant he failed to address (and therefore dismiss) those later points raised by PRO, which were in any case copied directly and without acknowledgement from external sources. HOWEVER:
As CON FF'ed the later rounds, some might argue it is deserving of a technical defeat. I simply say that CON's non-participation followed terrible conduct and plagiarized argumentation twice preceding it from PRO, and this, for me, largely acts as a mitigating factor. I'm sure many here, if faced with an opponent who directly copied text, links and all, from Wikipedia and Guardian articles, they would be in no mood to waste time with rebuttals against an uninterested opponent. Any substantive, factual argumentation from PRO - again, plagiarized - came only following CON's apparent withdrawal.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Con forfeited more than half of the rounds, therefore it is an FF debate
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
600th vote!
Pro forfeited the last three rounds - up until the final round there were limited, if any, tangible impacts offered by pro; meaning that con was ahead by default. However, pro specified a key set of major economic harms, from reduced power to harm to the economy - which on balance outweighed the harms presented by con.
The loss of GDP growth and generalized long term harms presented by con seemed to clearly outweighing the problems con raises in terms of poor budgeting on the EU, demographics, etc. It’s somewhat harder to weigh as neither side decided to provide a rebuttal of the other, however this, in addition to the forfeits reinforce the issue with impacts - leading the conclusion that the win goes to pro.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Conduct for 3/5 rounds FF and 2-sentence reply in R2 only.
I can't split the points, so there's that.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
NOTE: this isn't an FF debate, despite Cons forfeitures he made the more convincing arguments.
Conduct to pro because of cons forfeitures. 1 point to Pro,
Arguments- point by point. Also DF=Con and BB=Pro
Economy/bad budgeting/trade=BB
DF points out unemployment in the EU which appears to be dropped by BB. But DF winds up dropping 13 contentions in R4 which do much more for me seeing how they look at the impact Brexit has both nationally and internationally. To continue, trade was argued heavily until R3 where BB got the last word in and wound up winning trade in my eyes as a result Despite this, DF did prove the EU is bad at budgeting and this was dropped by BB. DF is beaten by a wide margin as a result of him dropping 13 points, even if I grant him victories for budgeting and unemployment his arguments are heavily outweighed clearly.
Note to BB for the future: Do not spend so much time on 1 point(in this case economy), the reason DF won arguments was because you dropped most of his case.
DF points out how Europe can't cope large quantities of immigrants. BB makes a point about Jingoism which he could've tied into migration but failed to do so. So, this point was largely dropped by BB.
Russian relations-DF
Dropped by BB after DF points out the pressure EU nations have to hate Russia.
Dropped by BB.
DF wins argument because he won 75% of the main points.
DF must win arguments(3 points to DF), therefore DF wins 3-1(or 6-4 if we're talking about a 4 point voting system).
S and G/Sources=tie.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Con dropped out, leaving pro's remaining case uncontested. This was over half the debate missed.