The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 32249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I believe America should split as follows:
B. New England, IL, D.C., MN, WI, MI,
C. KA, Nebraska, Iowa, ND, SD, MO, AK, Montana, Idaho, Utah
D. CA, NV, AR, NM, OR, WA,
Alaska and Hawaii will go to whoever will have them
1. The split is peaceful
2. If my opponent wishes for a state to change location, that state must be touching another state in the country you select for California can not be in nation B.
3. Moving to a different nation is an option for the first six months of enactment
For the debate we will assume twenty to thirty percent move into a nation that would match that family's political affiliation
4. The debt is split up according to the percentage of the population in each location...Ex B has 50% of the population...It gets 50% of the debt
5.The military is split up based on where the most volunteers come from...Ex. A has 45%(just hypothetical) of the military volunteers, it gets 45% of the military. In other words, the soldiers return to their home states but A would get 45% of the planes and boats(based on monetary value).

Burden of proof is shared. I must prove that the split is good and con must provide a method of cutting down bipartisanship while keeping the nation together. Both should disagree with each other each round. Also, the plan given should provide solutions to both economic and political problems.
Round 1 for my opponent will just be mentioning what his or her method is without any disagreement because I do not have the chance to disagree with them first round. All else is fair.
I would also appreciate to know which state my opponent resides in along with the political party they agree most with. Also, just out of curiosity, I would like to know my opponent's and my commentor's opinions on which of the nations would be the most successful in general.
Voters should vote on which method will cut down on bipartisanship and would make the American quality of life greater.


The United States of America as is with Bipartisanship etc... is the world most successful nation of all time. It has made the most significant discoveries of our time, it has developed the highest world standard of life spread across the entire country, and it on the side of impossibility that a nation that has been contiguous for so long would split.

Bipartisanship is admittedly a terrible thing with this country and just seeks to weaken us. Our nation however is still capable across all fields. To cut down on bipartisanship, an increasingly angry populous, which i am not kidding about sets ultimatums. Which has happened recently across many countries and in the past. The government which is so based in the very left and very right side currently cant get anything done because of this. A popular statement headed by an individual that is independent or even a senator could easily rally the support. There are specific clauses which allude to American citizens being able to remove bad politicians from office. With a huge threat from the populous just replacing them these men have no other choice but to violently react (in which a hyper advanced military wont side with them) or to adhere to the will of the people. This nation was formed by the people and for the people and the people can take it back.

Prime examples of people acting are specifically the Civil rights movement in which Martin Luther King Jr. united millions of blacks nationwide in a stance that was passive and yet resistant and it got him what he wanted. That was only for equality and it was completely legal. Say if someone brought our issues to attention and paralyzed the capital with millions of angry americans seeking retribution for their irresponsible governments actions brought about by inept companies buying politicians and even more inept men leading a nation that dominates the planet.

The removal of Bipartisanship has been achieved in the past and quite fast and clearly too. America in all essences requires some new uniting event the quite literally removes the the massive leftist and Rightist views into a more central viewpoint that culminates in more progress for the country. The ability of 9/11 to unite much of the US into a nation again is clearly considered one of the most uniting things this country has ever had to deal with. It was a period in which a vastly untested president had to act, or face failure of his presidency. Many see the act as just as bad but in all realities we did manage to cripple global terrorism. Although we have ultimately not wiped out terrorism we have in fact vastly crippled it. Another Uniting factor was the Fear of the Soviet Union. The fear of a power just as powerful as your own nation allows for progress to be made at a staggering pace. The prime example is the advances of the US economy, its global presence, and its military over the intervening years of the Cold War. The US by its nature is a late game player. It has on multiple occasions waited till the last minute to fix many of its issues. The US is historically propelled forward by imminent danger.

Ex1: War of 1812, the US although very nationalistic, was working to become a respectable nation, The world greatest empire, the British Empire, was wreaking havoc with the US merchant shipping via impressment, as they did not recognize the fact the people would give up their British citizenship. This caused a war which ended in stalemate but once it was over it caused a massive increase in american prosperity economic development and ended much bipartisanship for at least a decade before returning in the form of the North vs south.

Ex2: The civil war, which was in itself a huge threat to the US development and supremacy in north america ended most massive bipartisanship due to the horror of the war, and the forced solving of many issues brought to front by the war. The next major amount id bipartisanship wasn't until the first world war.

