EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

RESOLVED: The Falkland Islands belong to Britain (WODC)

4 points
1 point
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)
Hello everyone and welcome to Round two of the inaugural World Online Debate Cup! I thank my opponent and fellow Edeb8rfor today's resolution and look forward to explaining why the Falkland Islands belong to Britain. Before we kick off, I'd just like to point out that for what's it worth, as the HOME side, Krit is technically supposed to be arguing this side of the resolution, however we have mutually agreed to switch. Just in case someone thought we'd made a mistake or something. 

As will be explained soon, there is some dispute over who owns the Falklands Islands. My side of the house will be arguing that the United Kingdom of Great Britain owns them. As far as definitions go, this resolution is pretty straight forward:
The Falkland Islands - Small group of islands off the coast of Argentina.
Belong to - "Are under the sovereignty of..."
Britain - more specifically, the United Kingdom. 

Background: ( Please note that the majority of  the following information has come from or is supported by the source listed at the end of this round. )
The Falklands are a small group of islands in the South Pacific - just off the coast of Argentina.
They are made up of two main islands which were first discovered around about 1592 by a British ship. Being quite close to Cape Horn, they were visited by many ships over the next few years until one island was settled by Britain in 1765. There is a fairly reputable claim that the other island was actually settled by the French almost a year earlier, although the exact timing of this has been disputed. What IS known is that in 1766, the Spanish protested the French settlement and bought him out. Then four years later, they kicked the British out as well, except they didn't pay them anything. Understandably the  British were a little miffed at this, and in 1771, all three governments agreed on terms which would see the British retain control of one island and Spain, (Argentina) control the other.
It's at this point that things get a little muddy. Within 45 years, both the British AND the Spaniards had deserted the islands, although the Brits had at least left a little plaque noted that they had just ducked out for a bit and they were in no way relinquishing their claim - they'd be back soon. Fast forward to about 1830 and it was all on. The islands had permanent residents again, and they had declared that they wanted to be British. Or Spanish. Or Argentinian. Lucky AMERICA just happened to be in the neighborhood to sort all this stuff out! In 1831 they bombed the main settlement on the Spanish island, 'evacuated' all the islanders and declared the islands "Free of Government". Everyone was super grateful.
Then came some "he said-she said" talks as several parties tried to make sense of it all. In 1833, the UK had had enough. They sailed into harbour and basically said, "We like it - we're taking it." For the last 180+ years the Falklands have been under uninterrupted British sovereignty, except for one little period of 10 weeks during 1982, where Argentina tried to forcibly take the Islands. 

It is important to note that there HAS been some official dispute, (and resolution) to the British claim to the islands from the Argentinians. Since this is crucial to this debate, I will be dealing with this in a separate section. 

Current Political status:
This section is the heart of this debate. Judges get your pens ready, THIS is what you're voting on. The resolution is very clear. Who holds sovereign claim over the Falklands NOW?
Currently the Falklands are recognised as a British Overseas Territory. This means the Queen of Great Britain is the sovereign head of the Falklands. The UK has jurisdiction over the islands. Legally, the Falkland Islanders are British citizens. 

The Falkland Islands flag, only recently updated, has the Union Jack in the corner:

Their money - which is worth exactly the same amount as the British Pound Stirling has a picture of the Queen on it:

Although the Islands are self governing and the UK has, in fact, made several attempts to grant them further autonomy, in 2013, an island-wide referendum revealed that 99.8% of respondents voted to REMAIN a British Overseas Territory. To be very specific, out of 1517, (92% voter turnout!) individual votes cast - only 3 votes were NOT in favour of of the motion.  
In every practical way, these islands are British. And it would seem, happily so. 

Recent dispute negotiations:
In 1965, the UN forced Britain and Argentina to sit down at the table and work out once and for all, who was going to own these islands. (Bear in mind that the Islands have been a solely British territory now through two World Wars and more than 130 years of constant settlement.)
In 1967 a local commitee was set up by the inhabitants themselves, who wanted to make sure that THEIR opinion was heard. They were strongly in favour of remaining British and didn't want to see themselves lost in some trade for more Bananas and some Soccer tips. 
In 1971, (slow talks right?) both countries agreed that communications would provided for the Islands by Argentina. This makes sense because the British T-Mobile network sucks. 
In 1982 - out of the blue - Argentina invades in a fit of Latin passion. Thus starts the Falklands War. 10 weeks later, the SAS have sent Argy back where he came from with his tail between his legs. Here is the surrender document they signed. If there was ever any doubt, (there wasn't) there is none now. The Falklands belong to Britain. In 1999, a polite agreement is signed by both countries to this effect.  
In 2009, a new constitution is drawn up for the Islands, further cementing their status as a British Territory. 
It should also be noted that the UN Charter recognises and encourages the right of territories to decide for themselves who they wish to be governed by. In the case of the Falklands, as has already been stated, that is an overwhelming vote to remain British. Just as they have for the last 130 years.
To sum up:
The Falklands are legally a British Overseas Territory. 
Legally they are under the British Crown.
The Falklands belong to Britain. 

The UN Charter recognises the right for Territories to decide for themselves who they should be governed by.
The Falkland Islanders are 99.8% in favour of remaining British. 
The Falklands belong to Britain.

VOTE PRO - Just because we're British, don't mean we can't Partay. 

A ton of information has been taken from the official Falkland Islands page. This link takes you to a more detailed timeline which supports the one I have used here. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-05 06:05:01
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (CON)

“The recovery of these territories (Malvinas) and the full exercise of sovereignty constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.” A Transitory Clause in the Constitution of Argentina [1]

File:Falkland Islands.gif

Fig One: Malvinas in the view of the British

Perhaps it is of the time for us to think of this dispute in a new perspective; for that when one thinks about such issues, one thinks of a struggle of a people against the long dead claims of a nation with a revanchist populace. Often, foreign relations are much more complicated than referendums, right of determination and all the opposed. Foreign relations consist of complex webs of treaties, the ratification of treaties, and coercion.

