America should split itself up into two or more nations.
Debate Rounds (3)
If my opponent, whoever he or she may be, shall disagree, say so and tell me why. He or she may use facts or just sensible opinions on the matter. I know what I believe and want to be challenged.
While I agree that it would be nice to have a country where everyone had similar political views, this is really impractical and dangerous.
The first problem with splitting into two nations is the amount of people that would end up in the wrong nation. In the last presidential election, only 19 states had a difference between Romney and Obama greater than 10%1. If 60% of the states have such an equal concentration of Republicans and Democrats, there would be no way to split the states without bringing over a large percentage of the other party. In addition to the close mix of parties in most states, the distribution of the states would make it hard to divide. The way the Pro proposed to split the states would be nice, except for the fact that he forgot about all the west coast states, most of which are Democratic. These states would want to be part of the northeastern "Nation A" that the Pro talked about, but the large "Nation B" would cut them off, making their membership in Nation A impractical.
Another problem with splitting the nation would be the danger it would cause. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree on much now, giving them their separate nations would only make this worse. While a little bickering wouldn't hurt anyone, this division would have a major effect on US military power. Neither country would be an international military power because their military would be cut in half. Because the nations wouldn't work together, neither one could properly defend itself from terrorist or similar threats. This would cause an increase in terrorism because they would see that we would be weak and take the opportunity to attack.
The final reason for not splitting the nation is the need for competing ideals. This is the founding principle of capitalism: that competition reduces prices, increases quality, and gives power to the consumer. This is also true for government. A mostly single party government proposed by the Pro would be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted because of the lack of competition, leading to increased corruption and government domination. Also, much of the time neither Republicans nor Democrats are completely right. They need each other to balance out the government. I don't mean to turn this into a debate on gun rights, but this is a perfect example of what I am trying to show. If the Republicans had their way, we would have more maniacs running around with guns, but if it was up to the Democrats, we would have less protection against criminals. There needs to be a balance in government and separate nations would not provide this.
I did notice one thing that I noticed was a misunderstanding. When I addressed Nations A and B, I only used them as examples. There could still be Nations C, D, and E if that was what was needed. I admit I should have made that more clear.
I noticed in your debate that you addressed primarily political issues and left out many of the moral issues. I believe that in a nation, people should have the same political and moral values with only enough disagreement to prevent going to far, not prevent action all together like the current government.
I will begin with addressing political issues though:
By spliting up the nation:
people will become more concerned with the government
Maintain a system of checking the actions of one political party without immobilizing the government
People would understand what is going on
People will become more concerned with the government:
I am going to use the Newtown shootings as an example for this case. Though the shooting took place in America, it took place in a state with entirely different laws that emphasize different things. It might have well taken place in another country because everything is so different. I live in Georgia and if a shooting like that took place in my state, or even a neighboring state, it would feel much closer to home. By splitting up the nation, it also makes the different nations geographically smaller so that when something happens, it happens to their neighbor and is more well known.
Maintain a system of checking the actions of one political party without immobilizing the government:
Splitting up the nation would make the nations all move more smoothly. I am going to use nation B as an example for this because that is where I am closest. The areas around me are primarily republican with many democrats. If the nation split, I believe that instead of a bunch of republicans, a new set of parties would form. I believe that the parties would be moderate republicans and extreme republicans. Thus, the parties all of the same basic principal and could all agree. The extreme republicans would prevent the moderates from reverting to the democrat side and the moderate would prevent a libertarian takeover, if that is even possible(you know what I mean).
People would understand what is going on.
By splitting the nation, people could see what is happening and there would be less confusion. I will use guns for this topic. People are constantly watching the news and they are seeing the pro gun people winning some times and the anti gun people winning sometimes. No one knows what to expect, this would all change with a split.
Next, I would like to address moral issues.
(there are more but this will help explain my point)
In nation A, I do not see that the gays would have a problem having gay marriage legalized. In B, I do see it being a problem. This way, the states of A would not force these laws on B and B would not hold A back from doing what they want.
I am against abortion; I will not hesitate to admit that(This is a debate on splitting America not Abortion, Do not make it about abortion). Again, both regions get what they want with the issue and can handle it their own way.
This problem ties in types of energy and the environment. The northern, A, states are more concerned about the environment and push that concern all over America and it costs money. Let A deal with the problem their way and not mess with the other states please.
The split would benefit the nation politically and morally.
On to the Pro arguments.
