The Instigator
TooBigRabbits
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SupaDudz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US should split into smaller countries united by a political Union.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 105101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

TooBigRabbits

Pro

I believe the size of the USA creates social and economic problems within the country. I propose the US separate into two or more independent countries; with each country voting for representatives to a Union designed to keep peace and hold the separate countries together. I believe there are three main advantages to this:

1. Economically speaking this would provide huge boosts to areas that are slacking in the country, as well as further grow already successful economies.

2. Social tensions would be eased.

3. Areas that are suffering due to policies that benefit the majority of the country can change those policies without affecting or angering other areas.
SupaDudz

Con

Hello sir...I accept your challenge and I believe it will be a fun debate! This topic is very unique. Good luck to all.

CLAIM
States would not know how to govern. yes some states would be successful, but other poor, impoverished, and little economic support would fall into anarchy

PRO R1 ARGS
1. Economically speaking this would provide huge boosts to areas that are slacking in the country, as well as further grow already successful economies.

2. Social tensions would be eased.

3. Areas that are suffering due to policies that benefit the majority of the country can change those policies without affecting or angering other areas.

MY RESPONSES

1. I don't think it would give a boost to slacking parts. This is because the federal government gives reimbursement, free health care, and food stamps to the poor. Some states believe this is not right and if they divide into a separate union, they would not provide funds...Poverty would increase in these "countries".
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Wiki Sources were sued from USFG poverty

2. Social tensions would not eased! For example, Alabama, a very segregated states, would for sure go back to slavery system because that is what gave them a profit. There would be uproar in these parts and more racism would happen because of the income
My source was history

3. There is already state protected parks...States have control on that. They would basically do the same with national parks. I do not think that claim is valid to vote on
Sources were list of state protected parks

CONCLUDE
States would go into anarchy, govt would collapse, the whole U.S territory would crumble
Debate Round No. 1
TooBigRabbits

Pro

I do think it will be fun and I'm sure it will be useful to both sides. Good luck!

-"States would not know how to govern. yes some states would be successful, but other poor, impoverished, and little economic support would fall into anarchy"

Countries would be broken up along new lines. States that were poor or governed poorly before the break up would no longer exist, instead they would become a part of the new country. With the size of the US government at the moment they tend to sweep these poor states under the rug in order to focus on areas that are making money. Being a part of a smaller country these poor regions are more likely to receive aid.

-"1. I don't think it would give a boost to slacking parts. This is because the federal government gives reimbursement, free health care, and food stamps to the poor. Some states believe this is not right and if they divide into a separate union, they would not provide funds...Poverty would increase in these "countries"."

My response here is the same as above. I would like to add though, federal aid is not the only way to keep an area from being poor. Providing business and job opportunities would be far more beneficial to the majority of the US's poor regions.

-"2. Social tensions would not eased! For example, Alabama, a very segregated states, would for sure go back to slavery system because that is what gave them a profit. There would be uproar in these parts and more racism would happen because of the income"

Assuming Alabama wanted to go back to slavery they would be a part of a country that also contained the surrounding states. If the entire country that contained the former state of Alabama wanted to reinstate slavery then it wouldn't cause social tension because everyone would agree. I don't believe Alabama, or any state, would vote to bring back slavery.

-"3. There is already state protected parks...States have control on that. They would basically do the same with national parks. I do not think that claim is valid to vote on"

My point was that there are certain federal policies that benefit much of the US, however these same policies negatively affect some areas. With smaller countries it would be easier to make policy that benefits everyone and that everyone agrees on.

MY CONCLUSION FOR THIS ROUND:
States would thrive, government becomes more effective, the US Union countries grow stronger than ever
SupaDudz

Con

I would like to mention a typo I made in ROUND !. I said sued when I meant used...my apologies to PRO if they were confused

REASON 1
"Countries would be broken up along new lines. States that were poor or governed poorly before the break up would no longer exist, instead they would become a part of the new country. With the size of the US government at the moment they tend to sweep these poor states under the rug in order to focus on areas that are making money. Being a part of a smaller country these poor regions are more likely to receive aid.”-R2 PRO

My evidence comes from this rebuttal: https://www.google.com...

