The Instigator
Patrick_Henry
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Iowa should secede from the United States of America

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,689 times Debate No: 2717
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (20)

 

Patrick_Henry

Pro

The premise behind this topic is the fact that the Federal government is hurting Iowa, and that Iowa would be better off without the Federal government. I'm doing this debate again in the hopes that my opponent's responses won't make me feel like I'm beating a baby seal to death.

1.) At the moment, Iowa enjoys a first in the nation caucus status. Should this status go away, we will have little to no impact on national policies. The result of the 2010 census will likely strip us from a congressional delegation of seven, to six further minimizing the ability of our state to influence national policy.

2.) As a State, Iowa has been consistently in the top ten for the quality of k-12 education. We're currently still in the top ten, in spite of the fact that it is not a priority of our spending. We are currently ranked 42nd in teacher pay. This supports an idea that Iowans, whether conservative of liberal, value a good education to the point that we invest resources aside from our tax dollars to maintain the high quality of education in our state. The disparity between the quality of the top ten and the bottom ten is so great that there is no way that it could be argued that citizens of the bottom ten states have the same values and priorities as Iowans, yet all ten of these states receive a larger congressional delegation.

3.) The Foreign policy which the United States pursues does not reflect the values, goals, or interests of the People of Iowa. We treat our neighbors better than this. Internationally, the United States has tarnished its name. Meanwhile, very few people think ill of the Iowa and Iowans. The Federal government is hurting our preventing us from having positive international relationships.

4.) Iowa does not need to spend a half trillion dollars on defense each year, not including the cost of the Iraq war. No one hates Iowa, and no one desires to attack Iowa. A majority of the federal government's military commitments do not reflect the interest of Iowa.

5.) More than a third of our federal tax revenue goes towards paying the interest on the national debt. These are tax dollars that ought to go towards improving infrastructure, specifically investing in non-fossil fuel energy industries in states like Iowa. There are other industries that could use the investment, and education could be steadily improved if we weren't using our tax dollars to make payments to China. The 9 trillion dollars wasn't spent in Iowa.

6.) In the 1960s we had the most efficient health care in the country. When Medicare was conceived, they applied statewide spending to a specific formula which would regulate the amount of funding increases received each year in each state. This formula has punished us for being efficient, in that now Iowa receives the lowest Medicare funds per capita in the country. Our nurses and medical professionals are unable to make as much as they could in bordering states that are benefiting today from being wasteful in the 1960s.

7.) The American economy is on the verge of collapse. The dollars is rapidly inflating in value due to irresponsible spending. In the state of Iowa, we have laws requiring that the state have a balanced budget. This value is not reflected by the federal government that has decided to treat the future of Iowa, and all of the other states as a blank check while they proceeded to mortgage as much of our future as possible. By leaving the Federal Government, we could establish our own currency, and be able to let our own values of fiscal conservatism carry their weight with our government. Our seven member, soon to be six, congressional delegation is unable to bring this value to bear in the House and the Senate, and there's no reason why Iowa must suffer the same collapse that Federal government deserves.

8.) The Federal government is in need of serious reform, however it is so inundated with corruption that any effort to produce the required reforms is met with brutal resistance, denial, or is just ignored until the reform effort goes away. If Iowa is given the chance to define itself, we can create a much more fluid system with much less corruption and a better ability to self regulate given the smaller territory to look over, and the fact that Iowans, no matter what our differences, have more in common with each other than we do with Californians, New Yorkers, or Texans.
littlelacroix

Con

I assure you that in this debate, I will not make you feel like you are a baby seal, rather, I will contend that you are helping one, and thus you should not secede from the United States.

I only wish to attack the first two points and will clarify on why I should not attack the rest.

1. There are several states in this nation that are ranked lower in population than Iowa, as it is ranked 31st, and thus receive fewer number of votes in the House. Take for example, my home state of South Dakota. We are ranked 47th in the nation and receive only one House delegate versus California's 53 delegates. Also, our primary is the last in the nation following Puerto Rico. Granted, with how close this election is shaping up to be, we may have a possible effect on the outcome, but normally we have little to no effect on the nomination process or even general election. The worst part of it all, South Dakota has been declared to be in the top ten as far as political knowledge and interaction, yet we have almost no say in the government. Which brings me to the next argument.