Ex3: WW1. The first world war was in itself a bipartisan debate in which some men wanted war, and others wanted, isolationism. The only reason isolationism ended is because the majority opinion on that view ended with the Zimmerman telegram. With that last act of betrayal the US joined and became recognized as a great world power.

Ex3: Second world war, the debate whether to be involved in the war was again between isolationism and war with the majority on isolationism. This ended entirely after pearl harbor where most americans supported going to war and finishing off the Axis. It was the one thing that truly ended the Great depression and much bipartisanship in the government which for all purposes kept the economy coming back at a crawl (i was however recovering thanks to Roosevelt so it wasnt as bad as im making it out to be) None the less it bipartisanship nearly ended on most issues once the war started.

I can go on with many examples with this but it just shows that Americas worst moments are always followed by even better moments of fantastic success. So this is just another wave of bipartisanship which will eventually end when another big problem hits us that isnt internal. Most likely reason being the unprovoked attack on South Korea by its backwards Communist neighbor, which inadvertently gives us an ally that is already powerful, a massive new population base in which to expand and become an economic superpower that ends with fixing some of our economic issues, ends bipartisanship because the North Koreans will without doubt carry out many atrocities that justify the war and allow more a center political viewpoint to come through. Then the Next cycle will come around, well have bipartisanship again and a new event will spur us in a new direction. We will however never have the politics like the cold war any time soon. Those politics albeit very bad were very beneficial to our economy, our military, and our infrastructure. They became the basis for the current successes of american Society. In a funny afterthought in the USSR hadn't collapsed industrially and economically we would own them right now due to how rapidly our military and civilian technology has evolved not to mention our current nuclear primacy (the ability to destroy any nations nuclear ability with our own before they can even launch)

To combat your splitting apart point as well, America by its ideals could never split or cease to exist as the contiguous nation it is without a Civil war. America while having issues has a large base in its national pride. This keeps most americans in line and keeps most secessionist views at bay due to the fact, there are services which have been developed exclusively by this country that would not be replicated (hence part of the American pride). The US by all essences though heavily responds to outside threats. This is shown throughout our history when an outside threat presents itself, Americans unite to combat the threat.
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin by combatting your idea.
1. You are not proposing any change
2. You claim everything is a cycle, I agree; however, America needs to get out of this cycle(hence, my idea).
3. Your idea of not really doing anything new just provides several temporary solutions. In the years following the split I propose, probably a decade, all of the new nations would have a sense of pride and unity with each other that will last.
Now, for the support of my idea.
1. The way I chose the states for national placement was based on two factors, political parties and geographic position near continuous sections of people together. As of now, America has different zones which have different political parties. One cannot really dispute this. After the split, the countries would have primarily all the same political party.
2. This will help politically because:
The democrat nations would support higher taxes and more government assistance, which is better than the compromise of today.
The republican nations would support lower taxes and less government spending. This will work.
All nations can get what they want in terms of military. Note: Your claim about the split between war and isolationism in WWI will be brought up at this point. These nations will not be split, at least as much, regarding going to war or abstaining from war.
All nations get what they want in terms of energy and the environment.
All nations get what they want in terms of becoming more trade oriented or more self dependent.
All nations can get what they want in terms of regulation.
The population of the nations would be more evenly spread so no overly large majority of the vote comes from one geographic region like last elections new England area. It was populous and weighed heavily in the elections which virtually eliminated the opinions of places like Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Since all of the countries would be smaller, all parts of the country would feel closer to each other.
Since there would be fewer states and each state makes up a larger percentage of the population, the federal government would become weaker which can solve many bipartisanship problems anyway.

This plan helps the nations socially and culturally.
In terms of guns, the republican nations can get less gun control which will reduce crime. The democrat nations can increase gun control which, if done thoroughly and correctly, can reduce crime as well. This is better than our middle of the road gun control.
The nations can get what they want in terms of abortion and gays as opposed to being forced into adopting a principal based on just what one populous region wants.
The states that are grouped together generally have many of the same religious denominations. Like A would be primarily Baptist.
If you look at how different everything looks if you drive across America, it is already like there are different countries. The cities of the northeast. Hills and valleys of the southeast. Prairies of the Midwest. Mountains and desert toward the west coast. These areas are already completely different from each other in terms of life style. The only thing that is the same is the American flags. I would simply make more flags and change the borders. The rest would be up to the countries.