This list says the 22 states get a higher than B- grade. An B- will not be enough to have a successful countries that can agree with reach other. Sure they would be tended too but some leaders are not Politically Correct. Food stamps and federal aid by Roosevelt in the 40’s cares for the impoverished. One government in unity is a lot better than 50 differently ranking polished states

REASON 2
"Assuming Alabama wanted to go back to slavery they would be a part of a country that also contained the surrounding states. If the entire country that contained the former state of Alabama wanted to reinstate slavery then it wouldn't cause social tension because everyone would agree. I don't believe Alabama, or any state, would vote to bring back slavery."

Yes they would be uniform, but for the wrong reasons. Slavery should not be accepted back into society because as we have learned from history, it causes wars. There is a lot of evidence that they would convert. They were one of the most thriving states with slaves as an income. After the abolition of slavery...they went on one of the most decreased and devastating sprees of poverty and income, losing and losing money. I have no doubt they would want to return to their successful ways.

REASON 3
"My point was that there are certain federal policies that benefit much of the US, however these same policies negatively affect some areas. With smaller countries it would be easier to make policy that benefits everyone and that everyone agrees on."

My bad that was misinterpretation by me. Here is my response. States have policies too that fit them. A negatively affected USFG policy would obviously not go through. States think alike and if one states have identical policies to another, I do not think a policy like this will pass. That is with future policies. Present policies have flaws sure, but I do not think there is any evidence that they hurt the state as a whole, it has been state policies that hurt the most. For example, Illinois Beverage Tax was not made by congress, it was made by Illinois Government, therefore it was a state matter

CONCLUSION

Overall, I think this topic is interesting. But it would end up leading to collapse in the end
Finally I like to leave a quote

"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth."

Baha'U'Lla
Debate Round No. 2
TooBigRabbits

Pro

Arg 1, R2:
"This list says the 22 states get a higher than B- grade. An B- will not be enough to have a successful countries that can agree with reach other. Sure they would be tended too but some leaders are not Politically Correct. Food stamps and federal aid by Roosevelt in the 40"0"1"0"4"0"9"6"5"0"1"0"9"6"7"0"4s cares for the impoverished. One government in unity is a lot better than 50 differently ranking polished states" -Con

Response:
The list involves the states all breaking into independent countries. If the US was split into, lets say five, countries rather than 50 the weaknesses of some regions could be balanced by strengths of another. For example, the US splits into 5 countries: the northeast, the southwest, the west, the Midwest, and the southeast. West Virginia has the worst economy of any state (source 1). If West Virginia became part of the southeast the other southeast regions would have incentive to fix the problems in West Virginia. As a part of the US there is no incentive to provide aid to West Virginia, as you mentioned the current government is ok with simply providing federal aid to the poor and letting them remain poor. As a part of a smaller country it becomes more important that this region succeed and as such long term solutions to systemic problems are developed and implemented by the government of the new country.

Arg 2, R2:
"Yes they would be uniform, but for the wrong reasons. Slavery should not be accepted back into society because as we have learned from history, it causes wars. There is a lot of evidence that they would convert. They were one of the most thriving states with slaves as an income. After the abolition of slavery...they went on one of the most decreased and devastating sprees of poverty and income, losing and losing money. I have no doubt they would want to return to their successful ways." -Con

Response:
This is mostly an argument from emotion. As I said previously, one state would not be able to control the politics of an entire region. If only one state in a region wanted slavery it wouldn't be reinstated, however if every state in a region wanted slavery then reinstating slavery would not cause social tension since everyone agreed. My argument was that social tension would be eased. Not erased, but eased and more manageable. Smaller countries, made up of regions that share similar morals and views, would not have as many extreme divides between social classes. I do not think CON has addressed my argument.