In a long letter to the British parliament, Argentine Politician Carlos Raimundi boasted about the island’s long Argentine heritage, and revives Argentine claims on the Malvinas. “Any acceptable settlements will recognize that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possedetis juri” These words started a long letter to British officials.“On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio…Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world denies is under legal dispute, not even the US…The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.”[2]

With these words embedded to our heads, we must take upon this issue a new outlook. Contentions must be read with a blank mind; prejudices must be dropped in order for them to be effective.

1R1NC: Nookta Sounds Convention

Firstly, one has to recognize the rights touti possedetis juri, which states that when a country achieves independence, the independent country shall be given lands as decided by their previous federal conventions.Uti possedetis juri applies for all countries in the world, although in many cases, they are ignored. However, in Argentina, this case is strikingly valid, as in many parts of the Spanish Empire.

With this said, we may now move onto the main contention of this point. The Nootka Sound Convention was signed by the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of Britain in 1790, as a way to regulate British and Spanish colonies. The Nootka Sound convention was ratified six weeks after it was agreed upon; the origins of this convention was when Jose Martinez, a Spanish Navigator, was sent to declare Spanish control over Nootka Sound, whose claims was then conflicted by British and American fur traders. After much conflict, the Nootka Sound convention was signed on the 29th of October, 1790.

Fig Two: A State Sponsored Spanish Map after Nootka Sounds labeling Malvinas as Spanish territory

Back to our dilemma; soon, after 1829 and the restoration of Argentine independence, an Argentine administration was soon set up on the Malvinas. Firstly a brief private venture, this went out of hand when American fishing ships were apprehended by the Island’s Argentine Governor, which soon led to the dispatching of the sloop Lexington to destroy the island’s main city and deserted the island.“This island is now without government”was what the Americans said before they left. This settlement was set up in the face British protests, but as stated, these islands were part of Argentina via the right ofutis possederetis juri. One must look carefully at the agreement relating to the Nootka Sound Convention. The Sixth Article of the Convention clearly outlines that:

“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain.”[4]

Keep in mind that during the signing and ensuring ratification of this, a Spanish garrison was present in the Malvinas. Although a British settlement existed, they left in 1776 (leaving a puny plaque) at the British settlement of Port Egmont. However, this British settlement was forced to leave in 1780 by the Spaniards, and through the Nootka Sound Conventions, was prohibited from coming back to the island.

Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years; a claim to a piece of disputed territory is often invalidated after 50 year. From the lost of Port Egmont in 1780, to the resettlement of the islands in 1829 by Argentine officials, the island remained virtually uninhabited with no de facto ruler, although it was clear that is was up until then Spanish, and after the departure of Spain, Argentine.

The Nootka Conventions states that the Falkland belongs to Argentina via the right of uti possedetis juri, as it previously belonged, for 70 unchallenged years, to Spain, and when the transfer of power became apparent, to Argentina; Britain’s 1833 settlement was settled through a desperate but successful show of power, in which two British ships forcibly expelled all Argentines from the Malvinas.

1R2NC: UN Resolution 1514, 2065 and the apparent End of Colonization

UN Resolution 2065 was adopted in an attempt to liberalize the relations between the two countries, and negotiate the end of British presence in that area. UN Resolution 2065 was much said to be an extension of 1514, which was passed on the 20th of December, 1960. The last non-operative clause of UN Resolution 1514 states:

(This assembly) Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

This last non-operative clause is then followed by conditions and declarations that seemingly put the matter in a more confusing matter; Operative Clause One states that:

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. [3]

This seems to ignore the fact that hence the Malvinas were settled via foreign settlers and the settlement was illegitimate, then the so-called “Native” Falklanders are in reality non-indigenous people. Calling for the need to bring this dispute to a speedy end, the UN did what it was best at doing; nothing. Although Operative Clause two determines that the right to self determination was applicable to the islanders, there has been evidence that the true settlers of the Malvinas were Patagonia Indians; so in reality, self-determination rights goes to them, but since discovery of the island in 1593 probably decimated the population, it would only make sense for this dispute to ignore self-determination. [5]

Nevertheless, this resolution calls for the end of colonization, and for the start of negotiations. These broke down in the face of stiff and stubborn British resistance; they would simply not discuss this issue, as it is clear that the “islanders” (descendants of British sailors) do not want to discuss this. Resolution 2065 was passed in 1965. This time, the pleas of the UN was clear. Calling upon both sides to negotiate, this failed again due to British stubbornness and unwillingness to hear the actual Argentine reason.

After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent? This would be a violation of national integrity, as that land was renounced during the Nootka Sound Conventions. Yet at the moment of the British reassertion of power in 1833, Argentina had no ways of retaliating except via peaceful and diplomatic means.

When a tiger refuses to listen to a little bear, that little bear gains strengths and makes the tiger listens to him; Argentina submitted 27 complaints against Britain to 1945, and since then, has brought this issue up at all times during the General Assembly meetings in the UN. Thing came to a boiling point, but an understandable one (fuelled by ignorance), when Argentine Nationalist Dictator Admiral Jorge Anaya unleashed the might of the Argentine Armed Forces upon the Malvinas, with the hope of reclaiming their lands.

The lost of the Malvinas War did not mean the complete lost of hope of the recovering of Argentine lands. Until this day, Argentina deserves the right to be viewed as an equal, although aggressive; the Argentines put faith in the UN to deliver the full might of its decolonization doctrines to take effect in the Southern Atlantic. It was clear that in 1833, Argentina was at the mercy of the UK; but now, the situation has changed, and the UK is at the mercy of the UN.

The UN has a job of ending colonization; yet the Malvinas is still colonized, and the British government will not accept any negotiations via a long lost claim of self determination, which the current inhabitants do not hold.

Justice is omnipotent; one day, justice will be delivered.