This plan is economically feasible.
All countries would have there own agricultural states.
They all have sources of oil close to them.
All of the countries would have most, if not all, of the things needed to industrialized if they so chose.
All of the countries would have lasting alliances and trade partners, the old American country area, without having to adopt the political and social values of the other nations.

Note: It is completely possible to have a peaceful split if we all just agree that this is what is best for the individual regions and states.


To combat the point that this can even happen peacefully, It cannot period. There are too many up in arms people that say all or nothing between the four different portions. Regardless of military distribution that cant work either, because it cant work out peacefully the areas with the most organized systems and most powerful military infrastructure would form their own blocs, California would control enough bases to be a viable bloc, Most of South Central US would be led by the US and the North East would be under control of a government out of New York or DC (if it still exists due to political rioting causing this in the first place.) The Population of the United States is an ALL OR NOTHING kind of populous no matter who you are. When Football teams dont win in smackdown victories it is bittersweet for the winning team, When America is involved in a long drawn out conflict, its seen as a failed operation or conflict. These four nations can never exist out of the single nations that currently exists. One of the four (or three in my case) would be vying for something the other has its so near the darker heart of Human nature that it happens almost subconsciously. When you see someone who has an Iphone 5 while you are stuck with a lesser phone, most people automatically want that new Iphone vs their old one purely because its new or it is something the covet that someone else has.
It would be like because the Dakotas are sparsely populated and say California got North Dakota instead of a Texas led government. formed down in the southwest. Texas will automatically want north Dakota because 1, it doesnt have it and its its a lucrative territory in reasources, and 2 California has just become one of the worlds most powerful nuclear armed nations. The Military distribution alone discredits these from ever forming outside of civil war.

Imagine this You live in the New York controlled new england and its power extends just a far bit east. You have everything you want trade wise, but a new leader is elected that promises that your decent economy can be global and have major stake and control over other's because of this. This makes many fickle people look at their current situation and say "wow i could be better off than i am" This is how hitler organized a war exhausted people into a nation that dominated europe and only fell apart because it lacked the Men to complete its objectives. The failure or with his leader that he replaced shortly, Hitler, Legally and peacefully elected later in life who then became unopposed, Mao Zedong who out of the two parties dominating china drove the nationalist out to Taiwan and asserted total control over Mainland China.
The point im getting across is that there may be peace for years, maybe a decade tops, but what happens when people start to wonder what it was like when the United States of America was a nation that dominated globally, that commanded respect no matter what they were doing for the most part, People would long for that and after those years of peace, Nationalism comes about. This Nationalism would lead to war, this war would lead to a conflict that 3 or 4 peaceful nations as initially intended sought to control the entirety of the previous United States and restore it in one form or another. Regardless of the peaceful intentions of your split, it would sooner or later lead to war one way or another.

Envy: The people of one of these nations would envy another for something they have vs what they have. Ex: having access to Chinas industry vs Europe stinginess, or Africas underdeveloped coastline.
Nationalism: Nations that would more likely be formed out of Texas New York and California would all be highly nationalistic to promote growth as well as begin hating their neighbor nation. Some states in your proposed 4 nations have more ties with one sec than another. as well
Longing for the better days: Men that were once part of that global force.. what would they think about their nations technically dissolving. How would the average worker feel about being forced to become the national of California when we really wanted to be an American.
Populous: The American people in general would never agree to this and hence its not plausible. Millions would take to the street and replace the government entirely than allow the nation that they patriotically support to fall apart (this would even bring liberals to the streets)

As for a solution to bipartisanship, They are few and most of them involve replacing the government violently which isnt an option. The only option is to pass legislation which prevents this. Ex: passing the bill which forces the government to make a balanced budget otherwise they are ineligible for re-election. (it exists but wont happen with all of our current government men)
Ex2: A new party forming more towards the middle and replacing either the Republicans or Democrats
Ex3 violent: The popular uprising that is an american legality which lets up replace the government when we see fit (too destructive or dictatorial)
The perfect example Richard Nixon. He was during the Time when the people assumed the President and his administration including congress, just did the right thing. Proved wrong during watergate in which he was going to be impeached and summarily resigned. Public outrage, not even rioting forced him to Resign. The same happened with Bill Clinton, He gets a few blowjobs in the white house and he is successfully impeached and admit his idiocy, he still carrier this label and many of his achievement and legislation were marred by the fact he cheated on his wife.