2. South Dakota too has been in the top ten consistently as far as quality in our education and we still are to this day. Yet unlike Iowa, South Dakota once again is 51st in the nation, behind Puerto Rico as far as teacher pay goes. Furthermore, South Dakota is the technology leader of the nation and are attempting to teach the students accordingly, yet that means that several teachers must attend classes and seminars in order to do that appropriately. Therefore, although teachers here are putting in more effort than most in the nation, for the worst pay, they are still dedicated to their work.

Many of your other reasons also fit that of South Dakota, but I just wanted to make a point with the first two. The reason I am not contending that South Dakota too should secede is due to the fact that states like South Dakota and Iowa must help the nation. I do agree that this nation's capitol is filled with corruption, but I do believe that this is a great nation nonetheless. The reason why corruption doesn't leave DC is mainly because of the fact that we continuously vote people that are already corrupt into office. Had, for example, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee been voted into the White House, I would contend that they would have had a chance to end this corruption, but once again, it is down to three senators who have been in DC and are corrupt themselves. Personally, Senator John Thune from South Dakota, had he become governor rather than a senator in DC, would have made an excellent President if he had more experience before the corruption takes him over. There are many other politicians that I could see to make great Presidents from South Dakota, but the last South Dakotan to run even for nomination was McGovern in '72. Therefore, if our two states were to help out the greatest nation on Earth, rather than trying to leave it, we could accomplish great things. Haven't you ever heard the saying (not exact but really close), if you try to run away from you problems, they will eventually catch up to you. Therefore, you and I should stand up to the problems that we face.
Debate Round No. 1
Patrick_Henry

Pro

I like South Dakota a lot. I hosted and introduced Tom Daschle when he spoke here at Iowa State University in the fall of 2005. As states we do have much in common, which is why I challenge you to explain why we must suffer the burden of other states.

The flower of Iowa is often plucked by the nation, and drawn into the coasts to run the businesses and infrastructure of the country. Yet, consistently we are mocked as being hicks from the Midwest. A recent example would be how Chuck Grassly was received after correctly pointing out why Rudy Guiliani did poorly in the state of Iowa.

As our states, with better education, and better managed state governments receive little or no benefit from being members of the United States, you wish to suggest that out of the kindness of our hearts we should contribute our tax dollars towards a government that will squander the funds on whatever individuals representing states in the bottom ten for education think would be best to spend it on?

While the Senate exists to offer us an even forum, the Senate has absolutely zero say over the budget. Worse yet, the rest of the nation does not recognize the significance of our contribution to the country. The previous contender for this accused us of growing potatoes. To many individuals on the coast, the Midwest is either Ohio or Idaho, states which most Midwesterners do not consider to be in the Midwest.

In the 1850s when Iowa became a state the federal government stood for much more than it does now, and was actually a cooperative national government that was beneficial to join. It was not a massive beast, saddled with debt and with an infrastructure that is nearly impossible to audit. Reforms that are required to ensure that the nation state can make it through the next thirty years and the times of troubles that are fast approaching are not being undertaken, often due to their daunting size.

Policies are undertaken without regard for the future, and opportunities in states such as South Dakota and Iowa are not widely explored. In both of our states, the opportunity for wind energy has been largely ignored. The concept of Ethanol as a fuel alternative is being pushed, but not by forces with long term continuity in mind. Both Iowa, and especially South Dakota have a finite supply of river and ground water, which if we were to attempt to turn our food stuffs into such large quantities of fuel will be quickly depleted, leaving both of our states arid. As land which was formerly pasture, or fallow is converted into fields of corn, and soybeans to push this new industry, the top soil of both of our states will be depleted in a time of the rising cost of nitrate based fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.

Why are these ethanol derived policies being pursued? Farms in Iowa have become more of an "Agribusiness" than a family endeavor. While small family farms are often corporations, several agribusinesses are doing their best to reduce the once proud and independent Iowa farmer to being little more than a serf that works the land. As corporations push families off of the land, the farmer which was once a steward of the land, and interested in the future of the land as the future of the family is replaced by shareholders and CEOs with little or no regard for the future beyond what is profitable that quarter, and to them Ethanol seems like a good way to place pressure on the market, and cause the price of corn to rise.

A consequence of this, of course, is that people in Mexico starve, but that the resources of the State of Iowa are being exploited by non-Iowans and Iowa sees little or no benefit as the corporation removes the profit from the economy of Iowa, where family farmers once supported our lively small towns that dot the state and dumps them into the coasts, and into the stock portfolios of the already wealthy.