The Pro claims that splitting up the nation will make people more interested in the government, but this is not true. All the reasoning about shootings that he used as proof did not support an interest in government, it supported an interest in current events. If the shooting happened in your city you would be interested whether or not the nation is split. Splitting the nation will not change that. The splitting up of the nation would actually decrease the amount of interest in the government. If everyone in the nation was of a similar political ideology (which the Pro seems to assume, even though I proved that impossible) then people would be less interested because they would assume everything was going pretty good. The main reason people get interested in government is if they want change, but in the proposed split, there would be no reason for them to want policy change.
The Pro's next argument says that the split governments would function more smoothly. This would be true if the new nations could be made out of single political ideologies, but I have already shown how that could not happen. Even if you could split the nation into more pieces to decrease the party mixing, that would increase the dangers I talked about in my second point. So even if the government could run a little smoother, the cost would outweigh the benefit.
The Pro's final point says that splitting the nation would make people less confused, but this is illogical. The politics of splitting a nation into two or more smaller nations would be far more confusing than anything the current party squabbles could cause. Even after a split, there wouldn't be a serious reduction in confusion. This presents a logical failure because in his second point the Pro said that there would still be enough political division to balance the government, but enough division to balance the government would result in the same amounts of confusion. Because Pro's second and third points contradict each other, he either has to drop one or explain how they can coexist.
In summary, I am winning for three reasons. The first reason is that all of Pro's points seem to rest on the assumption that the new nations could be evenly divided on party lines, which I have shown to be impossible. The second reason is that the Pro has not addressed the dangers that a split would pose for the new countries. The final reason is that I have successfully proved that splitting the nation would not actually result in any of the benefits that the Pro claims it would.
People in the wrong nation.
People can move if they want to. I believe that moving would be encouraged and should be encouraged.
By splitting up the nations, the target on America's back, you know it is there, would be removed or at least not as bold. In addition, after the split, the nations could do what they want with the military.
On to what I addressed in round two.
A common theme in what you wrote was addressing the problems immediately after the split but failed to see long term affects. One thing I will bring up now is getting the nation(s) on the right track. As America is going now, the tracks are splitting leading to a large political divide getting larger. If we at least adjust the borders so that the states shared the same political party, despite interior differences, it would at least put us on a track of either progessively smaller or progressively bigger government. This is opposed to the progessively larger split that con is proposing by keeping things the same.
Another thing I will bring up now is punishment. Not penal systems or prisons or justice, but political ramifications. It is obvious that there are more people in New England than the south east. More people means more delegates and more delegates mean more weight in elections. If the president elected got many of its votes from one region of the United States the other states would have to suffer political ramifications. For example, Obama got most of his votes from the west coast and New England but the rest of America was for Romney. Now the red states will not get what they want and will have to suffer. Furthermore, New England and the South East are almost completely different. A law or practice that is true in populous New England may not be true for relatively more rural Georgia. Still, who gets what they want? Not Georgia.
I am simply proposing that America be divided so that the nations are more similar and continuous. New England is full of cities while the southeast is full of farms and suburbs. These parts of America are just like different countries. Different accents, religious denominations, job types, and more. Yet, these places are still in one place. The very word nation means people of similar background. Are these people of similar backgrounds? No.
Now for the crossing of your cross of my statement.
Interest in government
Con claims that people would be lest interested in politics and government if there was no reason for change. What I was attempting to prove was that when current events take place closer to home, they carry more meaning. If something carries more meaning, it inspires change. If the shooting took place in Alabama, it is closer to home for the Georgian families than a shooting in the Northern States. Thus, has more meaning. Thus, inspires people to want change. The difference with the split is what the change is. If more people are interested, more people can decide what change they want.
Con claims that the cost of splitting the country would outweigh the benefits. As I previously stated, it is about getting the nations on the right track. The way we are going now we will be at the antebellum state in the country in just a few years. Of course there will still be people who think differently. Actually, they would be heard more in the smaller environment. In addition, people adapt and conform. Eventually, the democrats will become independent and the independents will eventually become moderate republicans. People are like sheep, they go with the flow. I have noticed many more people conforming to the beliefs of the democrats over time in Georgia because they overpower the republicans. If the nation splits, the democrats will conform or move out. Thus, over the course of decades, a similar political ideology would form.
I would also like to address political geography. If you look at the states' colors post election, you would notice distinct splits in America. If you look at what I am stating would be nations A and B, you would notice basically no political descrepencies. The differences in political ideology occurs primarily in the cities anyway, this is highly fragmented and we would not risk any further splits beyond the obvious.
Lastly, con states that the split would confuse people. Of course people would be confused by the split. Change is confusing. However, in the long run, what really actually counts, people would know what is about to happen in the nation.