Fig Three: Argentine World Cup holding up a pro-Argentine Malvinas banner







Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-06 13:37:57
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)
I thank my opponent for his opening round. I hope it has been helpful for the judges, as he has basically covered the same timeline as I did but from an Argentine point of view. 
In this round I will be addressing a few new factors that he's brought up as well as listing a few new ones of my own. If you're good, I'll put a pic at the bottom for you.

Uti Possedetis Juri
This is basically the principle that when a new Nation state comes to being, it naturally assumes all of the territories that belonged to the previous State. In this case, Argentina claims all of the territories which belonged to Spain in 1810. There are several reasons this this doesn't apply in this case. Primarily, Argentina would need to prove that Britain had renounced their negotiated ownership of the Falklands. This is difficult at best. The puny plaque which Britain left actually indicates their intent to return and certainly does not indicate that they no longer wanted the Falklands. 

Regardless, even if CON could convince us that Britain HAD renounced their claim, this principle STILL DOESN'T HELP them. That's because Argentina didn't actually declare independence until 1816 and didn't have this independence acknowledged by Spain until 1859 - by which stage the Falkland Islanders had been living as British citizens for over 25 years!
Argentina can not use Uti Possedetis Juri to claim territories which were NOT under the control of Spain. 

The Nootka Convention (1790)
This convention was signed by both Britain and Spain in 1790. Article six does not provide the escape for my opponent that he seems to think it does. Part of the problem with it is that in 1790, Britain was already established in the Falklands. In fact they'd been there longer than the Spanish, a fact that was recognised in negotiations with Spain in 1771. Even the text on CON's Fig1 claims this. I quote;
"The Isles of Falkland belong to Great Britain by right of first discovery. The English have a fort and settlement at Port Egmont in Saunders Island on the North of Western Falkland."  - CON's Source

The Nootka Convention was not aimed at making them relinquish their current holdings, only providing that they make no further ones. This fact is supported by the fact that they were never asked to relinquish territories they held in a Caribbean, Central America and Guyana in the the North of South America.
At the time of the Nootka Convention, both Spain AND Great Britain had laid claim to the Falklands, Britain because she had discovered it and settled it, and Spain because she had brought it from the French and had also colonised a geographically adjacent* territory, Argentina.
At best, this placed the Islands into a grey area. It most certainly was not covered by the Nootka Convention. In fact this convention was repudiated by Spain in 1795. 
As if this were not convincing enough, there is actually an additional "Secret Article" written into this convention which invalidates Article six if any other nation establishes themselves on a covered area. I reserve the right to bring this article into play if CON persists with this line.  

*Technically the 300 miles that separate Argentina from the Falklands would not have qualified them to be "adjacent" territories. 

The UN resolutions and desire to end colonisation (1965)
Most of what CON has stated in this round, our side has no problem with. We had already brought this up in our round. However CON has placed more of an emphasis on the UN's desire to de-colonise and its preference for Independance. I have actually addressed this exact issue in my round, but I'll restate.
The UN sees colonisation as a relic from the past, and since the mid 20th century has been encouraging territories to assert their independence. It would seem that the UN would favour a disputed territory like the Falklands to shed almost 200 years of its British heritage and become independent. HOWEVER, the UN does not list Independence as being the only option, in fact there are actually several alternatives:

"The decolonization agenda championed by the United Nations is not based exclusively on independence. There are three other ways in which an NSGT can exercise self-determination and reach a full measure of self-government (all of them equally legitimate): integration within the administering power, free association with the administering power, or some other mutually agreed upon option for self-rule." - Residual Colonialism in the 21st Century

Basically if CON wishes to bring the UN into this, then that's fine. The UN's stand has ALWAYS been to favour the people actually living in that region. The Falkland Islanders, who have been living there for almost 200 years now as British citizens - would like to let the world know that they want to be British. (except for three of them anyway.) Note that this is not Independence - they want to be British. 

Who are the rightful Falkland Islanders? 
This brings up an interesting point. Argentina and CON would have us believe that the rightful islanders are the Patagonian Indians - not the current islanders who have been living there, by themselves, for longer than New Zealand has even been a country. 
There are a couple of problems with this stance:
  • By ALL accounts, the islands were completely deserted when they were first discovered in 1592. And then again when they were first settled in 1765. And then again when they were left empty by both Spain and Britain. There is little physical evidence that the Patagonian Indians did anything more than use the Islands as a fishing stop. Remember these islands are 300 miles off the coast as well. Any serious settlement would surely leave a wealth of evidence.
  • IF Argentina upholds the idea that the Falklands belong to the Patagonians, they must also address the fact most of their country is made up of PATAGONIA. So who really owns Argentina? 
  • The current Islanders have been living there as British citizens since 1833.

The rightful inhabitants to make the call on ownership are clearly the current Islanders. For Argentina to call otherwise is the height of hypocrisy.

Minor points:
"After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent?" - CON, Round 1
There is plenty of strong precedent for this. Britain and France both hold significant territories in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. America also holds territories in the Indian ocean. France still holds a region of South America. It's not just the old school empires either, Equatorial Guinea has their capital city on an island a mere 25 miles off the coast of Cameroon. It's almost 4 times that distance from the actual mainland of Equatorial Guinea. The Faeroe Islands lie off the coast of Great Britain and are yet claimed by Denmark.
In total seven countries lay a claim to sections of land on the continent of Antarctica - including, yep you guessed it, Argentina. 

"Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years;" - CON, Round 1
I haven't directly acknowledged this assertion. This should not be misconstrued as me conceding it. I don't actually know where he is coming from with 70 years. The dates don't line up. I also don't concede that the British ever abandoned their claim to the Falklands. As supported by all my arguments.

