The Instigator
Cowboy0108
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
loveu157
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

America should split into multiple countries.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 32796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Cowboy0108

Pro

1. New England-new England to Illinois
2. Dixie-GA and Tennessee over to Texas and OK
3. California- California, Hawaii, Alaska, NV, WA, OR,
4. Republic of the Midwest- Nebraska up to Minnesota, Over to NM and stops before Illinois

BOP is on me
My opponent starts the debate however they wish to
Note: The split would be peaceful and it would be assumed that about 15% of people would move into a place that they fit better politically and socially.

Political issues will be mentioned in detail but I would prefer this to be more of a debate about the societies of the new countries. Again, both will be mentioned.
(Keep in mind I have limited the number of characters available to keep this debate shorter for the readers.)
loveu157

Con

OK just no

1. USA:united states of america. we are all united together not separated into groups

2. there can not be peace between these people if they all move into where the political views of any party is. They will have war because you can separate people with different ideas of what is right.

3.this would make the army weak. We would have different armys that are not united wich makes us easier to attack.

4. all of these countries would still be affected by one another

5. this can easily start a very violent war
Debate Round No. 1
Cowboy0108

Pro

Con's concern lies solely with the threat of war.
I will start by asking, "Why would one of these countries want to try to attack another?" Would Dixie want to reenact the union between New England and Dixie. I do not think so.
Let us also not forget that all countries will get what they want in terms of military anyways. New England is not militaristic while Dixie is. Dixie would get what they want as well as New England.

The split would lead to political and social benefits.
Political
1. The nations would get what they want in terms of taxation. No more tax arguments, if there are, there are few.
2. The nations could all get balanced budgets. Since disagreements would be small, passing new budgets would not be nearly as hard as it is currently.
3. The nations can get what they desire in terms of energy independence. Dixie would not be forced into adopting hybrid cars while New England would not be held back from it.
4. I have already mentioned military.

Socially
1. People in Dixie would be able to continue their basic Christian beliefs. They would not have to do what New England wants in terms of abortion and gay rights. All the while, New England can do what they want in these terms.
2. GUNS. Gun control may work in New England while it does not work in Dixie. Take guns away in New England and loosen gun contol in Dixie. Both areas get what they generally want.

I will stop for now.
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cowboy0108

Pro

He or she must have given up because of my superior debating skills. Not really, but I do hate it when they forfeit. At the very least post a short response.
Maybe they will respond for the next round.
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Cowboy0108

Pro

Vote for me!
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Cowboy0108

Pro

Vote Pro(me)
loveu157

Con

I just decided to quit because your views are not realistic and it is hard to debate with someone like that. I have said things and you have failed to make actual legitimate claims to anything vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Cowboy0108 3 years ago
Cowboy0108
The problem with readopting state's rights is that it will just go back to the states having no power eventually. Split into multiple countries and the problem is solved.
Personally, I do not think that people would be at a loss by not being able to travel across the borders. I do not see why this is important. Travel across YOUR country.
The desired level of military will always change according to attacks or lack of attacks. However, if one party is holding military development back, it will be difficult to wage war against terrorists.
Posted by Laitha 3 years ago
Laitha
I guess it really goes back to the Constitution and the wisdom of those who created it, for me. The people who wrote it recognized the benefits of pooling resources for certain things, such as military, and the convenience of cooperation between the states. "Desired level of military" is not always the same as the necessary level for defense, and even cooperating nations don't always make things like border crossings easy. Currently, we have the ability to freely travel between states without the hassle of passports, border control, currency exchanges, etc.

I'm not saying that the federal government respects states' rights currently. Nearly everything they do spits on the limitations that were put on their power. No one in Washington cares to remember the 10th Amendment anymore, so they ignore it and do what they want. But if we're talking about ways to fix things, I believe that restoring states' individuality (and giving them the right to leave the Union peacefully, if they so choose) is a better solution than splitting into several nations.
Posted by Cowboy0108 3 years ago
Cowboy0108
I understan Laitha completely. The problem is, the government does not respect states rights. The FED is power hungry. Even if they are granted, they will be taken away. The split would make things more culture specific and would ensure that the ideas would be less broad.
Other countries can look at the split countries as a threat still. This is because the countries could all get their desired level of military.
Posted by Laitha 3 years ago
Laitha
Interesting concept. However, most of the problems caused by the varying social and political climates in the nation could be easily dealt with by leaving issues to be determined by the states, which are even more broken down and culture-specific than your proposed "split USA" would be. The federal government shouldn't be making decisions for an entire nation, I agree, but I also think that splitting would likely lead to a negative perception abroad. The resulting nations might not be at risk from one another, but could be threatened by countries that look at the split and see easy pickings. Reverting to a system in which states' rights are actually respected by the federal government would be a better solution.

However, a South/North split would be practical. At this point, being from the South, I really don't think that there are enough similarities in culture and political beliefs (on a large scale) for both areas to ever agree on federal government actions. But I believe that most of the West fits with one or the other's ideals. Keep it simple to begin with, and if they want to split off later, they can deal with that if/when it becomes an issue.
Posted by Fightingrebel 3 years ago
Fightingrebel
I strongly disagree. I don't think america should be split at all. You are a moron for thinking so. While yes, there was talk of whether Texas should again secede from the nation, I do not believe however that it needs to be completely cut off and made its own country. That is the whole point of the UNITED states after all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.