The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

The USA should be divided into several different independent nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 61217
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Hi all!

So, I'll be using this first round to just lay the groundwork. My opponent can start the argument in the response, or just accept.

As for rules, no trolling, personal insults, or anything like that. Basically, just be polite!
Any source is ok
That's all!


I accept this debate.

I will be arguing that it would be unwise for the United States to fragment into independent nations.
Debate Round No. 1


Opening Argument:

The USA is a nation born on the ideals and promises of the Revolutionary era, a time when philosophers and the common man started to question the status quo of monarchic rule. Some fled to the New World, seeking a life on the frontiers, but as these fledgling societies developed, the monarchies of Europe pressed for more influence. This tight grip led to the spread of the independence movement, and eventually gave birth to the USA, an independent republic surrounded by other weakening empires and unsettled land. Through conquest, colonization, and purchase, the USA grew to encompass much of the North American continent, and eventually used these vast natural resources to propel itself to one of the most powerful nations in the world, where it is today.

However, as it stands, the USA has the capacity to exert its will on almost any nation though any number of methods. It's industrial base can outproduce almost any other nation, corporations based in the USA can use their vast reserves of capital, be it labor or resource, to out compete other global companies, and the USA's military is the undisputed most powerful, with effectively limitless capacity to project its power over the entire world ( EX: Overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent prolonged military campaign) . These are all of the qualities of a superpower, and the world has definitely seen such states before. The crucial difference being that there are no counter weights to the vast industrial, commercial, and military capacity of the USA. Given the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the alignment of most of the great powers with the USA's foreign policy and doctrine, open hostility and aggression towards the USA is only espoused by states with little capacity to act on those threats. Open opposition to the USA is diplomatic suicide, as seen in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The great powers have been extremely reluctant to take action against the USA and Israel, even when it is clear that Israel is doing more than just acting in self-defense, and is killing civilians in their attempts to defeat the semi-legitimate government of Palestine, as recognized by the UN.

These problems stem from the presence of the USA as an unrivaled superpower with no real competition for said title. The solution - disuniting the states, would improve things from many standpoints. With a divided military and resources, none of the successor states would have the power to force their views and interests onto other states via superior firepower, or threat thereof. The industrial capacity for each of these states would also be greatly diminished, especially given how dependent our industrial base is on free transport from one area to another. Given how industry is based around cities and relies on trucks to transport raw materials and goods from one place to another, the increased difficulty of materials transport would put impositions on the industrial capacity of all of the successor states. Commercial interests would likely run into the same kinds of transport problems, as well as tariffs and trade regulations, creating a more difficult time for US businesses to regain their influence in the former areas of the USA, weakening their global hold on their respective markets. The successor states to the USA would have far less of a capacity to exert their control over the global sphere, allowing for more regional powers to emerge and ending the domination of the USA as a superpower.

In addition to foreign policy and external affairs, division into different states could be beneficial for the internal start of affairs, discounting the unfortunate side effect of weakening industry and commerce. The people of the USA are very diverse, with almost everyone being an immigrant from someplace or another. Over time, distinctive cultures have developed out of these immigrant populations who often want very different things because of a combination of different social, religious, and economic views. in a democratic system like ours, these different views can lead to people living in different parts of the country disagreeing how things should be done at a national level, with such arguments creating resentment and unrest between various parts of society. An example of this would be the recent dispute over a healthcare bill in congress which would have expanded the role of the government in the healthcare system. The argument effectively came down to conservatives from mainly the Southern and Central parts of the USA feeling that the government was reaching too far into other people's lives, while liberals from mainly the Northeastern and Western parts of the USA feeling that the USA needed such a system, given how well it functioned into European countries with similar systems. The basis of these opinions lies in the settlement of these areas by their respective motherlands. The Northeastern region was settled by the Mennonites and Calvinist pilgrims, people fleeing religious oppression in Europe. These religious groups were very community-based, and many of the original settlements created by those groups were structured around the community. When English colonists eventually arrived, they settled in those colonies, eventually becoming the vast majority. However, the community-oriented focus stuck and led the Northeastern region to become more community-oriented than other parts of the USA, eventually transforming into the fairly liberal area that it is today. The Western region's liberalism has a very different origin, though, as it was one of the last regions to become fully settled. Thus, independently-minded people and those being persecuted in the eastern USA were likely to come to the West. In addition to this, immigrants from Asia and the Pacific islands came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fostering a culture with somewhat higher tolerance of foreigners. This tolerant and independent culture ended up creating a more libertarian attitude than the Northeast, which explains why the only two states that have legalized marijuana (Washington and Colorado) are in the Western region. Contrasting these two regions, are the Southern and Central regions, which tend to be more religious and conservative than the Northeastern and Western regions. The Southern region started as the southern end of the English colonies on the Eastern Seaboard, and as Spain's attempt to settle Florida. Agriculture is very prominent in the South, which leads to small communities based around farming cash crops. These small communities often became insular because of their distance from the major population centers in the North, and tended to employ many slaves in the 1800's, which led to racist attitudes being more common even to this day. This led to the Southern region becoming more conservative than most of the USA. The Central region's conservative leanings can be attributed to mostly its distance from major population centers, much like the South.