New Stuff: Convention of Settlement (1850)
In the 1840's Britain and France had a bit of a dust up with Argentina in parts of South America. As a result, all three parties got together and drew up a new peace treaty, effectively carving up certain parts of the continent. The Falklands remains conspicuously absent from this document. 
After the British asserted their sovereignty over the Falklands in 1833, Argentina lodged regular protests. Following the ratification of this convention in 1850, all such protests abruptly ceased. The next such protest did not happen until 1888, almost 40 years later. 
Many historians have been quoted as saying that this convention is evidence that Argentina gave up any claim to these Islands. This, (admittedly) Wikipedia article references several of these, including two cited Argentine Historians who bemoaned the fact that the Falklands had been omitted. 

New Stuff: Definitions
It should be pointed out that this debate is NOT who SHOULD the Falklands belong to. It is about who DOES it belong to. 
In my first round, I already provided a ton of evidence to show that, as of today, the Falklands currently belongs to Britain.
My opponent can choose to continue to argue who the Falklands SHOULD belong to if he likes, but I remind him that this is not the resolution that he created. 

You've been very good to read this far. As promised here's a picture of some sea otters. Sea Otters hold hands while they sleep so that they don't drift apart. True story. 

Vote PRO!

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-07 02:15:13
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (CON)

2R1NRC: Uti Possedetis Juri

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not here to defend Argentina, but to defend justice; justice of a country who has for so long been the victim of aggression. With this said, one must observe the opponent’s case here carefully.

Uti possedetis juri means in Latin “as you observed under law” The extension of this principle, in the case of Argentina, is very clear. Firstly, after the expulsion of the Brits from Malvinas, the consequent destruction of Port Egmont (the British settlement), and the Nootka Conventions (which will be discuss in the next case), Spain had de factocontrol over the Malvinas. The British did not protest or send a force; the settlement, and the island, did not change hands until Argentine independence and the Lexington incident. Firstly, this British renunciation is a renunciation via acquiescence. In international relations, as stated in R1, a territorial claim is often void after 50 years of not submitting a reply; by the time Argentina landed, and created its own legitimate institutionupon the Malvinas (and soon the British complaint), there has been a 60 years interval between the last official complaints sent to the Argentine/Spanish authority. So it has been stated that Spain officially held the Malvinas until Argentine independence in 1816, and henceforth the Malvinas, via the rights of uti possedetis juri always belonged to Spain.

On the issue of independence, it should be stated that as long as a country gains de factoindependence, that is that they have declared and is practicing independence now, they are indeed truly independent. 

2R2NRC: On Nootka Conventions

In reply to the opponent’s secret article reference, this is the exact wording of the Secret Article:

Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.

Firstly, the effects of this article do not renounce the claims that Article 6 made; it merely states that the status quo of Article 6 will be sustained as long as no third party settled in that area. Note that article 6 states that Britain will not make any claims upon lands settled on by Spain before the treaty; this, naturally, includes the Malvinas, as a Spanish settlement still existed on the eastern island of the Malvinas. [4]Secondly, the opponent states that “just because the land adjacent to the Malvinas belongs to the Spaniards, doesn’t mean the Malvinas belongs to them” However, the Nootka Convention explicitly states that this proposition is incorrect; that Britain will not lay claimsupon the islands adjacent to the Southern Coast and those inhabited by Spain. So even if the opponent proves that the islands were not adjacent, the island was still covered because the Malvinas were settled by Spaniards.

There are several differing accounts of the true discoverers/settlers of the Malvinas; the generally accepted version is that France landed and created on the Western Islands of the Malvinas in 1764, whilst the British came later in 1766. If the opponent was to take into account that a Dutch explorer first sighted the Malvinas in 1600, then according to his “right of discovery” logic, the Malvinas belongs to the Dutch; or one can go further and state that the Malvinas belongs to the Native South-American Indians, as archeological investigations reveal the discovery of several bows and Canoes on the Eastern Falklands. With this said, we can argue that France sold the islands to Spain, and since the British did generally acknowledge that France held the islands (as the French did allow the Brits to still have hold of Port Egmont), the island belonged to Spain.

The opponent mentions this treaty being repudiated in 1794 (ahem ahem); however, accordingly to the introduction of the “Mutual Treaty of the Abandonment of Nootka” the first few sentences state that [3]:

Their Catholic and Britannic Majesties desiring to remove and obviate all doubt and difficulty relative to the execution of article I of the convention concluded between Their said Majesties on the 28th of October, 1790, have resolved and agreed to order that new instructions be sent to the officials

Conclusively, this shows us that the first article was repudiated only, due to difficulties in implementing it; in fact, this last convention only affected the area known as Nootka Sound, in which this convention was signed, but not the Malvinas and other areas, which was the responsibility of the First Convention.

2R3NRC: On the World’s Desire to End Colonization

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Why are we defending imperialism? Let us ask ourselves; the UN desires to end,the Argentine people desire to end it, but yet it prevails. Why is this? Let us take this analogy as an example; my boss and the other boss have an agreement; the other boss agrees to abandon factory x and gives this factory to my boss, who then assures him that his workers will stop working in factory y. However, when I become the boss, my hold upon my previous boss’s concessions isn’t as stable, so when I attempt to retake factory x, the other boss takes it from me, stating that he has never relinquished it. This is exactly what has happened in regards to the Malvinas. It was only in 1829, when Argentina tried to re-establish its administration in the Malvinas, where Britain first issued a complaint.

Let us build on upon this analogy; after taking factory x away from me, the other boss brings his workers in and takes over factory x. However, these factory workers aren’t giving full pay; this is what has happened in the Malvinas. It was not until 1983 that the citizens of Malvinas were given British citizenship; albeit being British by blood, they were not officially British until the British Nationality Act of 1983.

Back to the analogy; when the inspector comes, the other boss says “look, they are my worker” He has no legitimacy to this at all, as they were deliberately brought into the mess against the previous contracts. This was precisely the case of the Falklands Island; the Nootka Sound Convention explicitly states that island adjacent to the mainland. With this said, it must be noticed that the UN has made the right of self-determination for the Malvinas question inapplicable; in 1960, the UN continued to urge both sides to negotiate, whilst ignoring all claims from the inhabitants of the Malvinas for self determination. [2]

Has the United Nations not see that the Malvinas was acquired via an illegitimate claim? The right of self determination is non-existent. This case will be extended in the future.