So in reality, the only real way to solve the bipartisanship problem is the people, in this country the party system also runs in cycles, there are some less well known parties that have won things and forced changed and woke the government up. Nothing fixes things faster than millions of pissed off people who vote someone else thats comepletely off the map.. in. It is like a no name team playing Kansas State in football and utterly crushing them, it makes people pay attention to the new guy and say hey, he obviously did something right now lets hear him out.
The previous person to fix bipartisanship in this country for a good amount of time was Teddy Roosevelt. he was an active progressive and the progressives stole voters from both parties. One of the main parties won, but they both knew one of their parties would cease to exist if they werent careful so they enacted change, Progressive moment.

in conclusion to that the fix for the US is to Wake up just a bit more and let the government know that they cant keep it up or else they all lose their jobs, that or if they piss them off enough then AMERICANS WILL REMOVE THEM FROM POWER WITH FORCE. The biggest change for things in our previous time with our worst bipartisanship ended in the Civil war, The Union summarily crush the Confederacy but all the bloodshed solved many problems, Slavery, how the South should develop, Civil rights to a degree, American Expansionism. With enough people behind something it can happen. The confederacy is a good deal. People believed their ideals and rights were being infringed they went to war.
Ex: This is a terrible thing as much of it was a lie, but Spanish American war, albeit it turned into a war of conquest it was started by public outcry, the government had to obey the people or face the consequences, which wouldve been rioting etc.
Ex2: Civil rights movement of the 1960's. a Single man launched a campaign that mobilized millions of blacks and whites who were sympathetic nationwide to fix the inequalities. The million man march on washington sealed the deal on legislation to fix civil rights, His assassination then caused nationwide riots, a Great man died so that his dream could come true and for the most part it came true. So all America needs is a Another Martin luther King jr but with bipartisanship and politics
Debate Round No. 2


I will start with a response to your thinking.
For the most part, your issues are one particular point, not the thinking of an entire political party. Look at civil rights, all that appealed to was how the people thought black people should be treated. It did not affect a person's views on taxes at all. Again, your solution of waiting for an American disaster for nationality to come is temporary and risky. How long until one of the countries you are waiting on to threaten us comes out and starts to bomb us. I do not want to take this risk.
In addition, your claim about a loss of nationality is not necessarily(I only say not necessarily because there is no evidence to support my claim because America has not done what I am proposing anytime recently) true. The people of country A would experience nationality out of pride of being in A.
Your claim of how the split cannot happen peacefully is again, not necessarily true. A state or regions support of the military can be reflected in the number of volunteers for the military. My plan would give all of the countries military based on their support of it. In addition, places with more bases have more volunteers, this helps my point.
Most of your argument against my plan is about the level of conflict. However, I have explained to you that this is not true. In addition, why would B want to pick a fight with A because A has more military. This just does not even seem right.
I am aware that it would take about ten years for the nations get situated and start functioning efficiently. In this time, the governments can develop the military as they see fit, adopt national policies, and adopt systems of taxing.
Now I will offer my views on my opinion.
Your plan on national catastrophes may rebuild nationalism some and make more people fight for a particular cause, however, it does not affect the views of the entire political party. Views on starting a war with the middle east will not affect views on gays or guns.
My method affects the party as a whole.
My plan affects all nations politically and socially. My plan affects the entire parties. My plan is more permanent.
My plan limits, if not ends, bipartisanship.
At this point I will wait for a response.


it is not viable because people that volunteer in a certain state may not be from that state militarily wise, if a college student in texas signs up in texas but is really from virginia, what would be the state he goes too, what about families between the country being split.

You bring up the point that you dont want america to be bombed.. America due to its pride, as well as its expertise in the field of warfare prevent this from happening on a large scale. America has the largest and most well developed defense infrastructure on the planet, a sophisticated defense network exist which detects incoming aircraft, ships and has en extension which detects underwater objects, its defense network extends off its coastline 370km, this is huge amounts larger than any other sovereign nations, the ability for a nation to bomb america rests solely on its ability to defeat this immense network which cant even really be reached because of the United States Navy, the largest airforce in the world is the US airforce, the Second largest is the US navy, between the two the united states is protected by a nigh impenetrable barrier of radar, among other things which cant be gone into due to space, classification and your probable ignorance of how well this country is prepared for defense of its homeland.

You also seem to underestimate the ability of one man to rally millions to a cause and start and wage effective war. you keep brining up the fact this nation can split into 4 seperate ones peacefully, this is impossible. Ever dissolution of a superpower has ended with many of its sucessor states in huge conflict with the largest one still pulling some strings.

