Alright, first of all, I am biased. I believe that Argentina should own them. I've heard several arguments and here is why they are flawed.
1) The island had a referendum and they chose to remain British.
This is an invalid argument because one, the referendum did not include Argentina's ownership of the islands, but rather independence. It's also important to note that the islands are a military base and most of the people who live there are veterans or part of the English army, so of course it is going to be biased and invalid.
2) They didn't win the war, if they want them, they should just take them.
This is also an invalid argument. The war happened under a dictatorship (supported by the United States, by the way). It's like a Polish person telling a German person "Just reclaim Poland". It's an inherently invalid argument.
3) English people lived before the war.
This is untrue. For most of the time the island was inhabited, it was ruled by the Spanish and French (The first colony ever was French). The English came once and quickly left. More Gauchos and Argentines lived in the island than English previous to the war.
4) The war was about protecting Britain.
This is just wrong. It is common knowledge that the Argentine dictator invaded the islands to gain popularity, but this was also the case with Thatcher. A re-election was coming and so she also needed popularity. The Argentines were clear that they did not want to take any more land, just the islands. The UN and USA asked Britain to leave the islands alone, but they refused. Thatcher sent hundreds to die (on both sides, also consider that military service was required in Argentina) just so she could have more years in power. The war was definitely not about the UK's security.
If anyone can persuade me, go ahead.
Thanks for reading
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
People on Falkland/Malvinas islands almost unanimously, both in polls and referendums (whatever options were included in the latter), speak against transferring ownership of the island to Argentina. In addition, the UK is a much more prosperous country, while Argentinian economy is on the verge of collapse. And finally, aside from expats from Latin America, barely anyone speaks Spanish over there; they have very little cultural ties with Argentina.
Regardless of history and current relations, transferring ownership of the islands to Argentina would create a lot of unnecessary hassle for the people involved, and they would be worse off in the end. The historical ship has sailed; it is time to work with what we have now and make the best of it. And it means not changing the status quo.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Kosovo vs Serbia    Palestine vs Israel   PRC vs Taiwan   Latin America  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
The referendum was on whether to stay as an Overseas UK Territory. The question was "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"[1]
If the referendum had ended up with a no vote, there would then have been a second refrendum to find out what the No voters wanted, e.g. which wanted independence, which wanted to join Argentina, which wanted some kind of different status as part of the UK. This was not necessary as 99.80% of voters voted yes.
Also only Falklands Island status were eligible to vote, which is long term residents, people who were born there etc; not soldiers [2]
Incorrect.
The Uk has maintained a presence and had people living their since 1833 [3]. The Falklands war occured in 1982. That's nearly 150 of them living there before the war so cclaiming that English people did not live there before the war is absurd.
Also one Falkland Island was ruled from 1764 to 1766 by the French and the islands as a whole from 1767 to 1811 by the Spanish. Even including the French years of partial rule, that only comes to 49 years. That is a far shorter time period than the British have ruled it for.[3]
It wasn't "also the case" with Thatcher, because Thatcher did not invade the islands. While I won't defend her morality, she did not invade the Falklands which is what you accuse her of in your second sentence. Your fourth sentence is also illogical: "they did not want to take any more land, just the islands"? Islands ARE land!
Also the UN Security council ruled that Argenina had to cease it's invasion of the island, not the UK. As per UNSC resolution 502 the UN: "Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);"[4]. This vote was approved by the USA. Both houses of congress also supported the USA and censured Argentina:
"Congress supported President Reagan in the Falkland Islands crisis
Now having pointed out those issues, the real question is: How should we decide who owns land. The answer is found in international human rights. People have the right to self determination. This is founded as a cornerstone of all modern intentional law and part of the UN Charter which Argentina has accepted[6]. Therefore it is the Falkland Islanders who should determine their own destiny. As pointed out earlier by overwhelming margins they wish to remain a UK territory, so they should remain a UK territory.
I generally have a lot of sympathy for indigenous people and detract colonialism, but the Falkland Islands originally had no indigenous inhabitants or any refugees and it's ownership has been consistently British for coming on 200 years now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
[4] http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/502
[5] https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19990601_RL30193_2046177bbad4fcb65cba6f9025d53bf6479d2afd.pdf
[6] https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I can see why you are saying this however quality of life isn't valid. If this was the case, then the United States should annex all of Mexico. Quality of life has nothing to do with border disputes. For instance, some border disputes happen because the people group living there don't get along with each other and so they want to be separated. Quality of life isn't the only thing that needs to be considered.
@Ampersand
Incorrect.