2R4NRC: Convention of Settlement

Objections must be raised; the Convention of Settlement did not settle territorial disputes in regards to the Malvinas (unlike the Nootka Sound Conventions). In fact, almost no territorial changes were stated in the Convention of Settlement. This settlement’s aims were to restore relations between both countries. The first few sentences of the Convention states [1]:

 Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate, as recognized by Treaty; have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz.:

There is not a single clause that states or even ambiguously mentioning the Malvinas. Although the opponent might say that all Argentine claims against the Malvinas halted after this until 1888, the Convention only halted claims for 40 years, a tad short of the 50 years required to invalidate a territorial claim.

And I will not disprove a truism. Britain owns Falklands as of now, but this debate must be based upon the established fact that the ownership of the islands are disputed.

I return the floor back to pro.


[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement

[2] http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/es/history

[3] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Mutual_Abandonment_of_Nootka

[4] Source 4 R1

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-09 16:47:40
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)
Thanks CON for that continued argument against the resolution, that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain. As this is the final round, I will keep new information to an absolute minimum, and will mostly be recapping my side of this important issue.

Address to the Judges: 
Judges, it's now your job to vote on this debate. As you do, I urge you to consider the resolution. The wording of it belongs to my opponent - he was the one who came up with it. My job was to argue that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain. In the first round, I established the definitions - which were not challenged by CON. The key word there is, "belongs to" which, for the purposes of this debate has been defined as, "under the Sovereignty of".
In my first round I proved that the Falkland Islands are currently under the Sovereignty of Great Britain.  CON has no dispute over this, in fact in his last round he says, "Britain owns Falklands as of now..." . I'm not really sure how much clearer this case can be.
He wrote the resolution. I proved the resolution. He conceded the resolution.  

Realising that he has no way of disproving something so empirically proven, he has elected to back Argentina in their claim that although they DO belong to Britain, they should NOT belong to Britain. As it happens, this is no easy task either. I'm going to step through his evidence one last time and show you what I mean. 

Contention 1: Britain renounced their claim to the Falklands. (CON claims this took place in both 1777 and 1780)
This point is partially critical, because if CON is correct, then when Britain reoccupied and finally kicked the Spanish out in 1833, this would have been a forcible take over. That's not a big deal, countries take territory from other countries all the time, but in this case, that's not what happened.
Britain NEVER renounced their rightful claim to the Islands. When they left in 1777, bearing in mind that the Spanish were looking to flex their muscles, and England was being stretched in other corners of the empire at the time, they left a plaque stating that they were NOT relinquishing their claim.
CON might call this plaque puny but he misses the point. The Plaque PROVES that Britain never renounced their claim. At best, the Spanish forcibly took the Falklands from Britain, before Britain forcibly took it back in 1833.

  Remember this picture? This is a map CON submitted. He dated this as being sometime shortly after 1790. The text clearly states that the Falklands belong to the British. Does this look like Britain has renounced its claim to you? Me either. 

Contention 2: Uti Possedetis Juri 
Argentina claim that because Spain owned the Falklands in 1816, (they didn't) Argentina inherited them when they declared independence. There are several reasons why this doesn't gel. Here are the two best ones really quickly:
  • Britain still owned the Falklands in 1816. As mentioned above, they never renounced their claim. They were still listed as owning them on the map that CON submitted. Spain can't transfer the sovereignty of property that they don't own.
  • Although Argentina declared Spanish independance in 1816, it was not acknowledged until 1859 more than 25 years after Britain had permanently occupied the Islands. Legally, Uti Possedetis Juri doesn't come into effect until this date. Spain can't transfer sovereignty to a nation it doesn't recognise as existing.
Contention 3: Nootka Sounds Convention (1790)
Argentina claim that because Britain and Spain agreed to not contest ownership of territories not owned by either of them, the Falklands belonged to Spain - and therefore to Argentina. Here are the problems with this:
  • Britain STILL owned the Falklands in 1790. As mentioned above, they never renounced their claim. They were still listed as owning them on the map that CON submitted, which was specifically written to clarify this kind of thing. Spain never used Nootka to claim ownership of the Falklands and neither can Argentina.
  • Argentina had not had the territories belonging to Spain transferred to them at this point. That didn't happen until 1859. Nootka did not apply to them. Until that date, they are a third party as far this treaty goes.  
  • Nootka refers to islands "adjacent". In 1790, this term was taken from the "Freedom of the Seas" concept and was defined as a canon shot - or about 3 nautical miles. The Falklands lie almost 300 miles off the coast of Argentina. The only way they come under Nootka is if they were already owned exclusively by Spain - which they weren't. 
  • Secret Article. As promised, if CON continued with this assault, I would explain why this article matters. This article voids Nootka if a third party claims a territory. In 1820, the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, (UPRP - which would eventually become Argentina in 1854) briefly occupied the Falklands by sending an American mercenary, Daniel Jewitt to warn off people who were sealing, whaling and fishing around the islands.
    Firstly, if CON argues that the UPRP was an independent country at this stage, then they would constitute a third party, since Spain still claimed sovereignty over that section of South America. This activates the secret article of Nootka and voids the treaty.
    Secondly, if CON argues that the UPRP was actually still Spain at this point, or had the Falklands transferred to their name, then they had no right to warn people away from the Falklands for fishing, since that right is protected under Nootka. Doing so voids the treaty. 

Contention 4: The UN and an end to Colonialism (1965 - present)
 The UK supports the end of Colonialism. They have already relieved themselves of a number of the now independent countries that were formerly a part of their empire. Here is what we've learned about the UN's perspective on this issue:
  • The UN favours self-determination. They favour the inhabitants right to decide their fate. The Falkland Islanders, living there continuously as British subjects for almost 180 years now, have voted with a 92% turnout. Aside from THREE individual votes, they have unanimously voted to remain a British Territory under British sovereignty. 
  • Although the UN favours full independence, the UN Charter also allows for three separate options for territories -one of which is the right for them to remain under the sovereignty of their current Nation. In the case of the Falkland Islands, this is what they've elected to do.
    Almost unanimously.   
    In short, the UN has no right, nor does it claim the right, to force a territory to take full independence. 

