The Instigator
darkkermit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,239 times Debate No: 29744
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

darkkermit

Pro

This is part of the SPinko Tournament, Round 2.

Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union


1st round is terms/acceptance, final round is half length to encourage more closing-style type arguments. (This means three full length rounds and a half length round).

1) No restriction on argumentative strategy except for semantics and similiar abusive tactics.
2) Burden of Proof is shared*
3) New arguments in the final round must be ignored by the judge
4) R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.
5) Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless gross violation of either one.
6) Sources must be posted or linked in the debate round. Voting on Sources should be reserved for extreme discrepancy in quality of sources.
Raisor

Con

I accept this debate.

I look forward to DK's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Pro

Introduction


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. I will argue that Texas has the ability to secede from the nation. Due to Texas’s political and cultural differences from the rest of the US, and the US national government engaging in economically and socially unsustainable practices, it would be in Texas’s best interest to secede.


1. Unsustainable US debt and economy


The US national government has a large national debt problem. Currently the US’s gdp-to-debt ratio is 73%[1]. The US national government keeps the debt growing. Despite previous negations attempts during the debt-ceiling negotiations and fiscal-cliff negations, Congress and the president still opted for long-term deficit spending. According to projects, the US economy is only going to grow deeper into debt[2][3].


However, the government of Texas has low-debt to GDP ratio by comparison. Their GDP-Debt ratio is only 19%[4]. This is sustainable. Furthermore, Texas is a net giver of tax revenue to the national government, while other states are tax takers.


Texas as a state also does not rack up a trade deficit. It actually has a trade surplus of $100 billion.[5]



2. Texan culture is different from the US


When determining public policy, there’s no “objective” way to determine whether a policy is right or wrong. This is because part of it has to do with values. For example, if the local government wants to build a local park, .


There are quite a few ideas that Texans hold that the rest of US culture does not hold. For example, Texas has a stronger gun culture then northeastern states. It also has stronger employer rights, allows greater business freedoms, favors smaller government and different philosophy on its justice system and has different views on teachers and education. These policies are not necessarily objectively good or bad, just different.


However, . The national government has grown more powerful while state governments have been becoming less relevant. Democrats are growing in power, due to changing demographic trends and the younger generation favoring liberal policies. Democrats are more likely to favor larger governments, stricter gun control, stronger business regulations, weaker boarder controls, stronger labor unions, and do not support school vouchers. A liberal judge, appointed under Obama would allow the national government to put these measures into place.


It is unlikely that there will be a “conservative revolution” that will favor policies that Texans prefer. Therefore, to preserve their culture and politics, it would be in their best interest to secede.


3. Texas has the ability to secede


Texas has many benefits that make it an ideal place for secession. First, it is not a landlocked State, which allows it trade with other countries through ports. It also has a neighboring country that is not the US, Mexico.


Second, it has the ability to defend itself. It has 13 military bases[6].


It also has a strong economy able to sustain itself. It has a powerful agricultural, aeronautics, computer, energy and healthcare sector. It is the largest exporting state in the nation, exporting $192.2 billion worth of goods and services [5]. It has a low unemployment rate of only 6.1%compared to the national average of 7.9% [7] It’s the second largest economy in the US, with a GDP of over $1.3 trillion and GDP per capita of $45,940[8]


It also has a large enough population to defend itself. Texas currently has a population of 26,059,203, which would place it as the 46th out of 242nd largest nations if it seceded[9]. The population is high enough. The problem with the US government is that their population is actually probably too high. They are ranked 3rd largest population in the world, right behind India and China[10]. There are diseconomy of scales issues and diverse political and cultural opinions that occur if the population is too large. China and India are riddled with their own problems and corruption. It would probably be best if these nations split up. The same goes with Texas splitting up with .



The resolution has been affirmed and I look forward to Con’s rebuttal.



http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]


http://www.usdebtclock.org...[2]


http://mercatus.org...[3]


http://images.angelpub.com...[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]


http://militarybases.com... [6]


https://www.google.com...[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org...[8]


Raisor

Con

C1: Civil War
1) The US will not let Texas leave peacefully; global history proves that secession results in violence. Look to the violence as India fought for independence from Britain, Algeria from France. Precedent in the U.S. establishes that the federal government will use force to preserve the Union- President Jackson declared the right to do so and the Civil War set the standard for how secession is to be handled. In response to secession petitions, the Obama White house clearly says secession is not an option and references the precedent of the Civil War [1].
2) Texas would lose a Civil War. Any military capability of Texas exists within a military complex controlled by the federal government- this includes the chain of command, contracts for manufacturing of military equipment, communications infrastructure. Foreign allies of the U.S. would side with the federal government- the fed is the reliable ally and the one most likely to win. Texas secession would be Texas vs. the world.
3) Even if Texas won the Civil War, the massive casualties and economic damage would vastly outweigh any benefits of independence.
4) Civil War would cripple Texas’ economy. The two largest sectors of the Texas economy are oil and defense contracting [2]. Withdrawal of federal funding will cripple defense contracting. Companies like AECOM and Lockheed Martin have long ties to the federal government and will pull out of Texas. Oil revenue will be massively disrupted as companies rely on oil infrastructure spread throughout the Gulf for refining and processing. 80% of U.S. refineries are outside of Texas [3] and 2/3 of U.S. oil reserves are outside of Texas [2]- oil companies will side with the U.S.

