The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

If so desired, Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,388 times Debate No: 17421
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Texas is the only state that was an independent nation before joining the Union and today Texans are still very independent people and extremely proud of their heritage. [1]

These days, many Texans feel that their interests are not being properly represented at a federal level and that, as the second largest economy in the United States [2], Texas would be better off if it were to secede and become an independent republic once again. [3]

That's why I affirm that the State of Texas should organise a referendum on independence and, if the outcome was in favour of secession, Texas should declare itself a sovereign nation state, and the United States of America must recognise Texan sovereignty and not interfere with the Texans' right to self-governance.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.cnn.com...
[2] http://www.usatoday.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Double_R

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for an interesting debate. Due to strict character limits my arguments will be brief.

US: the United States of America

Resolution

The resolution states that Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if it so chooses. By the word “must” I interpret this to indicate that the US has no justified right, or reason to deny the secession of Texas, and will proceed based on this interpretation.

Rebuttals

Pros round 1 argument can be summed up by saying that Texans are proud of their heritage, unhappy with US decision making, and would be better off if they seceded. However this argument is inconsistent with his resolution. By stating that “Texas must be allowed…”, and that “the US must recognize Texas sovereignty…” , the debate is clearly about decisions that should be made by the US. On that note Pro has not yet made any case for the resolution other then emotional sentiment, which does not take into account the criteria from which the US should base its decision.

Counter Argument:

1. The US has legal authority to deny secession

Contrary to popular myth, Texas does not have any legal right to secede from the US.
There are no articles in the Texas constitution stating such language, and in fact it only demonstrates that the Texas constitution is subordinate to the US constitution(1):

“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States”

In addition, the US constitution places restrictions on the rights of states to do many things such as coin money, enter into any treaty, emit bills of credit, etc…(2). These are all things that a state would need to be independent. Lastly, the Supreme Court also ruled against it in Texas v. White in 1869(3):

“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States”.

2. The US has justified reason to deny secession:

Texas may have entered into the Union differently then any other state but its legal rights on the matter are no different. Without the states there is no United States. Allowing a state to secede sets a dangerous precedent that any state can secede if it so chooses. Aside from being a major distraction, this could have disastrous consequences. Our country will only succeed in solving its problems if it is unified.

Conclusion

While Pro has yet to provide support for his resolution, I have shown that the US does have a legal right, and a justified reason to deny secession of Texas.

Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to my opponent for his eloquent and comprehensive rebuttal, I should like to apologise in advance for the brevity of my reply - I only have a very short window of time before the deadline is up, and it thought it better to write something, no matter how brief, rather than forfeit the round.

So, my argument will be all-in-one, as folows:

Consider almost the countries that have gained independence in recent years - many have done so against the will of their former masters.

Take the satellite states of the Soviet Union, for example. There was huge resistance from Moscow to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria et al from breaking away from the Warsaw Pact, but they weren't Soviet Republics. However, after the fall of communism, countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan broke free from Russian rule and were recognised by the UN.

And just this week a new nation was formed, South Sudan, although this was no velvet revolution - most of Sudan's oil reserves are in the south (just like much of America's oil reserves are in the south, particularly Texas) and the (formerly united) Sudanese government fought bitterly against the south having independence. Nevertheless, the people of the south fought and won their right to self-governance and South Sudan was duly recognised by the UN.

Of course, Tibet is still under the control of the Chinese, but the UN and the West have been calling upon Beijing to allow the Tibetans to govern themselves. This may well be against Chinese or Tibetan national law, but the will of the people to gain independence, with the support of the international community must prevail and that's why Texas should be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if Texans choose that as their destiny.

Thank you.
Double_R

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for his efforts, as we all know how frustrating it is to put time into an argument only for your opponent to forfeit.

Recap

In the previous round I refuted the relevance of Pros argument and made two contentions of my own. In this round Pro did not acknowledge my rebuttals or my contentions, and continued what I have already shown to be an irrelevant argument.

I extend my previous argument here.

Rebuttal

Pro begins with an example of the satellite states of the former Soviet Union. I fail to see how comparing the breakup of a massive empire compares to a country allowing one of its states to break free. More importantly however, Pro simply asserts that this happened but gives no reason why it is good. Without that, there is nothing for me to refute.

Pro then gives us an example of South Sudan (who coincidentally has oil just like Texas) breaking free and gaining their independence. Again, Pro does not show why this is good so neither of these examples have any value.

Pro then gives us yet another example, this time of Tibet who is currently struggling for independence and states that the support of the international community “must prevail”, which apparently confirms his resolution. However, simply stating that something “must prevail” does not confirm anything.

Pro has not made any arguments to support even his own contentions, let alone the resolution.

Conclusion

This debate was clearly about the decisions that should be made by the US. I made two contentions that clearly show why the US should deny secession which Pro did not refute. If Pro disagreed with my interpretation of the resolution he should have addressed it in this round, yet he instead continued to show an argument that does not apply, and even if his argument did apply he still did not support it. With that I see no reason to go further. The conclusion here is obvious.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Whale 3 years ago
Whale
Hawaii and Vermont were also both soverign nations before joining the United States
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I would love for someone to help me understand why the legality concept is irrelevant considering that Pro conceeded my case for why it is.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I'm not insulted at all. Life happens, I'm sure DDO is not the most important thing in it. I actually appreciate very much that you made an argument, lot of people just don't bother (been happening to me a lot lately). But the time limit was your responsibility so I of course would not treat your argument any differently. It was interesting anyway.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
I wish I had time to make a better argument in the second round - I hope my opponent isn't too insulted that I was unable to address the excellent points he raised as I would have liked to have done.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
I think this is a good one, I agree with pro though.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Hawaii was also an independent sovereign nation before joining the United States. And, yes, there is an independence movement there.

37% of all the jobs created since Obama took office were in Texas, which has about 7% of the population. This shows the power of capitalism, even under the burden of a socialist Federal bureaucracy. I agree with the resolution, although I don't think Texans should opt out yet. But any state should have the right to.

But why just the US? How about Scotland?
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
interesting debate, but being born and raised in texas makes me agree with you (although I don't think it's a good idea). I'll be sure to wtach this one!
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
I don't know how to put it, but Texas can't secede.
After they joined the union(Around 1830 something) of there own accord, they had the chance to leave whenever they wanted.
So In the Years before the Civil War when states were seceding, Texas was the only one who could do it legally.
BUT we were stupid an decided to join with the confeds. So in a new agreement Texas didn't not come into the country as another fellow nation, It came into the union as counquered territory.

And As For You Arguements
1. I hate My Heritage, Everyone still thinks we all ride horses
2. This Might Be true
3. Don't see how we would be better off.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Agreed!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
brian_egglestonDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Must" is a tough burden to bear for PRO, who's arguments weren't sufficient to justify his proposition. That, paired with the fact that CON proffered a superior case, yields no other outcome than a victory for CON. Source points go to CON because this is a legal matter more than a social or political one.
Vote Placed by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
brian_egglestonDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had empirical proof of his assertion, and has sufficient enough reason. Con seems to miss the succession, the legality of it is completely irrelevant to anything that would actually matter in terms of a debate.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
brian_egglestonDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Given the brevity, neither side argued persuasively, but I found Pro's arguments more relevant. US constitutional law is not so relevant for a debate of moral international concern. The arguments from analogy were more relevant. Con wins on everything else.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
brian_egglestonDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con case was obviously better stated than Pro