Contention 5: The Convention of Settlement (1850)
My opponent misses my point here. The Convention of Settlement decided on the rightful ownership of contested sections South America. These sections were divided up between Argentina, France and Great Britain. The fact the Falklands were not mentioned is EXACTLY MY POINT! At this stage Britain owned the Falklands, exactly as my opponent says they do now. There was literally no difference to their political status then as there is today. If Argentina wanted to enforce some right they felt they had over the ownership of this territory - NOW was the time! It's not up to Britain to do so, they already own the Islands by sheer possession alone, not to mention all the other factors. Status Quo sees them stay in British hands.
Argentina is deafening in her silence on this issue during and after the Convention of Settlement. What happened? Did she just forget? If the islands were so important to her, why didn't she bring them to the table during these discussions?
The fact that Argentina didn't raise another whimper about the Falklands for another 40 years indicates that she knew full well that she was signing away her rights to the Islands in this treaty. 

Contention 6: The Status Quo (1833 - present)
Since Britain assumed ownership of the islands in 1833, they have remained under British control and under British Sovereignty continuously til today. The only exception to this was the 10 weeks it took to put down the Argentine invasion of 1982. 
This debate is about who owns the Falklands and even my opponent accepts that today that country is Great Britain - although his contention is that they SHOULDN'T own them.
Look at CON's argument carefully. The Argentine perspective on the Falklands is that Spain forcibly took them from Britain and therefore they belong to Argentina. Britain had no right to forcibly take them back in 1833. This thinking is clearly flawed. 
There is NO CONTEST that Britain owned the Falklands jointly with France, years before Spain was ever involved. There is NO CONTEST that although the French were paid off, Spain was never able to get the British to acknowledge relinquishment of their claim. There is NO CONTEST that the Falklands have been under British Sovereignty since they resettled them for the last time, almost 180 years ago in 1833. There is NO CONTEST that they remain under British Sovereignty today - not through force or pressure from Great Britain, but through popular decision. The kind of free decision the UN and indeed the world encourage.

Judges, there is no contest; the Falklands belong to Britain.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-11 01:26:28
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (CON)
I thank pro for his arguments. As this is the last round, I shall debunk his argument briefly then conclude my arguments.


Judges, it is your job to ensure justice ensures. It is your duty, as man, to ensure that this happen. And justice will go to that who knows that he is correct, and proves it in the previous, and following contentions that are being presented. Strip yourself of your personal prejudices. Strip yourself of all hatred. Be Enlightened; be rational. We have both done our bests to represent our points. 

But be warned; justice is omnipotent. Justice is ultimate. Justice is God.

On The Adjacent of the Laws of the Sea and Nootka

Then what is justice? Justice is following legal relations; justice is the returning due to every man; justice is all that represents a good man. Whether that may be ethical, moral and social, a good trait is always a just trait. Now, why does one need to embark upon an infinite sets of philosophical definitions of this term "justice"? Because to not embark on it is to ignore every argument that has been presented against the British ownership of the Falklands. Justice is following legal relations and duties; has Britain done this? We shall see.

Firstly, my dearest opponent has cited the "UN Resolution on the Laws of the Sea" in order to support his definition of adjacent; however, no such definition is offered. Such definitions, accordingly, is also obsolete. No country as of now adopts such obsolete concept anymore; however, talking in the context of the 18th century, this definition was employed for usage for commercial areas of trading, not de facto territorial areas. [1] If this definition were to be employed, then Spain, who held at the time de facto control over the islands, still hold all rights to keep the islands for themselves, as the three miles nautical limit is merely a commercial limit of trade (and accordingly to the convention, any islands held by Spain then meant that Britain had no rights to infringe on it); Argentina, via the right of utis possedetis juri, has the same obligation and hope to do so. Observe this following timeline which shows the progression of control of the Falklands:

AS OF THE SIGNING OF THE NOOTKA CONVENTIONS, in 1790, SPAIN HELD UNDISPUTED DE FACTO CONTROL OVER THE ISLANDS. Observing into the origins of this control, we may easily see that the Falkland has been Spanish SINCE 1780, when Port Egmont was destroyed and all British sealers were evicted from the island! Let us look at the articles in question here; namely Article Six; again. [2]

“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands already occupied by Spain" 

See to this carefully voters! Spain already owned the Malvinas as of 1790, and this was effective up until 1816, in which control was transferred to Argentina. Henceforth, let us conclude with the following argument:

1. Article 6 of the Nootka Sounds Convention states that Britain will renounce all their claims to the Southern Islands in the Pacific
Defense: Article 6 itself
2. The Falklands was covered in Article 6, which stated that Britain will not make any more claims to the island that Spain occupies
Defense: Article 6 itself
3.  The Malvinas was still occupied by Spain 
Defense: The plaque was installed in 1776. However, sealers taking residence there were expelled in 1780; this proves two things. One is that the Plaque was renewed when these Sealers came, but was abruptly ended in 1780 by the Spaniards evicting them and destroying the city.
4. Accordingly to Article 6, all islands that Spain occupied was protected from British Claims
5. Britain cannot claim the Malvinas 

Uti Possedetis Juri 

But again, this is based upon the postulate that the rights of uti possedetis juri; can we apply such rules to this case? It is easy; one can easily do so without any question. Former countries of the Soviet Bloc practiced this right before the full recognition of each countries; such was also the case of Yugoslavia. Serbia has refused to recognize any countries breaking away, including Kosovo, but yet this right is exercised. Even Israel practiced this principle, and it is not recognized by 39 countries! [3] So why can it not be used in Argentina? Is it just because this right confirms that the "Les Malvinas Son Argentina"? No! There is no justification for the violation of the principle in this particular case. 