C2: Hegemony
1) Texas secession would be a global signal that the U.S. doesn’t have its house in order, causing irreparable damage to perception of U.S. power.
2) Every economic strength that Pro lists for Texas is an economic asset lost by the U.S. The loss of Texas would be a devastating economic blow to the U.S., resulting in loss of economic primacy.
3) Civil War would be a massive economic and military drag on the U.S. and would cripple our ability to project power. U.S. Civil War would parallel the dissolution of the USSR and herald the permanent destruction of U.S. Hegemony.
4) U.S. Hegemony is key to global stability- we keep conflicts in check around the globe: e.g. conflict between N. and S. Korea and balancing Iran at the Strait of Hormuz. Global instability makes the world a more dangerous place for everyone, including Texas.
5) Heg is also key to fighting terrorism. The U.S. has crippled Al-Qaeda, killed Bin Laden, and pushed the Taliban out of Afghanistan [4]. In a multipolar world, Pakistan would not have allowed the extensive infringement of the sanctity of borders that the U.S. exercises with drone raids and the Bin Laden mission- US clout was key. The Mexican border makes Texas especially vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

C3: Economy
1) Cross apply that Civil War cripples Texas economy.
2) Secession would lead to a U.S. trade war as the U.S. implements protectionist policies. The heavy overlap of Texas economic sectors with the U.S. coupled with U.S. backlash would lead to disruptive trade policy. Texas also would be ineligible for “Buy American” infrastructure policies. Companies like ExxonMobil with critical economic interests in both the U.S. and Texas would be swayed by U.S. policies to prefer the U.S.
3) Federal dollars are key to Texas economy- NASA creates 46k jobs in Texas [5] and defense spending is the second largest economic sector in Texas [2]. Federal stimulus money was crucial to solving Texas’ budget crisis in 2010, showing that current fiscal policy relies on the federal government [6]. Texas Gov. Perry even admits the FEMA is critical to his state and Texas is especially prone to wildfire emergencies [7].
4) Even if Texas could offset federal funding with domestic funds, secession would massively disrupt these sectors. Texas would need time to write policies to fund military bases, reqrite contracts with private companies like Haliburton, replace federal education loans, and replace FEMA. In the interim, individuals who depend on this funding would likely follow the U.S. federal dollars and leave Texas- resulting in a brain drain on the labor force.
5) If Pro is right an U.S. is on the road to economic collapse, then secession is pointless because U.S. failure will drag Texas down with it. Experts say if the U.S. economy collapses the global market will collapse with it [8]. The financial crisis of 2008 proves that the global market follows the behavior of the U.S. [9] Texas secession is then a moot point.

Pro’s Case:
Economy:
1) Cross apply all my economy arguments that shows how secession hurts both U.S. and the Texas economy.
2) Secession precludes any possibility of the U.S. solving its debt crisis- since Texas is a massive economic asset, secession makes U.S. economic failure inevitable. Its try or die- either Texas stays and fights for the success of the union or Texas secedes and guarantees U.S. and global economic failure.
3) Private sector models prove that carrying debt is good practice, and the U.S. debt to income ratio compares favorably to many major companies. Debt is used to invest in development that leads to future profits. This is what major companies like IBM do- take on debt now to invest in future opportunities. The U.S. carries debt to fund infrastructure projects, maintain Hegemony, and protect human capital. Debt is not a cause for concern.

Culture:

1) The impacts of economy and security are infinitely more important than cultural uniformity.
2) This whole argument is a joke. Secession won’t mean Democrats cease to exist in Texas, Texas is massively heterogeneous due to proximity with Mexico and a large Hispanic population, Texas conservative culture is shared by many “red states,” etc.

Ability to Secede:
1) Cross-apply all my Civil War and Heg arguments. Any existing military infrastructure will be absorbed by the U.S.
2) These arguments link into my Hegemony arguments- they just prove how key Texas is to the survival of the Union.
3) The population/economy of scale argument is without warrant. Pro points out the three countries with the largest populations also are the strongest global economies and seems to think this shows why large populations are bad.
4) The economy of scale argument has no impact and no way to evaluate. The large U.S. population preserves Hegemony, which vastly outweighs.

Underview:
Security comes first in evaluating the best interest of Texas. War and global instability puts the lives of Texans at risk, outweighing any economic risks. Additionally, wars hurt the economy by disrupting trade, draining resources, and causing uncertainty. Texas may be a great state, but the Union is greater than the sum of its parts. A Texas secession would lock both the U.S. and Texas in a downward spiral resulting the destruction of both. The loss of the security found in the united front of 50 states vastly outweighs any other considerations.

[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[5] http://www.nasa.gov...
[6] http://money.cnn.com...
[7] http://blog.chron.com...
[8] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Pro

Rebuttal:

C1: Civil War

CON provides examples of un-peaceful secessions, but ignores peaceful secessions. Canada and Australia peaceful secede from the British Empire. This occurred even after the “precedent” that colonies cannot secede without civil war, since the US had to fight a bloody war and India was unable to secede after rebellion. This means we can assume precedent is unimportant. Analyzing historical trends from more than a hundred years ago to make modern predictions is shaky grounds since modern society is different both technologically and culturally from the past.

Modern society has two problems:

a) Stronger anti-war sentiment

US citizens have a stronger anti-war sentiment and do not want American soldiers to die. In a time where people are expected to live longer and have better lives, death is a greater loss. In the Iraq war, 4,422 American soldiers were killed[1]. While this might seem like a large number, this was over the course of a decade and previous wars had much higher casualities, such as WWII where the death toll was over 400,000[2]. However, despite the low death toll that Iraq caused on US soldiers, Americans still strongly opposed the war, with the majority now opposing it[3].

There’s no way that the American people would accept the killing of Texan civilians in the event that they secede. While killing those in foreign countries is one thing, it is another thing to kill Texans in which most Americans know many people from Texas.

b) Unlikely for wealthy nations to engage in war with one another

Not since WWII, have “wealthy” nations fought one another (Pre-WWII times, the world was way less wealthy then it is today). Nations recognize the devastating effects that this type of warfare would create, hence why the USSR and the US never engaged in direct warfare. The US has not engaged in warfare with nations like Iran or North Korea, two nations that are a bigger threat to the US and weaker nations then Texas would be which is a son With a strong defense contracting

C2: Hegemony

CON lists the harms the US would face If Texas decided to secede. However, this is irrelevant to the debate since the Resolution is about whether it would be in Texas’s best interest to secede, not the US’s best interest if they secede.