And you are asking that by virtue, we stand and deliver? That we not only continue to consent to be a part of a government which no longer has our best interests at heart, but attempt to help that government and that nation carry on because it is a duty? When Iowa became a state, we did not sign on to support poor policy decisions with the fruits of our labor, and more accurate with the fruits of labor which has not yet been done, by Iowans and South Dakotans who have not yet even been born.

Read through the list of grievances on the Declaration of Independence. There is no chance that our forefathers would suffer the indecencies that have been placed upon us by our Federal Government, which has managed to fulfill many of the threats that our very same forefathers cautioned against.
littlelacroix

Con

The two of us obviously have a lot in common, but I still fail to see why we should secede from this great country.

From this, we would receive an international backlash that may start another civil war. And if we were to secede, who would be our allies? And could we protect ourselves against the greatest world power? And being land-locked within the country from which we seceded, we would not only be surrounded, but would be unable to receive any outside support, and unable to support ourselves. Etc...

Also, what about the quote I mentioned in the last argument? Eventually, our problems will catch up to us if we run away from them. Obviously a war could come from this, but if it doesn't, what about a governing body. A state government is unable to support for an entire country and we had problems at the beginning of this nation with the Articles of Confederation, even with the greatest political minds of our time at the helm. Etc...

More over, when we joined the United States, we basically said i do in the metaphoric marriage of the nation, "til death do us part." I could continue with these arguments forever, but what would the point be? Rather than forming more problems than we already have, why don't we attempt to fix the ones we have right now. I for one, am all for that change. I am an eighteen year old high school student who is going to college next year, possibly going to get a major in political science, and would love to become a politician one day in order to make a change, and I know that I'm not the only one. I have friends, not only across the state, but across the nation that have already agreed with me that change must come. Now I'm not trying to say that you are a wimp for trying to run away, but just stand up for you country, be a true Patriot and make these changes that are vital to society. Our forefathers had the right idea in mind, don't let great adversity run you away, but act like them and fight against the tyranny and injustice that you face, I just ask you to do it in a peaceful manner. Besides, those who fought against mother Britain had little peashooters versus today's nuclear weapons. If you were to secede, the country of Iowa would not be able to be as great and powerful as the nation we already live in. Going from little voice in the greatest country to little or no voice in the world. I don't know about you, but I would definitely prefer the first option.

Also, about that "hick" comment. I really don't care about it and I wouldn't if I were you. It just shows how ignorant people can be. I went to Washington DC in November for a National Youth Leadership Forum and met some really interesting people there. If you can believe it, some people truthfully asked me if we even had cars, they thought that we were still riding around in horse-drawn carriages. It amuses me how ignorant people are and that is why I would like to make changes in our nation, I'm not ignorant, I doubt that many people on debate.org are ignorant and thus if one thing comes from this debate, I hope that it can make a change.

By the way, I really hope that this round doesn't sound extremely cheesy on my part and isn't preachy.
Debate Round No. 2
Patrick_Henry

Pro

The brilliance is that there would not be a civil war. A civil war implies that we'd want to control or replace the current federal government. We just want to leave. All battles would take place in Iowa. It wouldn't be an offensive matter. There are lots of land locked countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and even South America.

The premise that we could not support ourselves is likewise a fallacy. Iowa produces quiet a lot of agricultural goods, as well as several industrial products. In the near future we will have a very vibrant energy industry. So long s we have goods to offer, we will not require "support", we're hardly an infant suckling at the teat of a federal government. We actually pay in part to support the federal government. The federal government is actually damaging the stability of the state of Iowa with it's irresponsible economic policies, and utter disregard in developing domestic infrastructure to sustain our nation's growth, or even just to maintain our current size.

So far as our allies go, I think the Independence of Iowa could be recognized by at least one member of the permanent five of the U.N. Security council. After all of that hassle the United States put China through regarding Taiwan, I'm sure they'd leap at the chance to return the favor. Given the current relationships we maintain with France and the United Kingdom, I suspect they wouldn't be too quick to automatically side with the United States. In fact, the only nation that might side with the United States out of principal is Russia, thanks to their current troubles with Chechnya. NATO might also present a problem, but since 1991 we've been pretty poor at maintaining that alliance. Member nations might not feel too thrilled about coming to the diplomatic aid of the United States.