Now I will explain how points two and three will coexist. Point two is about having enough political differences to balance the government some. Three is about causing less confusion because there would not be as much back and forth. What I am saying by this is that the balance would simply prevent going to extremes. Currently, America is in a back and forth. Republicans and Democrats. Bill passes the senate, fails the house. Bill passes both, president vetoes it. This problem causes confusion. The split prevents going to extremes without constant back and forth.
I understand that I have a unique logic, but it is still logic.
I am winning for three reasons. I have explained how America is not working, which con has not. I have given a solution to America's problems, which con has not. I have explained how America can make more people happy, which con has not. All con has done up until this point is prove why I am wrong. I believe, though it is not completely his fault, con has not completely understood the reasoning behind why I believe the country should split. Con, for the most party, is trying to explain why this is not perfect. It is not perfect. Not everyone will be happy. But more will be happy and people will be happy all over the country.
On the military danger argument, the Pro is seriously mistaken if he thinks that splitting the nation would remove the target from our backs. It is illogical to think that making our self weaker would keep us safer. The terrorists and others that dislike the United States would take this opportunity to strike while we are weak, not let their chance go away. This proves that splitting the nation would be dangerous for everyone.
Onto my opponent's arguments.
The Pro states that I do not look to the long term, only the short term. This is partially true. If the plan is wrecked at the beginning, there will be no chance to see if it works in the long term. I do look to the long term though, because splitting the nation would not solve enough problems to be worth it in the end.
Next the Pro says that lower population states are underrepresented, but splitting the nation would not fix this. It can be assumed that the new nations would have similar governments to the current one, so higher population areas will still have more say in the government than lower population areas. Because splitting the nation does not solve the problem, this argument is invalid.
The Pro goes on to say that we should split the nation because people are different in different places. America has taken pride in the idea that she is a nation of immigrants, willing to accept everyone and use their differences for the good of all. People are different everywhere in the US, so splitting the nation would go against American ideals. According to Google, a nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. By this definition, all Americans are definitely one nation.
The Pro's argument that people are interested in things that are closer to home has no effect on the resolution. People are interested in things that happen close to them and less interested in things further from them. Splitting the nation would only make people less interested in things happening further from them, not more interested in things closer to them, so this argument does not change anything.
The Pro's reasoning behind the idea that people will change their party in the new nations is flawed. While this might work in an area where one party heavily outweighs the other, I have already shown that the dispersion is even enough that this outweighing is very unlikely. Also, if this conversion idea worked on the large scale that would be necessary, everyone would have already changed to one party and we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. If people haven't all agreed in the almost 300 years that we've been a nation, they aren't likely to any time soon.
Pro's argument about how political geography does not hold any water. While the presidential election map does have large clumps of same party states, this is not all that must be looked at. There is the New England clump, which would be one nation, but there is also the west coast with similar views. They would want to be one nation because of similar political ideas, but geography would make this impractical. Also, the presidential voting map does not show everything just by the majority outcome. If you look at the CNN link I gave in my first round, you will see that in states like Michigan 54% voted Obama, while 45% voted Romney. Just because the state is blue does not mean that everyone would want to be part of a nation dominated by Democratic ideas.
Pro's final point is that people would be less confused and more knowledgeable about what is happening in the split nations. This is illogical because people that are interested in politics will stay interested in politics and those not interested will not become interested because the topics of discussion change.
Pro tries to defend the coexistence of his two points by saying that a split will prevent the nation from going to extremes, but this is faulty logic. The two different ideas balance each other out, but one party would have nothing to balance it out. A nation with only one party is much more susceptible to extremes. This can be seen with Nazism and Communism. Both governmental systems use only one party with all the power so there is no one to challenge them. I fail to see how the Pro believes that one party will prevent extremes.
The Pro says that he wins because he explained how America is not working, gave a solution to the problem, and will make more people happy. Unfortunately, he has only shown that America is not working. It is clear to see that there are problems in America, but the solution that Pro proposed does not solve any of them, it only creates new problems. Because splitting the nation will only create more problems, this will clearly not make anyone happier. I do understand the reasoning behind the split, which I have proved. It is the Pro that does not understand the reasoning for staying together.
I win this debate for two main reasons. First, the Burden of Proof is on the Pro because he is advocating change, but I am saying we should stay together. I have shown how the Pro does not solve any problems, so that should be enough reason for you to vote for me. If that isn't enough though, I have also shown the dangers that would come from splitting the nation. For these reasons, vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proposed an idea that was essentially unworkable and then failed to demonstrate his claim.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.