CON is wrong on the idea that US hegemony is needed to keeping world security. The effectiveness of the US military is weak. Many unstable dictatorships like North Korea and China have nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the US has difficulty fighting weak nations like Vietnam so there’s no way we could expect the US to fight serious world security threats through strength alone. The spreading of western values, the UN, and the interdependency and interconnectivity of people and nations based on globalization has played a more critical role in maintaining peace then the US military ever has.

The US is also not the only source of world security. NATO, the UN, and the European Union would still exist in a post-US hegemony world. Furthermore, cross-reference my previous argument on US’s unsustainable debt and it is unlikely that the US will maintain long-term hegemony.

C-3 Economy:

Cross-apply my previous analysis that a civil war would unlikely occur. Texas also has a strong exporting economy, with exports totaling $192 billion[8]. In the event that America engages in trade protectionism, Texas can rely on plenty of other nations for goods/services. It borders Mexico and is not landlocked, allowing trade to occur between other foreign nations. Trade protectionism against Texas would hurt the US more than it would hurt Texas, which would make the US unlikely to strongly engage in it.

Programs like NASA would still exist if Texas were to secede. They would just be renamed and reorganized. The US government cannot take this infrastructure from Texas because it’s immobile. Plus most of the people with the skills to work would still be there, so there’s no reason why Texas just can’t create their own space program. Also considering that most oil production occurs in Texas[9], corporations that drill in Texas would favor Texas over the US.

The US federal stimulus was a giant failure and did not help Texas’s economy at all. According, to the white house's own projection, the US did worse witht the stimulus in place[10]. Empirical evidence confirms that fiscal multipliers are non-existent in nations with high debt-to-gdp ratio[11]. However, Texas has a low debt-to-gdp ratio so it could create a fiscal stimulus program if needed.

Texas also gives more in taxes then it receives. Taking money and one hand and putting it another does not benefit Texas. There’s no reason why Texans cannot just use their own funds to finance programs that were once part of the federal government or use that money to buy goods/services or make investments.


My Case

Economy:

Pro seems to agree with my analysis of the problem of US’s debt places on the economy. His argument is that the economic effects of civil war would be worse. However, as I already explained, a civil war simply would not occur in a secession movement.

Con’s analysis of debt is wrong. If the US debt was funding infrastructure and science, then that would not be unproblematic. However, science research only makes up $43.5 billion in funding[4]. Infrastructure spending only makes up $505 billion[5], including both federal, local, and state spending. The US budget is $3.54 trillion, with most of it going to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and the military[6].

If debt was truly used to funnel growth, then at steady state conditions they’d be a reduction in a gdp-to-debt ratio, not an increase. This is because any debt increase would be offset by gdp growth.

We already have examples of the problems of government debt with the European-debt crisis, in which this crisis caused Greece’s and Spain’s unemployment rate to reach approximately 25%.

Culture:

While there is some source of cultural heterogeneity, the amount of cultural heterogeneity in Texas, is obviously less than that of the US, so the argument still stands. Texans are more united in culture based on geographical proximately and the passing of culture to children through church, upbringing, and school.

While Democrats obviously exist in Texas, they are certainly more conservative than most Democrats and still instill Texan values. Two Texan congressmen are part of the “Blue Dog Coalition”[7] a caucus of Demcorats that identify themselves as conservatives to moderate Democrats.

Ability to Secede:

Extend argument.

While mobile infrastructure that the federal government owns would be absorbed, immobile infrastructure cannot. How can the US federal government move a building?

The massive economic asset that Texas holds while the US is in a debt crisis is the reason why Texas should secede. As the US grows deeper into debt, the federal government will try to take advantage of Texas’s economic assets to funnel its debt.

Economics of scale/Population:

China and India are riddled with problems. India and China are both listed as “warning” in the Failed State Index[12]. They also do poorly on the corruption perception index. The larger the organization, the easier it is to get away with corruption since there’s less accountability. Nations listed as “sustainable” have population levels similar to Texas[13]. While the US does not do terribly on the list, it is not the best. State governments help offset these problems, but states are becoming less relevant as federal power increases. This provides evidence that the problems of diseconomics of scale and large populations occur.

[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7]http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9]http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
[11]http://tinyurl.com...
[12]http://tinyurl.com...
[13]http://tinyurl.com...

Raisor

Con

“‘Peaceable secession!’ Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle…I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven- I see that disruption must produce such a war as I will not describe.”

-Daniel Webster, 1850

Civil War:

1) Relying on chronologically distant historical trends to predict US reaction to secession might be “shaky” if it weren’t so consistent. At every point in US history where secession has come up, the federal response has been that states do not have the right to secede and the government will use force. The consistency carries through to the Obama response which clearly references the Civil War as the example of how to deal with secession.

2) The U.S. has been “tired of war” since Vietnam, yet the U.S. has been constantly engaged in warfare since WWII. In the last two years alone we have exercised military intervention in 6 different countries, including significant involvement in Libya [1]. The U.S. is currently using threat or war in Iran negotiations [2].

3) Secession is rarely peaceful. The 1837 rebellion, military pressure from war of 1812, U.S. raids on Canadian British forts, and U.S. expansionism were all key in Canadian independence [3].

4) U.S. has massive interests in preventing Texas secession:

a) Texas v White says no right to secede- US will have to forcefully preserve Union to maintain rule of law.

b) Cross apply all of Pro’s points to Texas’ economic strength, all my arguments that US needs Texas to maintain Hegemony, as incentives for the US to prevent secession. The US will crash and burn without Texas, ensuring that the US will do everything in its power to preserve the Union.