There are also some less important nations that would be a shoe in for supporting us, such as Sudan. The former leader of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army received his Ph.D. from Iowa State University, and his widow also lived in Iowa. Given the role that Iowans have played with both State Department missions, and US AID projects, Southern Sudan may feel obliged to recognize us, especially after the United States refused to honor a peace agreement between southern Sudan and northern Sudan that would have split the nation in two. When you fight a decade long civil war for your independence, and a nation that refused to help you refuses to give you your final independence?

The United States has not been winning friends in the last two decades. In fact, many great powers of the world might leap at the opportunity to slap the United States in the face.

To respond to your concern that be seceding we are "running away from our problems," I simply state that the problems which the federal government has produced, are not the problems of Iowa. The federal government refuses to acknowledge many of its problems for misguided political reasons. The United States is somehow attempting to run from its problems, and when they catch up with the Federal Government, it might be best if Iowa had no part in the consequences.

Iowa would be able to support itself. While the current State budget of Iowa is roughly 3 billion dollars, Iowans pay more than that in federal taxes. Not only would Iowa be able increase it's revenue by taking over a part of the federal tax burden, we'd likely be able to drastically reduce the burden as the State of Iowa carries no debt, and does not require the expense of a massive navy, air force, or standing army to maintain its interests. Austria, another land locked nation, has no standing army whatsoever to speak of.

Though the common conception is that the Articles of Confederation were ineffective, they were in place for eleven years and carried the colonies successfully through a war. There were many short comings to the Articles of Confederation when in long term application, which is one of the reasons behind the push for a more firm Constitution. American history courses, especially high school ones focus on some of the short comings as to why the document was replaced as opposed to the fact that it was designed to be a short term organization. At the Declaration if Independence, it was not clear that the colonies would cease to exist as a part of the British Empire. The complete separation from the Empire only occurred after the French sided with us, lending both aid, credit, and soldiers to the American cause.

The founding fathers of the State of Iowa saw entering into the Republic as a state as a metaphorical marriage. Marriage is a terrible metaphor for this ill-fated union of states that we belong to. The First Amendment says quite clearly that the government has nothing to do with deities or superstition. Heck, even the Bible notes in Romans that a good Christian leaves unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So, thinking of one political entity as married to another political entity might not be the best metaphor. Especially given the incredibly high rate of divorce in this country. Otherwise, Iowa would just seek a divorce based off of irreconcilable differences.

For your education, I'm going to recommend avoiding political science. The forefathers of the United States studied history and the classics. I have some unhappy news for you, thanks to generations past you're going to have to get started very young. It is not that change must happen, it's that it is going to happen and we had best be prepared, lest when the dust settles we may not find ourselves among the living. It is a matter of time tables. The Federal Government is a monstrous beast, filled with corruption, and backward minded lobbies intended to further their own interest with little regard for the nation. If you keep an open mind, you might see this for yourself as your education continues.

Our forefathers lead a secessionist movement. They saw tyranny and injustice, decided that they would have no part in it, and issued a Declaration of Independence. You so freely use the word Patriot to describe your intentions of bringing change to a corrupt government, but advocate fighting tyranny in a peaceful manner? The Ironic thing about the First Amendment is that never has any government in history been threatened by a peaceable assembly. Another true irony is that the Constitution likewise does not protect this speech, as it is sedition.

A patriot is not made by obedience to a government in the hopes that one day it might be less tyrannical, a patriot is made by a sacrifice in order to ensure liberty and justice. You are apparently willing to stomach a great number of indecencies just to belong to a nation that is powerful.

You also advocate to me that I ought to work hard to reform and preserve a government where individuals from other regions repeatedly insult me, my homeland, and my values on account that their ignorance should amuse me? And then that ignorance should inspire me to devote my life to fixing the problems that they have caused? Parents at least have the authority to spank their children, what you are asking is that I become a servant to a system which is doing me, and my state harm.

I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that it is beneficial for Iowa to remain a part of the Federal government.

I am not the first American to present these arguments, so I will leave you with the words of one of our forefathers that you think you know so well;

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams
littlelacroix

Con

Okay, the Civil War had started because the government was trying to control the states on the issue of slavery. The states wanted to force their issue on the government or else they would leave and create their own government, ridding themselves of the problems from before, EXACTLY what you are tying to do right now. This action would start a civil war.