Henceforth we can argue that
1. Uti possedetis juri applies to all country regardless of de jure recognition
Defense: Former Yugoslavia,  Israel, and Former Soviet Bloc exercised this right before De Jure Recognition.
2. Argentina can use the right of uti possedetis juri (CONCLUSION)
Defense: Examples given 
3. This right puts Malvinas on Argentine lands
Defense: Last argument on the Nootka and Article 6 states that any islands that belongs to Spain as of the previous status quo cannot be claimed by other countries
4. Therefore, Argentina owns Malvinas (CONCLUSION)

United Nations and the END OF COLONIAL CONTROL

Colonial control has ended; there is no, I repeat, no right for any country to keep the spoils of imperialism; the US was forced to give up Philippines, the UK was forced to give up India, so why should the United Kingdom be allowed to keep the Malvinas? Self determination is non-existent; the self determination principle, accordingly to the United Nation, is only applicable in cases where the people are of distinctive character and culture; the inhabitants of the Falklands, apart from not being natives (as the natives of the islands, or the right of discovery logic puts Falklands into the hands of no one), do not have a distinctive character and culture.  [4] They are British to the max; their is NO DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO, as they FOR 30 YEARS, HAVE BEEN CITIZENS OF THE KINGDOM OF BRITAIN, and shall continue to be so, so it seems. Henceforth, they are barred from the right of self determination.

But anyone might object; so who should be able to obtain this right? In Yugoslavia, the right of self determination was exercised, albeit violently, effectively! AS AN EXAMPLE, Kosovo and the inhabitants of that area WERE OF A DIFFERENT RELIGION from the rest of the Yugoslav countries, which allowed them to exercise self-determination; this difference in religion is also characterized by the fact that Kosovo had a very distinctive cultural difference from that of the rest of the Yugoslav countries.  In SUCH CASES, the right of self determination is able to be exercised. But not in this case; the UN has rejected this indirectly by refusing to accept the inhabitants of the Malvinas' claims to independence and has continued to urge that both countries negotiate a peaceful solution to this problem, as of UN Resolution 1514 and 2065. [3]

Convention of Settlement and Argentina's Silence

The Convention of Settlement, in 1850, was two things; firstly, a coerced settlement in which Argentina had to accept anything that went by, due to the economic implications that this would present. Secondly, the settlement agreed to restore PERFECT relations between the two countries, which caused an interval between the claims of both. However, this brings us two dilemmas; firstly, if the claims to the Malvinas were dropped by acquiescence in a period of 40 years, then Britain also DROPPED their claims to the Malvinas after the destruction of Port Egmont in 1780, and the signing of the Nootka Conventions in 1790. Secondly, albeit Britain may claim the last proposition (claims were dropped via acquiescence), it is simply not true to do so; accordingly, there must be a 50 years interval between the previous claim and the current claim for the territorial claim to be dropped via acquiescence. 

HENCEFORTH, Argentina did not drop any claims to the islands during this interval; this apparatus was done in order for Argentine-British relations to be restored.

With this said, I would like to conclude my arguments.

Contention One: Nootka Sounds Convention

  • As proven via the previous contentions, the Nootka Sounds proves that Britain relinquished control over the Malvinas through Article 6
  • The two conditions of article 6 provides two things; that the islands have been to adjacent and occupied by Spain; to make the islands unable to be claimed by the United Kingdom
  • The Malvinas was occupied by Spain from 1774 right through to 1816, and British complaints did not emerge until 1829, 70 years after the last complaint. 
  • As the article was signed and ratified in 1790, which meant that Spain held control to these islands
  • The Secret Article is nullified due to the right of Uti Possedetis Juri; which means that whatever belongs to Spain belongs to Argentina upon the day it received independence
Contention Two: UN's Apparent End to Colonization

  • The UN has for many years made it clear that the inhabitants of the Malvinas held no power to exercise the right of self determination, as UN policy states that this right is reserved for those people who have a distinctive culture
  • The UN adopted many resolutions, mainly UN resolution 2065 and 1514, which the UK has violated by refusing to do so, and has refused to negotiate with Argentina even when the UN demanded them do so
  • All imperialist qualities must end, even in its most vague form; Argentina suffered under this imperialism in 1833, when Britain forced Arge.

We are therefore forced to conclude that the Malvinas belong, rightfully, to Argentina. Because of this VOTE CON.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-mile_limit
[2] Source 4 R1
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
[4] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2434/

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-13 09:49:32
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Posted 2014-08-27 09:41:34
Posted 2014-08-27 07:39:02
Yeah that place. Sorry.
Posted 2014-08-27 04:03:17
Maldives are a different country bro.
I think you meant, Malvinas.
Posted 2014-08-27 04:02:11
From what I could see, you referred to it as Britain's "current holdings", and Krit thought it was indisputably Spanish. The question of whether it was covered under Article 6 as a new territorial claim or whether it already was Britain's territory is thus profoundly relevant when judging this debate, since you both set it up in such a legal framework.
Posted 2014-08-27 03:28:03
Admin: For the record, neither of us argued ownership of the Maldives in 1790. ;)
Posted 2014-08-27 03:17:13
Posted 2014-08-24 06:18:01
I figured it was a mistake.
I personally prefer argentinian rule, as the Falkland Islands are actually Argentinian (I'll explain later).
but the people on the mainland are British.