5) The reason “wealthy” countries haven’t engaged in warfare since WWII is because of U.S. Hegemony:
a. Countries have nothing to gain by engaging in warfare because they do not have the ability to defeat the Hegemon and starting wars with neighbors will bring in Hegemonic intervention.
b. It is rarely in wealthy nations best interest to fight each other because of the economic cost- war loses out in the cost/benefit analysis. In the case of Texas, the cost/benefits favor war.

Hegemony:

1) A decline in Heg is disastrous for all, including Texas; global instability causes a rise in conflicts and a rise in terrorism. I even pointed out that the large Mexican border makes Texas especially prone to terrorist attacks.

2) No current power could become Hegemon: The UN, EU, and NATO are all alliances that lack the ability to act as a single cohesive force- the failure to impose sanctions on Syria demonstrates the inherent lack of resolve in the UN [4]. NATO is propped up by US funding and military capability. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined- it is mathematically impossible for any group to become Hegemon [5].

3) The stabilizing forces Pro cites- spreading of western values, NATO, globalization, are all directly linked to Hegemony. If Russia had won the Cold War, western values would not have spread. Globalization was fueled by US economic development, which excelled due to the stability provided by military dominance- see my next point.

4) The US has a massive capability to act as a stabilizing force- the Gulf War proves. Iraq attempted to invade Kuwait for strategic gain and the US responded by repelling Iraq and crippling Iraq militarily. The US preserved the Middle East balance of power while protecting Western economic interests by shielding Saudi Arabian oil fields from Iraqi power projection.

5) South China Sea proves US Heg is still relevant. US Heg currently balances Chinese interests and protects regional US allies. The US continues to strategically orient its Navy at the request of allies like the Philippines [6].

6) Pro drops that Heg is key to fighting terrorism. The global reach of the US is crucial to collecting information on terrorists, launching precision attacks like the bin Laden raid, and tracking organizations like Al-Qaeda which transcend national borders.

Economy:

1) Pro doesn’t dispute that if the US economy fails the global economy fails, nor that Texas secession will destroy the US economy. Even if debt is unsustainable, secession doesn’t solve the problem, it makes it inevitable. This means Texas has two choices: secede and guarantee economic destruction, or stay and work to save the Union.

2) Strong exports don’t change the fact that massive disruption of trade with the US would wreck the Texas economy. Exports are less than 15% of Texas GDP per Pro’s evidence, meaning 85% of the economy is vulnerable to a US trade war.

3) Extend my evidence that 80% of US refineries and 2/3 of US reserves are outside of Texas, meaning oil companies will side with the US. Pro’s evidence to the contrary is just a map of oil wells. Also extend that defense contractors will stay loyal to the US, meaning Texas will lose its biggest economic sector.

4) Oil exported from Texas to the US would be subject to standard tariffs, indeed all exports to the US would. This represents the introduction of a massive inefficiency on Texas’ economy. This is on top of protectionist trade policies resulting from a backlash against secession [7]

5) Pro ignores my argument that even if Texas can replace some government jobs people will follow the jobs to the US during the transition. Federal funding makes up 33% of the Texas budget- Texas will have to decide how much of this budget gap to make up, how to replace the gap, and how to allocate the money. This process will take time during which irreparable damage will be done to the economy.

6) Pro offers no evidence or argument about how or when the debt will result in an economic collapse. I have given evidence that carrying debt is often done in the private sector- note that entitlement spending is an investment in human capital; Medicaid ensures people are healthy enough to contribute to the economy.

7) The US is already implementing policies to obtain a manageable budget, cutting projected deficits by 2.4 trillion. The fiscal cliffs are also forcing hard decisions to be made to get the US on track [8].

Culture:

Texas is less homogeneous than the US, with over 1/3 of the population being Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites being less than half [9].

This whole point is ridiculous. Pro offers no reason to care about cultural homogeneity and apparently wants to risk a Civil War over how many Blue Dog Democrats are in Texas.

Ability to Secede:

Pro concedes Texas would lose mobile infrastructure: this includes tanks, airplanes, computer systems, trucks, medical supplies, disaster response supplies. The loss of this would be devastating to Texas’ military and disaster preparedness.

Econ of Scale:

Go look at Pro’s failed state evidence. According to his source, ¾ of the world is at “warning” for being a failed state. Pro’s evidence suggests that geopolitics is much more critical to state stability. If economy of scale is so important, what’s with all those tiny failed African states and big successful Canada and Australia?

The fact is the economies of India and China are doing quite well and both countries are rapidly modernizing [10].

Conclusion:

Texas lives and dies with the Union; secession is suicide.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.israelhayom.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://articles.washingtonpost.com...

[5] http://www.cbsnews.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://www.fas.org...

[8] http://articles.latimes.com...

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] http://econ.worldbank.org...

Debate Round No. 3
darkkermit

Pro

"No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want"-Ludwig von Mises

Rebuttal

1. Civil War

1) It is shaky to rely on past history, because CON is literally using one data point to set precedent, the American civil war of 1865. Hardly a “consistent” pattern. The US government might prefer for Texas to remain a part of the union, but it is incredibly shaky for them to engage in a civil war over it.

2) Our involvement in Libya was minimal. The main strength involved was the National Transitional Council. All the US did was engage in a few bombings. The scale of these wars is nothing compared to what a war between Texas and the US. If the US could engage in whatever war they wanted, they would’ve fought the Soviet Union during the cold war but they did not.

3) The Canadian independence was relatively peaceful. There have been plenty of peaceful movements of secession, as stated previously from African state’s independence, independence of Australia, and independence of nations from the USSR. It is hardly a “rare” occurrence and the independence of nations without war is now the rule, not the exception.

4) While the US does have a massive interest in preventing secession, the act of war far outweighs the benefits. CON also drops my argument of how one can get the American public and the military to support actions of killing Texans when so many Americans know and maintain friendships with these people. This is not the same as attacking a foreign country.