On the landlocked argument, there is only one country in the entire world that is landlocked entirely by a single country, the Vatican, and who would seriously attack a nation completely consumed by a religion, especially since they don't even have a true military. And Italy would help them if there was an attack on the Vatican, the United States wouldn't help you since they are the attackers in the civil war.

Iowa is able to produce many different goods because of the interstate trade and dependability on others. If this were to be cut off, Iowa would run out of just about everything, just as what happened in the Civil War. Since the South had fewer industrial products, they were unable to keep up with the amount of guns and clothing needed since most of that came from the North before the war. In the end, lives would be lost just before Iowa would be to rejoin the Union.

As for the permanent five argument, the UK has been our longest standing ally in the world and would dare not betray us. If France were to engage in another war, who would they turn to? They would turn to us because we've bailed them out before and would do so again. Besides, they have so few allies in this world, they would dare not betray us. I agree completely with Russia, they would stick with us because of principle. As far as China goes, they would only take your side if you were to successfully beat the US in the civil war, which is highly unlikely. They would not waste their money and troops against the US unless they was a good likely hood that you were to beat the US, but one state against the greatest world power is not what I like to call good odds. And even if they were to join you, it would just be a mistake again. France and England had helped the Confederacy in one way or another, but did that help, no because even in the mid 1850's, the United States was still considered one of the greatest world powers. And, although we haven't been making friends recently, if Iowa were to secede and a civil war would be to break out, it would only hurt our ability to make friends with other nations, and that would be yet another problem for Iowa to have, but this time it would be your fault. Therefore, if some of the world powers cannot compete with America, it wouldn't really matter if the smaller countries were to be allies or not, thus allies wouldn't really matter in your case.

You mentioned before that you had problems with the federal government, and if you were to run away, then yes, you would be running away from your problems.

The Articles of Confederation were considered to be ineffective because if they were to have remained in place for ten more years, the nation would've fallen. And if Iowa were to secede, I highly doubt that they would have five years, let alone ten years to come up with a new Constitution to support them. And moving on, the American Revolution had a high probability of success, and thus we received aid from France. The Confederacy, however, didn't have a very effective government, thus leading to their downfall. Furthermore, since the great political master minds that founded this nation weren't alive during the Civil War, as they are obviously no longer here either, that is why no form of government can outlast another "Revolutionary War." (If that is the point you are trying to make with Iowa fighting tyranny)

Divorce comes from people who got married before they were ready or before they truly knew what they were getting into. From this, they leave because they are not up to responsibility of marriage. Are you saying that Iowa is not dedicated enough to a country that had at least attempted to fit to their needs, whether that is the case or not. Marriage is a sacred thing that should be respected and Iowa should not break this metaphoric marriage.

Whether political science is where I'm going or not, I'm still standing for change against the corruption that has taken over our great nation rather than running away from it. I know the only way for change is to try.

As for the insulting argument, do you really allow name calling to offend you? Ignorance does amuse me, but what about the rest of the people? Do you see every Californian saying that Iowan/South Dakotans as dumb hicks that can only ride bulls and chop firewood? I don't think so. There are good people in this nation that we should help. I'm not sure about you, but I'm a fairly religious man. People mocked and ridiculed Jesus before they crucified him. Now, I hope nothing like that happens to me, but should I just reverse my path due to a few words? He gave up his life for our salvation, so why can't you and I devote our lives to righting the wrongs that we have before us? Besides, haven't you ever heard that you should treat people the way you wish to be treated yourself. If you were a corrupt person, would you presently say, leave him corrupt, he deserves it. I highly doubt it. I bet you would say something along the lines of, I've been mislead, can you help me?

You haven't convinced me one iota that it would be beneficent for Iowa to secede. As I've proven, a Civil war would come from this act and that it would ultimately end up in the same manner as it presently is, Iowa will remain in the Union. It would be pointless for Iowa to secede, but it would make some change if we were to stand up against our problems such as corruption.

I just want to say thank you for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
Patrick presented a better argument and I think thats clear. People need to vote based on the argument not what they initially thought when reading the question. Not to poke at littlelacroix, he did a fine job of debating, Patrick was just very prepared and knowledgeable on this topic.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
PH,
I wish my libertarain friends and I could do the same thing. Good debate.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Wingnut,

The no child left behind program has basically also caused many other states to out right cheat on their school assessment tests. The Federal testing also requires us to take account of the mentally handicapped. For our own purposes as state, we may discount those programs. Talk to a special education teacher. They aren't too thrilled about standardized tests that they have to give thanks to No Child Left Behind.