The British Empire: Dissolved after the end of the second world war due to resistance of the indigenous against a very weakened british rule, India has several violent, and non violent issues it dealt with that was only fixed by Gandhi. Nations involved in the commonwealth just prove the empire is a shadow of its former self

a better example is the Soviet Union. It was a massive multi ethnic empire that when dissolved, dissolved into massive conflict and still somewhat suffers to this day. The Soviet Empire, even though given reparations and help by Russia after Dissolution still degenerated into huge conflicts which ended in NATO intervention. Russia still maintains a shadow of its former self and actively seeks to reclaim or assert control over much of its former empire. This is the prime example that superpowers do not and can not seperate peacefully, (even though it was caused a by coup, it was projected that hardliners across the USSR would revolt after Gorbachev signed new legislation which drastically changed the nation, which wouldve attempted peaceful reform and it ended in the complete destruction of their regime and the Russian Federation to Emerge.)

Judging from the Soviet Union and the old adage that History Repeats itself, it can be brought to light that we will suffer the same fate, you say people will want this drastic separating change to happen that is not the case, due to the fact the United states is mostly half an half and one half of those people are gun toting freedom loving Americans (which doesnt include an equally gun toting and freedom loving military) these people would suppress the unarmed half and seize control or break away violently taking most of the US's military with it due to its mostly conservative background.

The United States of America is a nation that is impossible to conquer from a foreign power, it is a nation where the military is mostly composed of men who dont necessarily agree or like Liberals or the Democratic party, what makes you think that these soldiers with their individualism which is somewhat promoted for more effective soldiers, from choosing what they want to do. The military itself has the ability to forge a new country out of the old while maintaining the contiguous United States as a true nation and not a hollows sucessor.

You also seem to fail to mention other nations take on this split, In reality the only nations that benefit from the US splitting and being forced to reform are nations we police regularly like much of the middle east, North Korea, and Iran.
China and Europe would suffer from a huge economic downturn while Russia would suffer from a economic depression due to europe not buying oil. All around the world is a safer and much better place with the US providing its overseas power to quell a hotspot, That is the only reason a nuclear conflict has not happened in asia recently is because of this.

You seem skeptical of the abilities of this country to pull itself out of a fire. Even with our huge debt, and bipartisanship it is still just another phase, in fact every country has bipartisanship in one way or another but it cant be solved in the way you would like it to be solved, Youve divided this country along arbitrary lines not regarding the fact that Some of these more powerful states will want more regardless of whether its fair or not, In reality Texas and its associated nations would get enough of the military to crush most other resistance and bring the US together again in a few short months or at tops 2 short years. The US splitting apart causes nothing but failure for the planet, and you saying that a smaller less well regulated federal government? isnt that just reminiscent of the failed Articles of confederation that was a weak federal government where states were pretty much their own sovereign countries, it didnt work then when politics was a mere afterthought, Now with political parties, and advanced warfare, and global economics, im pretty sure the world would more so fall apart regardless of a peaceful dissolution or not. Because the United States is the worlds greatest consumer, the global economic almost relies on this nation to provide a global foundation for a system which has barely recovered.

So ill admit that Bipartisanship is a bad thing, but it has also stopped some terrible legislation from passing which limits your freedoms and liberties, Your division theory is one that can not happen period as ive had professors talk to me about this, a few government workers, and an economist (not just for this debate of course) But America is in itself an all or nothing nation.. you have all of it or nothing and thats the way it comes, Their will always be a party that will want to secure the entire whole of what was the united states after the fact. Even in novels or books where america does split peacefully it ends in disaster because america in a nation so used to its dominance, that without it they become lost and attempt to reclaim their former dominance. You have made this debate complicated and misleading because you divided and assumed that the peacefully dissolution of the Union would remain unopposed (which it wouldnt) Whether it be people or the military which opposed it, it would be a fragile piece of legislation that would never be passed anyways
Debate Round No. 3