5) US hegemony has not been pivotal in maintaining peace between wealthy nations, since the Soviet Union was a superpower from WWII to 1991, yet wealthy nations did not fight one another and the US did not fight the USSR.

2. Hegemony

1) I have already demonstrated that US hegemony has not lead to stability, using North Korea as an example that CON drops.

2) The US is not providing any military assistant in Syria either so to blame it on UN failure is wrong. UN has made quite a difference in providing stability including creating international law, prosecuting war criminals, providing humanitarian aid to third world nations, and promoting human rights[1]. CON just asserts that the EU cannot act as a unified forced, without evidence. Furthermore, I have stated that hegemony has not been successful in stabilization so there’s no reason a hegemony force has to take over.

3) The idea that the US has been responsible for reducing terrorism is absurd. Terrorism attacks increase as more troops are sent into the Middle East[2]. Bombing innocent civilians does not exactly create a peaceful country that loves western values. Osama Bin Laden specifically stated that his reason for committing 9/11 was due to America’s presence in the Middle East.

3) Instead of lobbying for Congress for money and dealing with the bureaucracy of the border problems, Texans can directly deal with its problem. The US federal government can hardly be considered effective considering 11 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside in the US[4]. Since Texas is right next to the problem, they understand it better then the federal government and could handle it better.

4) The US main concern is using the islands there for their own naval and military purposes. Is there any reason why this matters besides US-Chinese foreign relations? The dispute is mainly irrelevant, only exacerbated through US involvement. There’s no reason why the UN cannot resolve this dispute through its international courts.

5) The US failed to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, with both nations topping the failed state index as the 6th and 9th least stable nations on earth.[3]

3. Economy

1. It is not complex to figure out a taxation plan for those in Texas. They can simply use the same taxation program the old federal government used.
2. Stating that because 15% of the economy is based on exports, does not correspond to 85% of the Texan economy is dependent on trade with the US. Instead, most of the economy is locally based. Local shops, restaurants, schools, roads, and housing are all goods and services provided via the local economy.

3. The brain drain argument would only occur if Texas’s economy were to completely collapse, which I shown would not happen. People dislike moving due to family and friends ties and the expense of moving.

4. While companies might leave, the assets and people who know the information would not. Extent the analysis that they would still exist, just change in name. There are also plenty of companies that either only reside in Texas or exist mainly in Texas.

5. CON’s case on US hegemony and US companies moving contradict one another. Why would corporations move out of Texas if the US is no longer a hegemony?

6. Higher export costs of oil means cheaper oil for citizens residing in Texas. Cheap oil in Texas creates a huge boom to many economic sectors due to its huge value in industry.

My Case

Economy

1. Once the US economy collapses due to debt problems, then the US would feel the main effects of the collapse, while Texas would only absorb a fraction of the problem. During the global recession, there were plenty of nations that had positive growth levels.

2. Con must be kidding on how he does not understand how unsustainable debt is bad, when there’s empirical evidence of unemployment reaching 25% in European nations with debt-crisis and their problems are still unresolved. If the debt cannot be paid off, then higher taxations, inflation, or painful austerity measures must occur. Once companies first start out, they have to obtain huge levels of debt to obtain their capital. That debt remains, but falls over time. The US debt is increasing over time and is not a start-up nation. As stated previously, debt as a percentage of gdp would fall if it were being used for growth which CON drops.

3. Con’s own source states that “The evidence shows that the country is on a course of spending and debt accumulation that could lead to serious trouble not today or tomorrow but probably 10 to 20 years down the road.”. Getting rid of 2.4 trillion in deficit spending still leads to trillions in deficit spending in a decade. I have previously showed through the US GAO that by 2040, the debt is projected to be at 200% gdp-to-debt. Is Con also serious that entitelement spending are an investment in human capital when social security and medicare is given to seniors after they retire, in other words once they provide no productivity to the economy. This is a joke.

Culture

Texas has a lot of ethnicities. This does not correspond to a heterogeneous culture. Culture corresponds to geographical approximately, which CON drops. If one were born in Texas he/she would more likely value different things then if he/she were born in New England, regardless of ethnicity. Texas can more easily achieve actions that cater to the needs of themselves rather than be imprisoned by the federal government’s policies.

Ability to Secede:

Con concedes that immobile infrastructure would remain in the US.

Economy of Scale

Large Economy of scale is a sufficient condition for corruption, not a necessary condition for corruption. Australia and Canada are large landmasses. They do not have large populations. Canada’s population is 34 million and Australia’s population is 22 million. The US has a population 313 million, which is 9.2 times larger then Canada and 14.2 times larger than Australia. Africa is plagued with problems which cause its governments to be corrupt. There are diseconomy of scales issues and diverse political and cultural opinions that occur if the population is too large. Diseconomics of scale is an economically recognized concept, so the logic is sound[6].

Conclusion

Texas is better off without the union.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] http://tinyurl.com...

Raisor

Con

Apologies in advance: this was speed written with no proofread during a very busy week.

I will respond to my opponent using his numbering:

Con Case:

1. Civil War

1) The consistent pattern is Jackson’s affirmation of the use of force against S Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, the Supreme Court affirming that States have no right to secede, and the Obama White House stating the Founding Faters “did not provide a right to walk away ... more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.

2) Our involvement in Libya was still an act of war, extend all my evidence of the massive military involvement of the US in the past decade alone. The US has never been gun shy and won’t be in the face of secession.

3) Now Pro want to say Canadian secession was “relatively” peaceful- he struggles to provide even a few examples of peaceful secession. African independence wasn’t peaceful- there were massive riots and guerilla warfare in Algeria, race wars in South Africa, rampant Civil Wars across the nation, a rise in cruel dictators like Mobutu. Aside from the Cold War and violence at the hands of state police in the USSR, sure the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. It is indeed rare for secession to occur peacefully.

