Brexit was a mistake
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Bris Johnson looks like an albino Baboon fitting such and absurd Monkey Creature is the champion of such a dog turd as brexit
- Introduction
- Definitions
- Opponent's Argument
- My Argument
- Conclusion
- Sources
Brexit was a bad idea and hurts everyone all around
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 term originated in the United Kingdom, expressing a pugnacious attitude toward Russia in the 1870s, and it appeared in the American press by 1893. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
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.
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.
Con forfeited more than half of the rounds, therefore it is an FF debate
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.
Conduct for 3/5 rounds FF and 2-sentence reply in R2 only.
I can't split the points, so there's that.
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.
Migration=DF
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.
Demographics=DF
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.
RM's vote is borderline and will be allowed to stand
RM's vote is misleading
"2-sentence reply in R2 only."
Are you kidding me
BSH MADE ME FORFEIT< HE UNBANNED ME A DAY LATE,WTF
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
If you lower the voting period to one week then I'll take you up on this debate. This isn't troll is it?