Arg 3, R2:
"My bad that was misinterpretation by me. Here is my response. States have policies too that fit them. A negatively affected USFG policy would obviously not go through. States think alike and if one states have identical policies to another, I do not think a policy like this will pass. That is with future policies. Present policies have flaws sure, but I do not think there is any evidence that they hurt the state as a whole, it has been state policies that hurt the most. For example, Illinois Beverage Tax was not made by congress, it was made by Illinois Government, therefore it was a state matter" -con

Response:
My argument here, if poorly worded before, is that smaller countries are able to pass policy that is more tailored to the individual region. Lets take, for example, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA is a federal law that outlines the federal regulations on drugs, under the CSA marijuana is a class 1 substance. This law makes it illegal to use, possess, sell, or grow marijuana regardless of state law (source 2). This federal law negatively affects states that wish to see marijuana made legal, by hampering their economy and punishing citizens. If the US were split into smaller countries the new countries who wanted to legalize marijuana could do so, and countries who did not want to legalize marijuana would not be affected. This helps regions deal with issues involving their citizens without having to worry about the affect it may have on citizens of another region. The US is huge and because of this it is very diverse, this diversity may be seen as a good thing by some but in the end it causes divides within the country that can't be healed with policy. Given the ability to govern how they see fit the regions of the US would be more likely to cooperate and serve their citizens.

Arg 4, R2 (left in comments):
"State gov would not have the funds to build more jobs. There would be no impact to this the jobs would even decrease because some jobs have fed gov support so without that, there would be a decrease" -con

Response:
The federal government receives funding from taxpayers, the new governments would do the same. Thus, the new governments would receive funding equal to their share of the federal government allowing them to provide the same benefits of the current government if they chose to do so. The same jobs provided by the federal government would be provided by the new governments. The role of the government, in the case of job growth, is to provide an environment that encourages businesses and investment. My point was that the poor regions of the US are ignored, if the US were broken up into smaller countries the new governments could focus on bringing business and investment to these poor regions.

Conclusion:
CON has failed to address my arguments and has relied heavily on emotion. I believe none of the arguments made by CON have proved that the US benefits from staying united and I believe the arguments I have presented show clearly why the US would benefit from splitting up.

Its been a fun debate CON. Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttal.

I will leave you with a quote as well:

"Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty." -Thomas DiLorenzo

SOURCES:

1: wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-economies/21697/

2: http://criminal.findlaw.com...
SupaDudz

Con

Yes it was a fun debate. A very interesting topic to debate about. I think it is an interesting idea to present and will make a very interesting

R3 Arguments
"The list involves the states all breaking into independent countries. If the US was split into, lets say five, countries rather than 50 the weaknesses of some regions could be balanced by strengths of another. For example, the US splits into 5 countries: the northeast, the southwest, the west, the Midwest, and the southeast. West Virginia has the worst economy of any state (source 1). If West Virginia became part of the southeast the other southeast regions would have incentive to fix the problems in West Virginia. As a part of the US there is no incentive to provide aid to West Virginia, as you mentioned the current government is ok with simply providing federal aid to the poor and letting them remain poor. As a part of a smaller country it becomes more important that this region succeed and as such long term solutions to systemic problems are developed and implemented by the government of the new country."

Some of these nations would be only relied on one central state to do the work. I am going to stick with an example...
Lets say the Southeast where to include the states Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee. I am going to use these states as an example...
My source: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
I also confirmed with http://www.worldatlas.com...
More Sources:http://floridapolitics.com...

Florida838,939
Tennessee297,159
Georgia474,696
Alabama200,414
Mississippi104,753
You can clearly see that Florida and Tennessee control the GDP in Millions Dollars
Alabama and Mississippi are clearly holding behind the rest. So if Florida were to add these to their government, they would have to pay tons of money to fix and get these cities back on track. First off, hypothetically, the politicians alone would not want to waste the valuable money, because their politicians are obviously greedy for money. This is reflecting in Florida's mayor (Rick Scott's) 52% approval rating in Florida. People would oppose him even if he did this, but he willingly would not do it.
Lets say he did it. It would cost millions of dollars to fix the economy of these states. This would cause an increase of tax and people would leave with how huge the tax would be, which would be around 12.1% property and 9.1% sales because how much money that would be spending. This is one example I am taking, there are many others that fit. the only one that could be successful would be California.

R3 ARG 2
"This is mostly an argument from emotion. As I said previously, one state would not be able to control the politics of an entire region. If only one state in a region wanted slavery it wouldn't be reinstated, however if every state in a region wanted slavery then reinstating slavery would not cause social tension since everyone agreed. My argument was that social tension would be eased. Not erased, but eased and more manageable. Smaller countries, made up of regions that share similar morals and views, would not have as many extreme divides between social classes. I do not think CON has addressed my argument."