4) Pro offers no analysis as to how the cost outweighs benefits for the US to go to war. Pro concedes that the US would win a Civil War, and also concedes that secession would devastate the US economically and tank US Heg. Even by Pro’s count it is in the US best interest to preserve the Union by force. That some people have friends in Texas will matter about as much as all the Chinese people living in the US matter to current US-Sino relations.

5) US maintained Hegemony during the Cold War- that’s why we won and western influence dominates the world.

2. Hegemony

1) I didn’t drop the N Korea example- I pointed out that the fact that North and South Korea ARE NOT fighting proves the US stabilizes- the Korean Armistice was signed by the US. The fact that nuclear proliferation is occurring doesn’t prove US Heg is irrelevant, it just proves that some problems continue to be intractable. Hegemony isn’t a magic wand, it’s a very stable power structure.

2) Pro misses my Syria point- the UN is divided on enacting Syria SANCTIONS showing they are a non-unified actor, which impedes their efficacy. By the way the US has enacted sanctions on Syria[1]. Pro points out the economic instability of EU member states yet points to it as a reliable global force. Note that Pro drops my point that NATO is useless without the US.

3) Pro’s evidence the terrorist attacks are up is a blog chart with little cartoon faces on it and poorly documented sources. Anyways cat’s out of the bag on the US being in the Middle East- I don’t think terrorists are going to look kindly on the birthplace of GW Bush even if it doesn’t have troops in the Middle East. Extend my evidence the US Heg is key to power projection and the ability to reach far off places like Pakistan, this is how we killed Bin Laden and crippled Al Qaeda.

3) Pro gives no evidence that Texas could handle immigration better, just that there are a lot of illegals now.

4) The South China Sea is a region of border disputes and a flashpoint for wars to start- my evidence lists several examples of small scale engagements. Threat of U.S. intervention dampens these conflicts, but if Pro thinks that a war between China and Japan is in Texas’ best interest then I guess we can ignore the South China Sea.

5) Iraq doesn’t have to be a good state for the US presence to help global security. US presence in the Middle East stabilizes oil reserves which are crucial to the global economy and maintains a balance of power- clearly observable in the Persian Gulf War. Global instability doesn’t look like an Iraqi failed state, it looks like an Iraqi dictator with his hand on the global oil supply.

3. Economy

1. Pro is right- it isn’t hard to come up with a tax system for Texas- its hard to get politicians to agree to legislate a tax system that is capable of replacing federal funding. Replacing 33% of the budget will be a drawn out political nightmare.
2. The point remains that Texas can’t rely on a trade economy and depends heavily on the US via defense spending, oil refineries, etc. On a side note, I bet most of Texas’ wine comes from California. It would suck to not have wine.

3. Brain drain will occur as soon as jobs move across the Texas border. When Lockheed and Martin moves its jobs to Virginia, the workers will follow.

4. When Lockheed leaves, it will take its “assets and people” with. Top management will go where the government contracts are and it doesn’t take a corporate genius to know that a brand new country will not be nearly as reliable a customer as the faithful repeat buyer of the USA.

5. Heg has nothing to do with companies leaving Texas. Defense contractors work for the US. When Texas is no longer part of the US, their contracts with the USFG will force them to leave. Recall that Texas’ largest economic sector is defense.

6. “Higher export costs of oil means cheaper oil for citizens residing in Texas” No. It creates higher global oil prices via market inefficiency.

Pro Case

Economy

  1. 1. Some countries had positive growth during the recession- these were the exception not the rule, reference my R2 evidence that only 1 EU country maintained positive growth and even the growth rate of other countries slowed. None of these countries were as closely intertwined with the US as Texas is. Additionally, the total collapse of the US economy would be magnitudes worse than the recession. Finally, per my R2 evidence, the post-recession global economy is already weakened and less resilient meaning the next shock will destroy the system.
  2. 2. Pro gives no timeframe or limit on how much debt will trigger the unemployment impacts he cites- these impacts could be decades down the road, giving us plenty of time to come up with solutions. Secession is an immediate guarantee that the US and global economy collapses, meaning that even if Pro wins that the US is on a bad path Texas should still not secede.
  3. 3. My evidence also says that we have made strides toward reducing the debt growth, showing there is hope for a political solution. All of Pro’s debt growth predictions are based on the status quo, no one can account for political solutions not in place- and my evidence shows that political solutions are emerging. Again, its try-or die.
  4. 4. Extend that debt is an investment- just because some of the debt (Social Security) doesn’t directly fund human capital doesn’t change that most of it does. The bulk of the debt funds medical welfare, defense, infrastructure, etc. which help grow the economy.

Culture

Pro offers no evidence that Texans mostly value the same things. This whole point is silly- lets talk about how Texas should start a civil war because they don’t agree with Maine on gun control. I don’t agree with my coworkers on gun control but Im not going to quit my job over it, because that wouldn’t be in my best interest.

Ability to Secede:

Extend that Texas will lose all tanks, airplanes, computer systems, trucks, medical supplies, disaster response supplies belonging to the US. Good luck protecting your borders without your government issued assault rifles.

Economy of Scale

Even if Pro wins that there are economies of scale, this isn’t a reason for Texas to leave. Pro uses evidence that China is corrupt to prove Texas should leave the US. But the US isn’t China- Pro needs to prove the US is corrupt to prove it is worth leaving and he doesn’t do this. Also, extend that many small countries like Nigeria are very corrupt- Pro needs to prove Texas wouldn’t be corrupt.

Conclusion

A house divided against itself cannot stand.


[1] http://usforeignpolicy.about.com...

Debate Round No. 4
darkkermit

Pro


I thank my opponent for this debate.