It is a grey area for me, but I think Argentina takes the cake. I'll explain why if you like.
Posted 2014-08-15 06:30:27
Haha that was me! I knew that, why was I thinking pacific? Dummy.
Posted 2014-08-15 06:00:18
The Falkland Islands aren't in the pacific by the way.
They're in the South Atlantic.......
Posted 2014-08-15 05:50:49
You have me blocked
I think it had something to do with me
being a threat to the tranquility of the nation of Thailand
Posted 2014-08-14 23:35:07
I have no idea
Posted 2014-08-14 08:07:37
I can't vote on this debate for some reason
Posted 2014-08-14 03:21:37
I'll vote tonight
Posted 2014-08-13 23:15:14
That is the Ancient Aliens guy. We can't trust him!
Posted 2014-08-13 12:04:35
I swear, that happened!
Posted 2014-08-13 12:03:41
I believe the GIF will answer all your questions.
Posted 2014-08-13 12:03:38
I swear, that happened!
Posted 2014-08-13 12:03:30
Posted 2014-08-13 12:02:48
Posted 2014-08-13 12:01:30
Posted 2014-08-13 11:59:41
Thanks! Actually it looks like it's you and me again!
Posted 2014-08-13 11:25:39
you to sire. Gl to your next rounds!
Posted 2014-08-13 11:22:55
Great debate Krit, I really enjoyed that!
Posted 2014-08-13 10:25:55
Nzlocke, sea_shell, and my beautiful self.
Posted 2014-08-11 01:48:31
wait wait, who who and who?
Posted 2014-08-10 23:55:34
Krit, Shelley, Mr. Phillips, and I were being sarcastic. 0.o
Posted 2014-08-09 01:09:08
Guys, let nzlockie do his work. He's a great debater.
Posted 2014-08-07 02:50:48
I don't know how you'll be able to come back from a witty burn like "nzlockie has no chance".
Posted 2014-08-07 01:27:59
He's really encouraging.
Posted 2014-08-06 23:45:18
Oh dear. Should I just give up now or continue to embarrass myself?
Posted 2014-08-06 20:52:11
nzlockie stands no chance.
Posted 2014-08-06 19:53:38
So weird...
Posted 2014-08-06 13:40:47
Nope I do not mind, but I've got it now! Thanks Sire!
Posted 2014-08-06 13:38:32
Do you mind if I log in to your account real quick and see for myself?
Posted 2014-08-06 13:33:29
:( still doesn't work :( even with the links not the actual image
Posted 2014-08-06 13:32:18
I just tried it with your 3 images in that same debate and it worked fine.

Try this: copy my argument from that round and paste it over the top of your argument. Just to see if it submits correctly when I write it. Trust me, there's nothing different about how it is for me vs how it is for you.
Posted 2014-08-06 13:10:36
:( still doesn't work :( even with the links not the actual image
Posted 2014-08-06 12:48:52
0_o lemme try something
Posted 2014-08-06 12:45:51

Image links!
Posted 2014-08-06 12:44:36
I believe it should be working. In fact I'm sure because I just put up your argument on to real debate and it posted without dots. http://www.edeb8.com/debate/test+debate-1/

If you're still getting dots I'm 100% certain it must be to do with the images that you did not send to me. If you can give me the URLs of those images that would be great.
Posted 2014-08-06 11:09:27
:D gogo Admin!
Posted 2014-08-06 11:06:00
Yip, being solved. Give me another couple of hours, I feel like I'm pretty close to cracking it.
Posted 2014-08-06 10:50:23
Did you send it to him?
Posted 2014-08-06 10:14:07
I think its getting solved, but I'm not so sure. I'll wait 24 more hours, before I post my thing Google Drive form
Posted 2014-08-06 10:12:24
Hey admin, krit contacted me on DDO to say he was having trouble posting his round. I saw him contact you about this, did you sort it?
Posted 2014-08-06 09:03:11
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-08-23 13:02:02
9spacekingJudge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: 18Karl
I think Krit proved the Falkland Islands didn't belong to Britain. Tell me if I'm wrong.
5 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
0 comments on this judgement
2014-08-27 01:42:32
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Pro had BOP, and fulfilled it with autonomy and legal arguments. Con responded by showing that the land was once Spanish and the colonization should end in general.

The autonomy point was really strong and I don't believe con ever effectively answered it directly. I also felt like pro didn't make as big a deal out of this as he should have.

I felt more or less the same about the colonization argument. Pro's answer of colonial precedent doesn't really answer the issue of what kinds of states we should recognize as sovereign under the status quo. Con didn't do a lot to justify this point though. It was just an assertion of what the UN wants from the world.

So the debate came down to the boring legal issues. So far as I could tell this debate established the islands were once occupied by the British without the Spanish, and by the Spanish without the British. Neither was a particularly compelling claim to present sovereignty.

Both sides more or less agreed that "Uti Possedetis Juri" was a thing and barring one minor issue, agreed that a piece of land can just transfer ownership like that. The negative claim was that the British won the isles by violating a treaty and this was thusly unjust. It would have been good to see pro challenge this claim more - ie is such conquest of unoccupied land legitimate even when forbidden by treaty? The pro counter-claim was that the Argentines had also violated that treaty (so what?). The positive claim was that the treaty let them have the Falklands because they were already there. The question was then who controlled the Falklands in 1790. Con asserted it was the Spanish, and pro asserted it was the British.

I was convinced by con that Spain occupied the islands and that the islands were thus protected from British claims after the treaty was signed.

HOWEVER pro ultimately presented compelling evidence (in the form of con's map) that the British had already made a claim to their sovereignty over the islands before the signing of the treaty.

This debate revolved way too much around the Nootka convention, but on the basis of the arguments in this debate I think it's fair to say pro presented the best argument for who owned the Falklands legally at the time of the signing. There were other minor issues but since this is what both sides made their cases around, pro did meet their BOP. Narrow win though.

Both sides - try to give more of a principled exposition for your arguments. For example it's all very well to say the Falkland Islanders want to be British, but why should we listen to what the people want? That lets you talk about the rational behind self-determination etc which sounds a lot stronger off the bat. For con, why does the UN decide who gets what land? What gives the UN this authority? These are the sorts of issues this debate should have discussed more. I felt like this debate focused too much on the legal issues without justifying why those issues even mattered, or questioning the other side's justifications.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
Test comment. Probably the first one on the site.
Posted 2014-10-16 21:29:48

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None