The Instigator
rwmmiller
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheCommonMan
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

California Splitting into 6 States should be passed

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,672 times Debate No: 52050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

rwmmiller

Pro

There is an initiative out for signatures to add "Splitting California into 6 States" on the November, 2014 California Ballot. This initiative should be passed, but is terribly misunderstood. This initiative does nothing more than start a process to see the viability to splitting California into six states. Before California could be split, it will require approval by the California Legislature. A 24 member commission will be set up to nail down the issues in more detail. This would include such things as the education system , water, transportation, and handling of the existing California debt.

It will still need to be passed by the Federal Legislators before the actual split. Their are more than enough approvals in the process to stop the action, if needed.

Many pundits are calling it a crazy idea, but give no concrete reasons why. I am looking for seriously researched information. Please, no shooting from the hip.
TheCommonMan

Con

I accept this position and I will argue against the idea of California splitting into 6 distinct states.
Debate Round No. 1
rwmmiller

Pro

To help focus the debate, I believe it is necessary to set one premise, which is the initiative as defined on California Six States web site.

With that in mind, let me offer the following:

As stated in the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis (see analysis on LAO website) , we know of many issues that would arise from the passage of this initiative, "For all of the issues described above, the effects that California's split would have on the new state and local governmental entities would depend on decisions made by the Board of Commissioners, the new states' leaders, Congress, and, in some cases, the courts." As stated earlier, the passage of this initiative starts a process and that process is:

1. Immediately after voter approval of this initiative, charter counties are allowed to assume more authority over municipalities. Provisions are made to allow counties to delegate this to a regional association of counties that would represent the new state.
2. Immediately the State could not impose laws on counties without immediate compensation for costs of implementation. Presently, these payments can be delayed.
3. On or before November 15, 2017, the voters in each county can vote to become part of a contiguous state.
4. On January 1, 2018, the Governor will request the Federal Government to approve the splitting of California to the desired configuration determined by the original proposed 6 states as amended by individual county readjustments. The request will ask for approval within 12 months (January 1, 2019).
5. Not less than 180 days after Congressional approval, a Commission will be established to sort out the details of the split. California will provide resources and finance the Commission's efforts. The initiative does not prevent an earlier establishment of this Commission.
6. Once each new state has a Constitution by convention or popular vote within each newly created state, the separation from California can be completed.

Items 1 and 2, above are the only issues that will be effective immediately. Powers removed from municipalities may or may not take effect and will be subject to on going debate. If the outcome is disputed, it will probably be the subject of litigation. The immediate compensation of the State imposing laws on counties is nothing more than closing a loophole. The State has been able to defer paying these costs, essentially using the counties as interest free loaners.

The important question is what happens during the two years between the passage of this initiative, and the voting for counties to change states, and the sending of the request to Washington. The LAO identifies the bumpy road ahead, and it should be. There are a multitude of issues to get settled, and that will be the first test.

As the LAO states, there is no reason for the Commission to wait to get started, but it won't happen until the California Legislator appropriates money for the task. Not starting the Commission right away is close to a death sentence of the initiative. Few voters, will support an issue that has not been thought out and debated. There are exceptions as with Obama Care, wherein you pass a law, and then find out what is wrong. Details will also be needed by Congress before they will vote; which is the last hurdle. We are well aware how partisanship works in Washington, wherein bills are not brought to the floor by leadership, and can die as a result.

Anywhere in the process, the actual splitting of the State of California can be squashed. If it is squashed, I hope it is for a good reason and not just partisanship.

After reading your response, I am concerned that you want to argue against California splitting into six states. As I have argued above, we are not yet in a position to argue the splitting of California, because there is insufficient information. In order to argue that point, we must pass the initiative, and see what the Commissioners propose. Let us not have another Obama Care where we pass, or reject, a bill without knowing the good and bad points. This initiative will allow the debate to occur with knowledge of details, and not just philosophical rhetoric before it is implemented.
TheCommonMan

Con

Let me start off by saying that my opponent hasn’t set any ground rules for this debate. Hence, I am allowed to do any sort of argument/rebuttal that I want. Therefore, this round will have some rebuttals and arguments in it.