CON has provided weak evidence for a Civil War. Historical data is not good for modern times with quite a bit of technological and cultural changes. While there might be natives to foreign countries the US invades, they are of a minority. The majority of people know Texans. Furthermore, the US going to war to overthrow dictatorships can be justifiable. Going to war against a democratic nation, not so much. If the US invaded Texas, this would be the first time in over a century that the US would directly invade a democratic nation.


The idea that US hegemony contributes to stability is also weak. CON even concedes that our ability to create stability is poor through stating that “it proves that some problems continue to be intractable. Hegemony isn’t a magic wand” My source shows that the US directly contributes to terrorist acts, they do not create stability. The sources used were the Heritage Foundation and the University of Chicago, hardly poor sources. While Con might think the Heritage could be bias, the Heritage foundation supports a stronger military, so if anything it should be bias towards more troops, not less troops in the Middle East.


The UN will live on, and has been a greater force in the formation of internal law and human rights watch.


Con’s whole argument rests on companies moving, yet if Texas marks the end of hegemony, there’s no reason why companies would support the US over Texas in the first place. The assets and infrastructure the companies obtain are mainly immobile. If it was easy to move these companies, they’d move to China where labor is cheaper. Yet it is very difficult to move companies, so they would remain or at the very least be sold off. If a company does not have the immobile infrastructure that comes with the mobile infrastructure, they aren’t going to keep the mobile ones. They’d sell it off since they’d have no use of it. CON states that global prices of oil would increase as a result of exporting tariff. Yet this does not take into consideration local prices. If Texas is not exporting oil, it’s using its own oil, which drives down prices. Countries in oil producing countries pay less than a dollar for oil, while the US pays way more for oil then them.


The timeline for financial Armageddon is “decades” down the road, but more like a decade. Congress has shown itself quite incompetent to even pass a budget, never mind balance a budget. The “deficit cuts” that Obama cut were just cuts from the higher deficit spending down the road. In no way does the US come even close to balancing the budget. All budget proposals that have been introduced to balance the budget like “Paul Ryan’s Budget” have been shot down and labeled as “social Darwinism”. This debt is crippling and threatening and Texas needs to leave the union to avoid this collapse. It could be affected from it, but they’d still be a lot less affected then the US itself.


While it is possible that Texas could become corrupt, there is no guarantee it will. However, with increasing government spending, and a congress divided, corruption is rising and inevitable in the federal government. Congress’s approval rating is only 14%; lower the cockroaches [1]. While Texas government policy might not be able to satisfy everyone, it can satisfy a lot more people than federal policy ever could and much less vulnerable to corrupt like the US government is.


The time for Texas to secede is now. They have ports that would allow them to trade, and are a net-tax generator, not a net-tax drain which would allow the Texas government to use its funds to improve themselves and can do it better then the federal government could because Texan’s know better how to deal with their problems then the federal government could.


America’s problems have been getting worse, not better. While the transition might cause some difficulty for Texas, they will more likely lead to prosperity then the US could.


Raisor

Con


The Resolution asks us to evaluate secession in light of Texas’ interests. A cost benefit analysis of the points in the round to see which world offers the strongest hope of a bright Texas future.


Culture


This point doesn’t even register in the cost/benefit analysis when compared to issues like terrorism, global economic collapse, and civil war. Additionally, I showed that Texas is quite diverse and Pro offered no evidence that cultural homogeneity is even desirable.


Economy of Scale


Pro offers meager evidence – he admits he only shows the economy of scale is a “sufficient” criteria for a healthy government without providing evidence that Texas will not become corrupt. His case claims that large countries like China and Russia are corrupt, ignoring the fact that the US is not. The impacts on this point are miniscule, the US is not corrupt so any improvement would be marginal at best.


Economy


Pro’s advantage is the collapse of the US economy due to deficit spending. Pro admits that this collapse is “decades” off, meaning we have plenty of time to try to fix the problem, which the status quo is by cutting spending by over $2 trillion. The global economy is so interconnected and the post-recession economy so fragile that the collapse of the US economy would cause the collapse of the global economy; whether Texas secedes or not, its economy sinks or swims with the US. We agree that Texas is a massive economic asset to the US; if Texas secedes the US economy WILL collapse- it won’t be a matter of “will the US collapse decades down the road?” but a certain and immediate collapse as federal tax income is lost and interstate trade is disrupted.


I have a laundry list of ways secession will wreck the Texas economy- interstate trade will be disrupted, the US will retaliate with a trade war, brain drain will occur as Texas takes time to get its house in order. Defense contractors have contracts with the US, meaning they will have to leave Texas to uphold their contracts, depriving Texas of its largest economic sector. Nothing about Heg collapse stops defense contractors from upholding their contracts. All of these impacts are immediate and they will cripple the Texas economy. Forget waiting around to see if deficit spending gets out of control decades down the road, secession will ruin the Texas economy long before the US economy collapses.


Civil War


Pro’s only defense is that it won’t occur; conceding that Texas will lose and that Civil War would tank the Texas economy. The magnitude of this impact outweighs all others as a Civil War would mean the destruction of Texas. Civil War is very likely given the massive economic and hegemonic interests in Texas. Historical and legal precedents all emphatically proclaim that the federal government has a right to forcibly preserve the Union and will do so if necessary; this makes it a justifiable war from the US perspective. This impact is immediate, high probability, and high magnitude; Civil War alone outweighs any risk of economy collapse decades down the road.


Heg


We can quibble about the extent to which US Heg stabilizes, but the dissolution of any world power would destabilize the international system. No other entity exists that could stabilize the globe in the wake of US collapse- NATO is propped up by the US and the EU is on the brink of economic collapse. I have pointed out many examples of how the US stabilizes the globe- from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. Global instability puts Texas at greater risk of war and destabilizes the global economy.