The referendum was on whether to stay as an Overseas UK Territory. The question was "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"[1]
If the referendum had ended up with a no vote, there would then have been a second refrendum to find out what the No voters wanted, e.g. which wanted independence, which wanted to join Argentina, which wanted some kind of different status as part of the UK. This was not necessary as 99.80% of voters voted yes.
Also only Falklands Island status were eligible to vote, which is long term residents, people who were born there etc; not soldiers [2]
Okay, well. I read that this isn't the case, which I might have been misinformed. So sure, I'll give it to you.
However, long term residents are basically veterans of the war (aka soldiers) so of course they're gonna choose the side they fought for. If Argentina had won, most of the people living in the island would be Argentinian and would vote to remain Argentinian. This is why this argument is invalid.
"Incorrect.
The Uk has maintained a presence and had people living their since 1833 [3]. The Falklands war occured in 1982. That's nearly 150 of them living there before the war so cclaiming that English people did not live there before the war is absurd.
Also one Falkland Island was ruled from 1764 to 1766 by the French and the islands as a whole from 1767 to 1811 by the Spanish. Even including the French years of partial rule, that only comes to 49 years. That is a far shorter time period than the British have ruled it for.[3]"
You have ignored what I say. The English settled on the island one year before the French, who transfered ownership to the Spanish. The English did make a settlement however for most of its lifetime (until the war) the British left it completely isolated. They just left a plaque and that's it. The people who actually lived in the Island were Spanish and Argentinian Gauchos.
"It wasn't "also the case" with Thatcher, because Thatcher did not invade the islands. While I won't defend her morality, she did not invade the Falklands which is what you accuse her of in your second sentence. Your fourth sentence is also illogical: "they did not want to take any more land, just the islands"? Islands ARE land!
Also the UN Security council ruled that Argenina had to cease it's invasion of the island, not the UK. As per UNSC resolution 502 the UN: "Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);"[4]. This vote was approved by the USA. Both houses of congress also supported the USA and censured Argentina:"
Alright. You're missing the point and just nitpicking on the little details. The Argentine took over two islands and did not want to take any more land from the British. The British were aware that they would only take two uninhabited islands and nothing else.
Also, you're just saying both the UN and the USA agreed that the Argentine invaded the islands, which I also agree with. However, in peace talks, the US and UN asked the British to give Argentina the islands but Thatcher refused to, since she needed popularity for the re-election.
"Now having pointed out those issues, the real question is: How should we decide who owns land. The answer is found in international human rights. People have the right to self determination. This is founded as a cornerstone of all modern intentional law and part of the UN Charter which Argentina has accepted[6]. Therefore it is the Falkland Islanders who should determine their own destiny. As pointed out earlier by overwhelming margins they wish to remain a UK territory, so they should remain a UK territory.
I generally have a lot of sympathy for indigenous people and detract colonialism, but the Falkland Islands originally had no indigenous inhabitants or any refugees and it's ownership has been consistently British for coming on 200 years now."
See the response above. Falkland islanders are mostly vets of the war. True islanders were Argentine Gauchos and sheep herders which left the island once the war began. (Also see my point that no one lived in the English colonies).
I think the ideal solution would be a two state solution. One of the countries should take the falklands/malvinas and the other should take the south georgia and south sandwich islands.
Thanks for the responses and for being civilized.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You seem to be misinformed about several basic facts about the Falkland Islands. Some of these you have already conceded, but the main one you hold onto is that:
"The English settled on the island one year before the French, who transferred ownership to the Spanish. The English did make a settlement however for most of its lifetime (until the war) the British left it completely isolated. They just left a plaque and that's it. The people who actually lived in the Island were Spanish and Argentinian Gauchos."
This is false, as the links and evidence I have shown make clear. The British did leave the islands in 1776 leaving only a plaque, that much is correct, but they then returned in 1833 which is also the date when Argetina's presence was removed from the islands and 22 years after the Spanish left the islands in 1811 and in turn only left a plaque proclaiming Spanish sovereignty. For nearly the last 200 years solid the British have had a presence and a community there, Argentina hasn't and there are islanders who can trace their lineage back through seven generation.
You also claim that "I think the ideal solution would be a two state solution. One of the countries should take the falklands/malvinas and the other should take the south georgia and south sandwich islands." but give absolutely no rationale for why this would be an ideal solution. A country is either the rightful owner of the Falkland Islands or it is not.Saying giving half of the land away is ideal is like saying "Oh if a mugger tries to take your wallet and your phone, the ideal solution is to just give them your wallet. that's a compromise!".
I have already explained how the UK is the rightful owner of the islands. Can you offer anything to rebutt my explanation?
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra