Debate Rounds (4)
1. The state's can choose how they want to handle political issues. For example, New York may want gun control but Tennessee does not. State's rights would settle this issue.
2. The state's can do what works best for them. Different states have different climates, economies, infrastructure, etc. It is illogical to treat them all the same.
3. The state's have different moral beliefs in part because of different religious denominations and other moral values. Georgia can have no gay marriage and New York can allow it.
This is all I can think of, at least until I receive a counter argument.
1. Differences between states would cause misunderstandings.
2. Especially this point makes sense in case of law and Constitution. As is was said before, each state has its own rules and laws but I don't assume it as good appearance. For example, the same gay marriage. Gay-couple living in the state where it's prohibited will move to another state and live there. It's not an easy situtation when in one state everything is okay with such marriages while in others they argue with that
3. And finally, differences between states would lead to separation inside one country, It's better to assume it as one nation rather than people from different states.
2. Your argument on the gay marriage item also resembles Dred Scott. How it will be handled will not change. You seem to think that this will be a new problem anyway. There are already conflicts with this gay marriage conflicts. Furthermore, the issue can also be seen in how different states handle guns. We Americans already deal with this and we will continue to deal with this just like we have been.
3. I will refer back to the period from 1815-1860 to respond to your third point of argument. Beginning in 1815, America was extremely nationalistic. However, as the nation continued to pass nationalistic laws, the states from all over seperated into sections and started to either dislike the other sections or dislike the federal government. This constant attempt at nationalism actually caused severe sectionalism and eventually a war. If the nation would have simply allowed sectionalism without trying to impose federal authority over the south, there would have been no issues and the likelyhood of a war would have dropped significantly. Think about it, if the Federal Government just gave the states what they wanted and allowed them to have power themselves, why would they have felt like the country had conditions in which they "simply cannot survive."
Arguments against nationalism:
4. Nationalism has a history of creating strong divides. Think about it, if you squeeze something too hard, won't it eventually bust? This is what happened before the civil war. If you start with sectionalism, there will be no squeezing and everything will remain together because it is better for them economically to stay united.
5. Nationalism lumps everyone together like they are all the same. You wouldn't put all children into AP classes just like you wouldn't put all students into remedial classes. Different students have different needs and talents. Accepting nationalism is the same as putting all students into one class. The Northeast has developed a service industry. The Midwest has created an agricultural industry. Image the nation passing a law that places a tariff on all goods imported. This will help the service industry the Northeast is known for; however, it will kill the economy of the midwest. Why not just let New York and Pennslyvania and other Northeastern states pass the tariff and leave the midwest alone? Imagine that you live in New York, where gun control might be effective(just might though), and imagine Georgia where gun control will increase crime and will be catastrophic. If the nation passes a law to ban all guns, New York may prosper but you will see a rise in the number of families that get massacured in Georgia. Why not just let New York ban the guns and Georgia can loosen the gun control? The only reason not to give the states more power is to give more power to the central government so that it may be tyrannical and it can control the people more.
6. If one national leader is corrupt, it trickles down to everyone under nationalism. If the president takes a bribe from a car company to institute a tariff on all cars produced overseas, car companies all over America will shut down and the car American companies can have a virtual monopoly on cars. This corruption by one person hurts all fifty states. Now, if a governor took this bribe, it would only effect his own state. This is damage control if anything.
7. Under nationalism, the smallest economic problem could magnify and be catastrophic to all the other states. Under nationalism, if one problem arises, every single state all over the country will be hit extremely hard by this. However, if there is state's rights and one state messes up, the worst that can happen is that it messes with the states around it, not the entire nation. State's rights will stabilize the country.
Given these reasons, it is simply illogical to support a strong national government and weak states.
2. Speaking about your gun control point, I would like to say that there are still some fights about that. So I don't think that America deals with that too well. Of course, issues like this are not solved in a moment and I realise it. But we have faced with the situation when it could be dangerous and lead to tragic events again. There should not be differences in this kind of questions when it concerns a life of peaceful people. So it does not make any sense when one state has accepted the gun control law and all celebrate it while others have not because of some reasons that I think in this situations are just selfish. The law does not work if it is not accepted by the whole country.
3. Speaking about Civil war of 19th century and consequent separation of America into confederate South and "Yankee" North, I would like to say that people from different states were against some laws so it anyway would lead to the Civil War. It is a history then, we can not say talk about with "If..."
I did not say anything about nationalism and I agree that it is a bad phenomenon. So that is why I do not see the reason we could argue about that.
And also in defense of my arguments I would like to emphasize one fact. In news from 15th November of 2012 there is quite interesting thing. About 20 states of the USA wanted to be separated from the country. But it was not just a consequence of Obama's election but more like economic and financial problems. In my opinion, every country lives through some difficulties and the USA are not an exception. But people can not quit every time, when they are not satisfied with the policy of government or something, they have to stand in a row with other citizens to fortify the state of country. But possibility of separation makes people weak, they are not able to face with problems. I think that you will not argue with that point.
2. As far as gun control goes, there is no way to apply one method of gun control to the entire country and it all work out equally well. It is impossible. There are many laws not accepted by the whole country that work fine. Any legislation put forth by the state as opposed to the fed's is significantly more effective because it is designed to fit the exact needs of the state.
3. As far as your point about the secession threats. This is just a few people in each state. The vast majority did not want to seceed. And if states got their own rights, they could not blame the nation as much for their problems and would have no reason to seceed anyways. I am not saying that states should seceed, just that they get more power.
4. I doubt that you can argue that legislation that meets the specific needs of one area is better than legislation that ATTEMPTS to fit the need of 350 million people who live in all walks of life. I doubt that you can argue that states' rights is not practical, because it is more practical than federal rights. It is for these reasons that I support states' rights and it is for these reasons it is illogical not to support them.
In my opinion, the states already have enough rights. They have their own laws and rules, what is next? I just do not understand, why and for what reason states should get more rights than they have now.
In my own country, we also have a country divided into regions. But all the regions obey to the one legislative branch above, there is one Constitution and laws for whole country. And if the government accepts new law, for instance, about fight against terrorism, all regions accept that, despite for fact that some regions simply "want" it or not. And it also works pretty well.
In America, the states do NOT have enough power. Obamacare, gay rights, gun control, abortion, etc. should all be handled at the state level because of drastic differences in the regional needs or beliefs of a state, but it is not. If the states do not have this power, how could they possibly have enough rights?
You seem to think that no law can be effective if it does not take effect on the whole country; however, laws can not be effective if they are not enforced and made by the individual states. Crime is higher in Illinois than in Georgia, obviously it will be harder to enforce a law in Illinois than Georgia. Furthermore, people in Tennessee don't want gay marriage but people in California do. Why should the nation make gay marriage legal across the nation to appease California at the expense of Tennessee or vice versa? Why not just let California legalize gay marriage? Gun control may be effective in New York but not in Georgia. Why should the national governmnet outlaw guns across the nation to make New York safer at the expense of the lives of the innocent citizens in Georgia. I have already made this exact point before but yet you continue to think that state's rights are a bad idea and that national laws are better than state laws.
Again, your beliefs are highly illogical and state's rights are the most logical method to ensure the most effective laws are instituted across the nation.
I just compared division of two countries into states and regions. The different thing is just a freedom given to states to do whatever they want as if they were countries by themselves. I realize that people are different in different states. However, they are citizens of one country, so that is why in my opinion, they all should obey to one law, rather than create a hundreds of different ones in each single state.
I see your point you are talking about, however, I am still on my point of view. I think that I gave you enough strong arguments so you can review yours.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.