1. People would return to their home state, not the state they serve from.
2. America being bombed is not my point. My point was that you prefer to wait for some disaster to come to increase nationalism. For every disaster, lives are lost. You are saying that you want to wait for more 9/11's to happen(in addition, look at how America is split over the war primarily sparked by this event).
3. You also seem to underestimate the ability of one man to rally millions of people to prevent a war, especially when parts of families may be on the other side of the war. In addition, look at all of the sovereign states that came out of Russia at the end of WWI. They are still sovereign and have not gone back to war with Russia.
4. I do not see the relevance of the paragraph about the British empire.
5. History does seem to repeat itself doesn't it. However, when a revolution occurs, the repetition stops. People do not continue to be nomads. The global population has begun to rise by a billion every decade. We now have professional militaries that did not exist in the past. Things like this do not repeat and we cannot always use history as an example for a reason we should not do something, it can help prove a point, but sometimes we need to look at the needs of a nation. In this case, bipartisanship and differences across the country pose reasons for new countries to split.
6. Soldiers fight to protect their homeland and families. In this case, the homeland would just be smaller and have a different flag. The cause to fight would not change.
7. Oh no, the country that steals jobs by providing slave labor would fall and promote self dependency(also the country that is expected to surpass America as a superpower in the next several years) for the new nations. The middle east, North Korea, and Iran would fall apart even more. Why do we even try to keep them working. Oh right, oil, another thing that would be encouraged, sinful just sinful. Let us also remember that the last global depression eventually led to the US becoming an economic superpower. In this case, it will just be smaller economic powers(look at the economic power Germany, each nation would be about this size and Germany functions still). Consider it causing the competition to get a little weaker.
8. You seem skeptical of the abilities of this country to put itself into a fire. We are in one now. You seem to underestimate the fact that many of the people in the new countries will not want people from the other countries in their country. Why would a Texan want to be in the same nation as New York and why would a Georgian want to be in the same nation as California(after they finally got out of them)(Let us not forget that these two states, and those around them, provide many sources for disagreement with the other states). Furthermore, you seem to have this idea that it is America's job to keep the world from falling apart. America is in charge of taking care of itself, no one else.
In addition, the US being the worlds largest consumer is not really a good thing, it means that we import a ton and barely make anything ourselves.
9. So you agree, bipartisanship is bad. Then why do you only provide temporary solutions. Why do you only provide examples in which the opinions of one aspect of a party is changed as opposed to completely reducing party differences.
You have taken the debate away from the political and social issues that I have provided a solution for and turned it into a "Will America kill itself debate." The entire reason that I posted the comment about a peaceful dissolution is so that people do not bring up a debate about another civil war. I wanted to draw attention to the political and social benefits of dividing.
My plan reduces bipartisanship.
My plan reduces geographic differences.
My plan increases state's rights.
My plan reduces cultural differentiation.
My plan makes all of the countries more politically efficient.


Feudalplague forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I wish he had not have forfeited. I wanted to see his final points.
Vote Pro, I have successfully given a way of reducing bipartisanship and bettering every region of the United States. My opponent has offered no ideas for dealing with bipartisanship other than waiting for another 9/11.
My method: Everyone gets what they want. The nations all look the same throughout. Less social conflict with people a thousand miles away.
His method: We wait to be attacked(which he basically called impossible due to our amazing national security). We wait for lives to be lost. And, until then, we suffer from increasing national debt, extreme bipartisanship, and many social issues that could be resolved with my plan.


Feudalplague forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Feudalplague 3 years ago
Yea im sitting here debating this and im kinda like uhhh this isnt even plausable

3 Nations would form and it would be after a violent non nuclear civil war that didnt really achieve the government reform that it wanted. Unified republic of Texas (many republican nations as well as militarized ones)
California Republic: California and washington State and whatever they can get their liberal paws on before Texas Takes more of the Conservative and low density population states.
Federation of New England:Much of the East coast extending to Virginia(possibly due to DC) and extending out just a few states. Texas would by far be best off, Most oil, most military infrastructure (it would control NORAD and most of the world nukes) and has a huge border with Mexico it could exploit more than it does now.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
If you put it as America should be divided then I'll take this debate.
Posted by Alchemind 3 years ago
This is debate is too complex and you should've put more thought into it.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
I just have a feeling this one will get too complex.

Assuming we even need to cut down on bipartisanship, how about bring back the draft? It'd probably be cheaper than splitting into three countries; doubly so considering we invaded the last group that tried to break away from the union.
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
Oh a Michigander for at least six generations, MI does NOT belong in New England. They wouldn't have us either. You can give Detroit and Gary to Canada or Cuba or somebody and we'll merge with Indiana. Heck, you'd probably have to PAY Canada to take Detroit. We'd merge with Ohio, too, but they're still sore about us giving them Toledo. Suckers. (JK)
No votes have been placed for this debate.