I feel like I have a right for emotion in this argument. I am going to keep using the Southeast example. They would completely want slavery because that is what would keep the economy going. Do really need to resort to slavery to have a successful environments and labour. No we shouldn't. There is so much racism in this world and now if these states were to incorporate it into their ways, we would be setting an example for developing countries, and we want to be a role model, not a villain. Not to mention slavery causes wars. These regions also have different political beliefs, so they would have tensions and end up causing wars. It would be an automatic fails.

R3 ARG
"My argument here, if poorly worded before, is that smaller countries are able to pass policy that is more tailored to the individual region. Lets take, for example, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA is a federal law that outlines the federal regulations on drugs, under the CSA marijuana is a class 1 substance. This law makes it illegal to use, possess, sell, or grow marijuana regardless of state law (source 2). This federal law negatively affects states that wish to see marijuana made legal, by hampering their economy and punishing citizens. If the US were split into smaller countries the new countries who wanted to legalize marijuana could do so, and countries who did not want to legalize marijuana would not be affected. This helps regions deal with issues involving their citizens without having to worry about the affect it may have on citizens of another region. The US is huge and because of this it is very diverse, this diversity may be seen as a good thing by some but in the end it causes divides within the country that can't be healed with policy. Given the ability to govern how they see fit the regions of the US would be more likely to cooperate and serve their citizens."

I am going to keep going to argument that states that don't made the best decisions, they need some federal rule so they can be prosperous. If the argument you are saying is multiple states would form, then they would have different policies on different things, like for your example, CSA. Some states would not allow it and if they were united in that group, they would disagree.
In Arg 1, you said about states in a region combining. This contradicts your argument in this because because your taking about individual states, while in Arg 1, you talked about unification of certain states. This leaves the con confused and I think judges should consider con

R3 ARG 4

"The federal government receives funding from taxpayers, the new governments would do the same. Thus, the new governments would receive funding equal to their share of the federal government allowing them to provide the same benefits of the current government if they chose to do so. The same jobs provided by the federal government would be provided by the new governments. The role of the government, in the case of job growth, is to provide an environment that encourages businesses and investment. My point was that the poor regions of the US are ignored, if the US were broken up into smaller countries the new governments could focus on bringing business and investment to these poor regions."

I don't think any evidence that stated proves this point. I am left questioning this argument because I have to use my opinion which is I think corrupt state leaders would not want the best, just that cash for them. For example, ILGov has a corrupt leader name Mike Madigan, who steals money from us. Which all that power, do you think he is going to make it harder to live. He is only not taxing so much because of this federal rule. I think that argument has no evidence, while my Mike Madigan evidence is clearly stated
Source:http://www.chicagotribune.com...
CONCLUSION
The pro argument is interesting, put I don't think it would be best. The PRO has been confused with some state unification and only states. This leaves me confused and judgers vote con due to unclarity. It would end up falling in Civil War

I leave the judges with quotes

"Unity is strength. . . when there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved." -Mattie Stepanek
"United we stand, divided we fall." -Aesop

END NOTE: Thank you to the PRO for letting me debate this topic. I also want to say thanks for a respectful debate that was fun for both of us! You should keep doing this because this was really interesting to present!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SupaDudz 1 month ago
SupaDudz
oof...that sucks

sucks we never know who wins
Posted by SupaDudz 2 months ago
SupaDudz
Shoot I forgot an argument...

My response here is the same as above. I would like to add though, federal aid is not the only way to keep an area from being poor. Providing business and job opportunities would be far more beneficial to the majority of the US's poor regions.

State gov would not have the funds to build more jobs. There would be no impact to this the jobs would even decrease because some jobs have fed gov support so without that, there would be a decrease

PLEASE READ COMMENT PRO! THIS MY CLAIM I MAKE FOR THAT ARG IN R2!
Posted by Shad0wXx 2 months ago
Shad0wXx
Intriguing debate. I plan to keep an eye on this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.