In summation, the history behind all of the USA's regions has created their cultural and political landscapes, which often conflict with each other. In a situation like the healthcare debate I mentioned earlier, trying to have someone from one area pass a bill that affects the entire nation, basing the rationale behind the bill on things that have worked or are favored in their area is counterproductive, because the cultural and political landscapes in the USA are so different and varied that people will suffer anyway because of how incompatible people from different regions in the USA are. If the USA were to be divided into successor states, each within a rough political and cultural area, then decisions made using local rationale and opinion could please far more people than have someone from one region reject a piece of legislation because it doesn't conform to their views on a certain matter. Instead of having two big-tent parties that have little differentiation on major issues, there could be many parties that have only regional support, and the common man's interests could be better represented. Finally, the divisions that wrack the USA today threaten to cause further unrest down the road. By creating more regional powers and dissolving the messy hodge-podge of culture, religion, politics, and history that is the USA, the people living within its borders can enjoy a more peaceful and stable existence in the future, and those living in other nations can rest easy knowing that they won't have to bend to the wills of the world's only remaining superpower.


Sorry for the giant walls of text!


Round 1: Argument

Sorry for the late response, I have been slightly busy as of late. Due to the fact that I have procrastinated to the point of being just one hour left until my deadline, my argument in this round will be severely shortened. Expect an extension of my argument in the third round.

My argument in this round will consist of three subdivisions, which are:

D1: Political Reasons
D3: Economic Reasons
D2: Historical Reasons

Hopefully this will turn into an interesting debate.

D1: Political Reasons

1. Who will become the world power?

The major concern that would rise should the US fragment into separate nations would be who would rise to become the world super power and inevitably the world police force? The only countries powerful enough to fulfill this position would be Russia, China, and India. Given that it is unlikely that any on these nations would be likely to fulfill the burden of world controller, disaster would be likely to occur.

I understand that many people are against the US intervening in international affairs, however if their is no US who will be able to stand up against the world's problems?

2. Who will become the power in the Americas?

Similarly to the first point, this raises the question of how will North and South America prevent disaster without the US to guide them? Looking at the already dreadful state of Central America and the majority of South America, who will rise as the great power to prevent disaster? Canada? I should hope not.

D2: Economic Reasons

1. How will the new nations economy fare?

Given the current state of the US, it is simply too much to ask a united US to keep it's economy afloat. However how is it at all possible for the new fragmented US from keeping its economy from tanking?

D3: Historical Reasons

1. History shows that country's that fragment rarely succeed

There are countless examples of how country's fail after they fragment into smaller segments. For example Germany after WWII, China during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, even the US during the Civil War.


Again, I apologize for the short response, but the basis of my argument is that the US should not fragment into separate nations due to the fact that there will no longer be a world superpower to keep the rest of the world in check and that the economy of the new nations within the US will suffer greatly.
Debate Round No. 2


Tsenker forfeited this round.


Round 3: Rebuttals

I am going to keep this short, as it appears that my opponent is to busy to continue this debate.

Due to the fact that I have a relatively short attention span, I skimmed through the essay of an argument that my opponent posted back in round one. Essentially I concluded that my opponents point was that having the US as a world super power is overall a bad thing because it causes countries to be unable to act in ways that they want to.

The only question I have to this claim is: why is this a bad thing?

With the US as the sole world superpower, every country is in check and essentially unable to do bad things to other country's (i.e.... declare war). If the US were to split up one of the two things will happen, these are:

P1) Russia/China emerges as the world superpower.


P2) Multiple world superpowers emerge.

If P1 occurs, then no country would be held in check as they are with the US as the world superpower. This is because Russia has a more jingoistic government and therefore is less likely to take offense to one country declaring war on another while China is unlikely to have a strong opinion on the matter either. I find this possibility highly improbable because both Russia and China are about equal power wise (with China having the larger edge in the economic sector and Russia with the edge militarily) and therefore are more likely to share an equal power.

That brings us to the second possibility, which is that more than one superpower would emerge. The last time this occurred was between the US and the Soviet Union, as my opponent stated in his original argument. A world with multiple world powers simply does not work as eventually one power has to overpower the other, whether it means through war/threat of war (Cold War) or through technological advances (Nuclear Weapons/Space Race). While technological advancements sound good, war is the more likely scenario given Vladimir Putin's war-like tendencies.

In conclusion, if the US were to split up it would result in imitate disaster due to no truly qualified country being able to succeed it in the the honorable, and extremely burdensome task of being world superpower. My opponent mentioned to me that it would be more ideal to split up all powerful countries (i.e.... US, Russia, and China) so therefore there is never a country strong enough to emerge as world dominate. This is an intriguing point that I may agree with, but as it is highly unlikely that Russia, China, or even the US is going to split in the near future, it is an idea that we will never see occur.

I hope that we could re-do this debate at sometime, or try a new topic.
Debate Round No. 3


Tsenker forfeited this round.


Ymestyn yr holl ddadleuon (Extend all arguments in Welsh)
Debate Round No. 4


Tsenker forfeited this round.


Utöka alla argument (Extend all arguments in Swedish) 
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I could go for that. All the blue(democrat) states should group together.All the red states should group together. Then the red states would build fenses to keep out the blue state people because they would eventually destroy their economies. I could go for that. Of course us conservatives would send them charity out of our own pockets. Because that is who we are.But we would never force anyone to give to them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture