EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3267

That Australian and New Zealand protectorates should given independence under an agreement of free association

(PRO)
WINNER!
2 points
(CON)
0 points
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
I thank the opposing position for agreeing to do this debate on giving the protectorates of Tokelau, Christmas Island, the Coco's Islands, and Norfolk Island independence under an agreement of free association. 

  

Throughout history weaker nations and peoples have been subjugated to the imperialist tendencies of the powerful. While imperialism led to much advance in civilization during its heyday, the international community has come to the conclusion that it is time for the powerless to take their own seats on the world stage. The most bullied nations have proven themselves to be strong on so many levels. Nations like the Australian and New Zealand protectorates for example, have a lot to offer this world. We just need to give them a door to unleash their potential.

There is one thing that binds all four of these protectorates. They are all individual peoples with a unique culture, being administered by a foreign power. I do not want to give  the impression that Australia and New Zealand are at fault, or oppressive for containing these cultures within their influential reach. Australia and New Zealand have nurtured these nations to the point where they can sustain themselves, and contribute to the international community. 

Sure these nations are small. All great powers once had humble beginnings. Does that me we should clip the wings of these islands when we could be letting them soar. Who cares if they fall a couple times. I have full faith that they can get themselves back up and continue being productive. There are people yearning to be free. There are people willing to help them along the way. There is only a question of why we haven't already done this? 




Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-17 20:36:38
| Speak Round
S.H.S.H. (CON)

I stand in firm negation of the resolution which states: That Australian and New Zealand protectorates should given independence under an agreement of free association, for three main reasons

  

1. Injurious consequences of separation

  

2. The definition of free association

  

3. American influence

  

Noun

Plural noun: protectorates:

A state that is controlled and protected by another.

Free association:

Is a technique used in psychoanalysis (and also in psychodynamic theory) which was originally devised by Sigmund Freud out of the hypnotic method of his mentor and coworker, Josef Breuer.

Based on the above definitions this debate has already been won.  The consequences of separation would be catastrophic, even with free association (an inherently flawed system).  The Cook Islands, Niue, the Tokelau Islands, and the Ross dependency would lose their foothold from the power of New Zealand. This is injurious through two sub contentions.

A.  The flawed system of free association.

-  This system proposes that the underling would express his/her feelings about policies and not parrot those of their employer. This technique is used in businesses in order to get employees or subject to express their true emotions instead of suppressing them, which could unfortunately lead to un-diplomatic communications and trade between these nations, which would devastate the smaller states.

B.  The effects of secession

-  Just like when the south sought to secede from the north, the conflicts and tough feelings that will be created will indubitably cause a conflict that would devastate local and nation communities, and we cannot allow these nation to have that violent impact on anyone, whether it be self-destructive or extroverted violence

My second contention is about the definition of free association, and how it can be applied more in depth to this debate. As was previously mentioned, this theory is a business contract between employer and employee for psychoanalysis, which immediately infers that these sub-states would be beneath the nation in which they were once equal. This simple loss of position is unfair to all parties involved, and consequently any nearby nation. If these nations secede than the effects would selfishly impact more than just the parties involved.

My final contention is that American influence has to be analyzed. While some of America is attempting to integrate Puerto Rico into our nation, should this happen and problems arise, what happens with Puerto Rico?  Nothing good, could come out of it, surely. They would see these possibly devastating ripple effects from seperation and would have little other choice than to fear them, and who would blame them? It is human nature to avoid conflict.

This entire argument needs one piece of framework, and that is, unless the opposition is willing to support/prepare for the nearly impending violence, their case cannot stand.  When analyzing John Lock and his social contract, we must use that to make our decision. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property, which the constitution turns into pursuit of happiness because the government can protect that property and nature cannot. These nations deserve their existence to continue as equal with their associates, and should therefore remain that way.

In conclusion the judges must vote in negation due t the cases well standing amongst local and international communities, and in order to secure the idea of the American dream in tonights debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-17 22:07:39
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Restating Definitions as the Affirmative 
Welp. I should get in the habit of doing this at the beginning of the debate. 
Free Association: the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization without any constraint or external restriction.

Refuting the the contention on the flawed system of free association 
The definition for free association the opposing position used has no relevance on this debate. I apologize to the opposing position for not framing the definitions in round one, but I was pretty sure the resolution was clearly cut. Free association in this context should refer to an external political alliance. In the same manner as the United States and Micronesia. 

Refuting the contention on American involvement in the secession of Australian and New Zealand protectorates 
I'm not sure where the opposing position is going with this. The opposing position had provided vague examples of how secession went wrong for the United States during the time of the confederacy. Proceeding to some off topic argument about how Puerto Rico shouldn't be integrated into the United States.

Refuting the contention opposing the framework of the affirmatives case
The opposing positions contentions on John Locke have several prominent flaws. For one, John Locke is arguing that everyone deserves life, liberty, and happiness. I'm not sure what this has to do with Australian and New Zealand protectorates, but I do know that this point actually supports the idea that Australian and New Zealand protectorates should have the liberty of independence. Given the definition the opposing position based his case on, I'm uneasy about spending actual time refuting the contention that New Zealand and Australia would be on a higher level than their newly independent associates. It is an agreement of free association after all. Not a dominant colonial partnership.