Before I even begin my argument, I need to settle an issue in this debate. The following is a quote that my opponent made at the end of his 2nd round argument.

“After reading your response, I am concerned that you want to argue against California splitting into six states. As I have argued above, we are not yet in a position to argue the splitting of California, because there is insufficient information.”

I am supposed to argue against the idea of California splitting into six states. The resolution of the debate is “California Splitting into 6 States should be passed”. I am con to this resolution. Therefore, I must argue against the idea of California being split into six states. Since my opponent is pro, he must argue in favor of splitting California into six states. He has not done so yet, but I’ll go into more detail about that later.

Now, onto my arguments.


Argument #1: California is too Successful to Split Up

California is a very successful state in the United States of America. If California was a country by itself, it would be among the top ten most productive countries in the world. California leads the nation in production of fruits and vegetables. California also does well in dairy farming, the wine industry, and fishing. Many high-tech companies are located in California. California stimulates the economy through its tourism and entertainment. To conclude, California as a whole state does good things for the United States of America.

Therefore, it is urgent that we keep the state intact. If we break up the state, there is no guarantee that all of these great, productive things will continue. Furthermore, this can harm what would be the six states (formerly California), as well as the United States as a whole. In order to ensure the continuation of this productivity, California must remain one whole state.

Argument #2: Flaws With the Idea

My opponent brings up many flaws with the idea of splitting California into six states. Let’s take a look at some of these flaws.

“As stated in the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis (see analysis on LAO website) , we know of many issues that would arise from the passage of this initiative…”

“Items 1 and 2, above are the only issues that will be effective immediately.”
“1. Immediately after voter approval of this initiative, charter counties are allowed to assume more authority over municipalities. Provisions are made to allow counties to delegate this to a regional association of counties that would represent the new state.
2. Immediately the State could not impose laws on counties without immediate compensation for costs of implementation. Presently, these payments can be delayed.”

“Powers removed from municipalities may or may not take effect and will be subject to on going debate. If the outcome is disputed, it will probably be the subject of litigation. The immediate compensation of the State imposing laws on counties is nothing more than closing a loophole.”

“The State has been able to defer paying these costs, essentially using the counties as interest free loaners.”

“The LAO identifies the bumpy road ahead, and it should be. There are a multitude of issues to get settled, and that will be the first test.”

Obviously, there are many unresolved problems with this idea. So, the question is: Why should we make progress towards making this split occur if there are many problems that will come with it? Simply put, we shouldn’t. The fewer problems we have, the better we will be. Therefore, it would be best if we don’t go any further into this idea.


Argument #3: This is Pointless/Time Could Be Used More Efficiently

Simply put, it’s a pointless idea. There aren’t any legitimate reasons why this idea would be beneficial. If there isn’t any reason to do this split, then we shouldn’t do it. If we didn’t do this split, we could use more time and energy into doing something more productive with the United States of America. Therefore, we should not pursue this idea.


Rebuttal #1: (My Opponent) Arguing Against His Own Idea

If you read my opponent’s argument, you will notice that he doesn’t argue in favor of California splitting into six states. In fact, he even argues against the idea. He basically did the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do, according to the resolution. In doing so, he added an extra argument (his own argument) that further hinders his chances of proving his point. Remember that he must now respond to his own claims, as well as mine.


Conclusion:

I have given a few reasons as to why California should not split into six states. I have also pointed out that my opponent argues against his own idea and doesn’t really realize what the resolution states he must do. My opponent must respond to all of my claims, as well as his own claims against his idea, in order to fulfill his duty.


Resources:
Debate Round No. 2
rwmmiller

Pro

I concede
TheCommonMan

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for conceding. I really appreciate the effort and I'm glad I could have this opportunity.

Perhaps we could speed this along by just typing random BS into the other rounds, lol.
Debate Round No. 3
rwmmiller

Pro

rwmmiller forfeited this round.
TheCommonMan

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
rwmmiller

Pro

rwmmiller forfeited this round.
TheCommonMan

Con

Extend all arguments. I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who took the time to read this.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Esquire42 3 years ago
Esquire42
So, 1st round acceptance/opening argument and the rest rebuttal/substantiation or what?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
rwmmillerTheCommonManTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
rwmmillerTheCommonManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.