Conclusion


In evaluating the best interests of Texas, security comes first. The risk of Civil War and global instability put the lives of Texans at risk, and both would disrupt the Texas economy. Texas secession causes many serious, immediate impacts in the hope of avoiding a problem that is decades down the road and is being fixed as we speak. Texas’ best interest is served as part of the Union, working with the Union to solve the Union’s problem.


Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
14) PRO: ""No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want"-Ludwig von Mises. What authority does von Mises have here?

15) PRO: "The idea that the US has been responsible for reducing terrorism is absurd. Terrorism attacks increase as more troops are sent into the Middle East[2]. " Interesting point. I'll side with PRO on this one, although it's a minor point compared to CON's overall case.

16) PRO: "The brain drain argument would only occur if Texas"s economy were to completely collapse, which I shown would not happen. " No, you had to show that somehow Texas would not be dragged into the abyss if the US economy failed. None of your numbers take this scenario into account.

17) PRO: "Higher export costs of oil means cheaper oil for citizens residing in Texas. Cheap oil in Texas creates a huge boom to many economic sectors due to its huge value in industry." This assumes a ridiculous number of scenarios - that Texas oil would become nationalized, and that they would not charge going market rates for their own citizens. Then there's the whole point that the US would not let go of Texas oil without a fight.

I glanced over the rest of CON's round #4, and read PRO's closing statement. Nothing substantive changed in my mind.

---

Conclusion.

Looks like CON dropped the terrorism point. That's one point for PRO, and the rest for CON. IMHO, this debate wasn't even close. PRO did not seem to grasp CON's hegemony framework and how Texan secession would have to overcome the hurdles intrinsic to resisting a hegemonic power in order to be viable. For this, arguments go to CON. Very well argued, very cogent, CON.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
8) PRO: "The spreading of western values, the UN, and the interdependency and interconnectivity of people and nations based on globalization has played a more critical role in maintaining peace then the US military ever has." I disagree and attribute it more to MAD. Regardless, I will await how CON addresses this argument.

9) PRO: "Programs like NASA would still exist if Texas were to secede. " Yes they would. If Texas seceded, all the mobile assets belonging to the FEDERAL institution of NASA would relocate to somewhere within the US.

10) CON: "Secession is rarely peaceful. The 1837 rebellion, military pressure from war of 1812, U.S. raids on Canadian British forts, and U.S. expansionism were all key in Canadian independence [3]." I don't see anywhere in that link that Canada is actually "independent". The link goes on: "Confederation was accomplished when the Queen gave royal assent to the British North America Act (BNA Act) on March 29, 1867...While the BNA Act [1867] gave Canada more autonomy than it had before, it was far from full independence from the United Kingdom. Defence of British North America became a Canadian responsibility."

Fascinating, I never knew this. I will keep sources a tie then, since both PRO and CON mis-sourced on this point.

11) CON: "The reason "wealthy" countries haven"t engaged in warfare since WWII is because of U.S. Hegemony:" Agree. PRO's point #8 addressed here.

12) CON: "A decline in Heg is disastrous for all, including Texas; global instability causes a rise in conflicts and a rise in terrorism. I even pointed out that the large Mexican border makes Texas especially prone to terrorist attacks." Again, agree.

13) CON: "Pro doesn"t dispute that if the US economy fails the global economy fails..." Including Texas. PRO at this point has no argument, IMHO.

(con't)
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: "For example, if the local government wants to build a local park, ."
PRO: "However, ."
:/

2) PRO: "Second, it has the ability to defend itself. It has 13 military bases[6]." FEDERAL military bases. Extremely important distinction there. (CON states this later as well)

3) PRO: "Texas as a state also does not rack up a trade deficit. It actually has a trade surplus of $100 billion.[5]" Link does not substantiate this point.

4) CON: "The US will not let Texas leave peacefully..." This substantially turns the debate from fantasy to reality. The rest of CON's C1 argument is very strong. C2 even stronger. C3 is also well-stated.

5) CON: "The population/economy of scale argument is without warrant. Pro points out the three countries with the largest populations also are the strongest global economies and seems to think this shows why large populations are bad." Actually India is not very strong. Its GDP still lags behind European countries that are less than 10% the size of India. Regardless, for now I will side with CON, that "The economy of scale argument has no impact and no way to evaluate. "

6) PRO: "Canada and Australia peaceful secede from the British Empire." I looked this up. Apparently Canada still recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch. Canada has not seceded. Same with Australia. Interesting. At this point, I am very tempted to award sources to CON.

7) PRO: "There"s no way that the American people would accept the killing of Texan civilians in the event that they secede. While killing those in foreign countries is one thing, it is another thing to kill Texans in which most Americans know many people from Texas." If Texas seceded, it would become one of these foreign countries. CON's civil war example is overall much more to the point.

(con't)
Posted by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
Sorry, I forgot to post my source.

[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
Its 3.5 rounds
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Oh dang, didn't realize this was 5 rounds. Ouch.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
Man I have no time for this next argument. Expect a buzzer beater some time sat.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
darkkermitRaisorTied
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: see comments
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
darkkermitRaisorTied
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: I read the resolution as an evaluation of the best interests of the state of Texas, within the topic of secession. In debate, there are axiomatic conditions that are so obvious, that we often lose our ability to articulate them. "Why does 2+2=4?" for example, is a surprisingly complicated thing to answer. We atrophy our ability to justify this sort of thing, because we never discuss it any longer. The case against Texas secession is so overwhelming, that (I feel) it falls within this category. None of the "best interests" presented by Pro are relevant: the poor US economy and debt, Texas' supposed (not proven) ability to secede, and Texas culture are nowhere examples of benefits to Texas from secession. An example of this might be: "Texas would benefit from secession because the state may rejoin Mexico, and enjoy Mexican social safety nets." Or something similar. I did not see how the few actual benefits of secession that were presented were inevitable.