In addition to my awesome refutations, I'll make another awesome argument. How cool would it be to have 4 new national flags?

   

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-17 22:36:39
| Speak Round
S.H.S.H. (CON)

Refutation of opponent’s first contention

“There is one thing that binds all four of these protectorates. They are all individual peoples with a unique culture…” As a direct quote from my opponent I feel that in saying so, he has directly aided my side of the argument. They are bound as individuals with a unique culture. Ladies and gentlemen, this makes them a boiling pot, just like The Americas. If we had allowed the south to remain seceded, then yes, they would have the opportunity to develop into something else, but there is no guarantee it would be any better than how it is with the rest of America. So these minor nations should not be allowed independence, under the theory that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. This quote from Mark twain needs to be recognized in order to avoid the danger in these nations should secession arise?

Defense of second refutation

While I thank the opposition for the re-framing their arguments, this does not dismiss anything but my understanding of the framework. John Lock’s social contract was designated and designed so that when and if the government over-stepped his bounds with the governed, that the governing would be overthrown. New Zealand and Australia have done nothing to over-step these boundaries, as was stated by the opposition in his first speech. “I do not want to give the impression that Australia and New Zealand are at fault” So this social contract would imply that these governed nations should continue being governed and nurtured.

Defense of third refutation

As has been previously stated, I took the framework to mean what it stated, at the end of the day the judges must decide whether or not I was at fault for doing so, but even with the newest definition provided, these nations are still not ready to separate.  This is once again under the idea of the social contract. They have the right to property as was stated by John Lock, and they should be allowed to share in the abundance of their nurturing nations.

Attack on final contention.

More flags…more cool flags…while the idea of separation may be intriguing, the word new needs to be analyzed. Do we, as an already crowded political world, need more gridlock, from more nations? Nations There is no need to fix what isn’t broken, no need to try something new when the current system works so well.

In conclusion, due to confusion in framework, and my ability to defend my refutations and assault their contentions with precision, the judges must vote in negation of this resolution. I urge the judges to vote based on their own inspection, but I also urge them to take my analysis into account when they do decide.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 15:24:28
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Refutation of the opposing positions contention on seccessional violence
The opposing positions contentions are confusing. First he claims that letting Southern America become independent would of possibly led to  poor consequences. After that, he makes the conflicting claim that keeping Puerto Rico in the United States would cause violence. Going beyond the opposing positions contradictions, we must analyze the second thing he said. If keeping Puerto Rico as a client state of the union causes violence, then why is it justified for Australia and New Zealand to control their protectorates? 

I also want to clarify that a free association agreement will almost always be found under peaceful circumstances. Not a violent insurrection. It is an external political alliances of sorts, that would give the protectorates more freedom, and both sides gain the benefit of national friendship. 

Refutation of the opposing positions central theme
What the opposing position is really saying, is that it is disrespectful for protectorates to turn their backs on their "nurturing nations". Unfortunately for the opposing position, it isn't the protectorates who decide whether they should be independent or not. It isn't even up to the Australian and New Zealand governments. The treaty of free association implies that the nation and their protectorates are entering a mutual contract of friendship. The protectorates aren't actually distancing themselves from their host nation. They're just entering an alliance on equal terms. Wasn't equality something the opposing position used originally to attack the resolution.

Australia and New Zealand, despite being otherwise good rulers, are still practicing imperialism by controlling these islands under their realm. Tokelau, Christmas Island, and the Cocos were transferred from post WW2 Japan, to Australia and New Zealand for administrative purposes. Like America's delegated responsibility in the Micronesia, it was expected that New Zealand and Australia would oversee these islands until a new status could be determined. Niue, Papua New Guinea, and the Cook Islands have all received full sovereignty or something close to it. 

Then why are these protectorates still being controlled by foreign powers? The opposing position said that these protectorates have a moral responsibility to share their wealth with their nurturing overseers. I claim Australia and New Zealand have an equal moral responsibility to let their protectorates go. Unless the opposing position really believes these protectorates wouldn't be more successful having their resources belonging to them?

Refutation of the opposing positions contention on upsetting the international balance
The opposing position claims that allowing more nations into the international community would upset the universal balance. Going further to say, "There is no need to fix what isn’t broken, no need to try something new when the current system works so well."  Trouble is, the current system is exactly what the affirming position is advocating for. Let's rewind to WW1 and WW2. Imperialism and political tension led to the two most devastating conflict ever. That is why  nations decided to partition their colonies, and give them independence. After hundreds of years of oppression and capitalistic thievery, the great powers finally decided that they stand to gain more from giving their protectorates freedom. 

Giving these protectorates independence is not changing the system. It is doing exactly what the system was created for. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 20:33:10
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-01-04 05:36:09
Unbelievable.TimeJudge: Unbelievable.Time
Win awarded to: Blackflag
Reasoning:
Forfeiture
0 comments on this judgement
2015-01-04 06:15:11
MikeMightyJudge: MikeMighty
Win awarded to: Blackflag

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 15000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None