Trade. Our resources aren't that limited. We've got a lot going for us. Not everyone works for the insurance industry in Des Moines. I'm presuming that a large share of the nation probably won't hate us. I'm also presuming that if a successful secession movement happened in any state, some others might just be inspired to do the same thing.

If we were completely cut off, you'd be surprised at what kind of things that corn stalks can be used to fabricate. Not to mention, we can still diversify many elements of our industry.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Handsoff,

There's a whole chapter in Locke I can refer you to that discusses how once one enters into a social contract, they give up the laws of nature, and accept the laws of society.

What I'm discussing is not a matter of one greedy individual thinking that they owe the society which has protected and enriched them nothing. Its discussing the notion of leaving the "civil society" in an organized fashion while creating a different civil society.

In the second civil society, there would still be the promotion of the general welfare, and there would still be taxation and governmental programs working to the general will, whether they're providing roads, education, or food for the hungry.

The basis of my argument is that the federal government no longer maintains the interests of Iowa in any way, and that there is no benefit to Iowa remaining bound by the federal government. The tremendous and horrifying amount of national debt is quite frankly, preventing the United States from being in a golden age. Iowa could have it's own golden age.
Posted by Araku 9 years ago
Araku
handsoff is a nerd.

love jenna
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Patrick,
You're starting to sound like me. What about the general welfare created by sacrificing individual (state) rights for the greater good of the majority (the union)? I know it's wrong, but it's only proper that the federal government take what is considered the property of Iowa and redistribute it to the rest of the country. The incompetent many will always be happy parasites on backs of the competent few. Your constituents should not give out of the "kindness of our hearts" or because it is right to do so. You should give because it is required of you by the majority. This is a democracy.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
I voted for you though, even though I don't agree.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
I am an Iowan. A lot of our states numbers are skewed. We rank highly in education because we don't count people like the mentally handicapped while other states, like Illinois, do.

Who would recognize Iowa as a nation and how would our pathetic economy and limited resources function as an independent nation while the surrounding 1000 mile radius hates us? Iowa is a landlocked state by 500 miles of the country that we would have just pissed off.

Lots of states have it worse off than Iowa. If you advocate everyone who has it as bad or worse than Iowa seceeding, is it really a good idea to have a couple dozen incredibly small independent nations? Google the articles of confederation and let me know how that worked out last time.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
The funny thing is, I never have to actually convince you that Iowa should secede. You're not an Iowan.

I should address the time line for you, conflict between the United States and Iowa would likely be settled within two weeks, due to diplomatic pressures and cable television. I don't think you'd see too many Americans excited by a massacres of Iowans. Heavy bombing wouldn't be an option, and the accurate bombing that the United States Military thinks it has isn't all that accurate. I think the American people would pretty much lose confidence in the war endeavor the first time they saw a neighborhood flattened on accident, sending women and children into their graves. Most of our military's resources would take a couple of weeks to even mobilize to address a domestic threat. The North America Command even published a report saying so.

With Iowa's Declaration of Independence, you'd likely see a bill appointing a provisional government until such time as the new constitution could be drafted and ratified. It took almost a year before the Articles of Confederation to go into place, and the historical argument that the United States "would have fallen" is conjecture.

There would be no four year long war between Iowa and the United States. If the United States attempted to enforce an embargo, the international community and the U.N. would probably have to call it a human rights violation. Not that it matters anyhow, because after the price of corn tripled there would be dramatic international and national pressures on the United States to open our borders on trade.

That's kind of how the economies work.

You ignored a lion's share of my argument. Including when I used the golden rule to justify why America's foreign policy doesn't reflect Iowa.

I'm not religious, and neither were the founding fathers. Read Romans, and if you value your salvation do what Paul says and stay out of government.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
Although I lean closer to disagreeing with Patrick that it would be a good idea I think he clearly won this debate.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 8 years ago
Excessum
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DemosthenesC 9 years ago
DemosthenesC
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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 
Vote Placed by dfhahadfh 9 years ago
dfhahadfh
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Insene 9 years ago
Insene
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ahole 9 years ago
ahole
Patrick_HenrylittlelacroixTied
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:30