The Instigator
Liberals
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unitomic
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The United States should split in two countries. One liberal and one conservative.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Unitomic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,345 times Debate No: 67669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Liberals

Pro

Even though I am liberal, It would save both liberals and conservatives a lot of BS.

the historic south would become a conservative country and the rest would become a liberal. Everybody would move (or stay) to they're new countries according to their beliefs. If somebody was liberal but wanted to stay with there family in conserveyland, than they could but could move to the liberal state if they wanted.

This way people would be happy and conservatives will learn they're mistakes.
Unitomic

Con

I accept the debate. Given that no real argument was given by Pro, I'll assume first round is acceptance.

==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 1
Liberals

Pro

Liberals forfeited this round.
Unitomic

Con

Given that my opponent forfeited, I shall be very concise and quick.

Case II: Distribution of Parties.
Pro is working under the premise that there is a clear cut line between Conservative and Liberal. In truth there is not. In all actualiy, Conservative and Liberal distribution tends to be based more off Rural/Urban settings, rather then South/North. {1} As the picture below demonstrates, Every state has a large number of Red Counties, and Blue Counties. What do we do with these people? If Reds are stuck in a now "Blue" Country, they will immediately become a neglected minority. This very same thing will happen (perhaps in greater quantity) to the Blues in the Red Nation (Now officially termed the "Fire Nation"). Pro has suggested in the comments that these people can just move. This is incredably irrespectable, to simply tell people they must either leave their homes and lives, or face oppression. Worse, it's logistically impossible. This isn't like kicking out a few noisy neighbors, in some cases this will be the removal (or oppression of) whole counties and towns. But wait, there's more! We can't quarantee that every state will be nicely positioned within their new nation. Despite Pro's assertian in the Comments, the South is not the only red region. In fact, the Reds actually carve a path right down the middle of the nation. This would leave the Blue Nation cut in half between East and West (with two or three blue islands). For this reason I shall call the Blue nation the Water Nation. It gets worse since many states in the middle of the country are not clearly red or blue. {2} Next round I will up the ante by showing that the Political Spectrum is more then a Line.

click="document.location='/Unitomic/photos/album/4530/29616/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/5/4530/93523-4530-waawp-a.jpg" alt="" />



1] http://neuropolitics.org...
2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Case II: Potential War
This will be rather quick. With the Blues no longer balancing the politics of the Fire Nation, it is likely to, over two or hree generations, become deep red. The Water Tribes are likely to grow deep blue. What happens when two nations of very distinct political affiliations are side by side, especially when the urban one (Blues) are split up by the Rural one (reds)? To make things worse, both sides are going to notice the "plight" of fellow reds or blues in the opposing nation. If you haven't guessed by now, we are looking at War. It can be assumed the loser of this conflict will suffer deep oppression by the

Case III: The value of opposing views
The most valuable thing about keeping the nation whole, is that the two sides will balance eacch other. A nation can thrive with numerous ideas, because it has numerous views to choose from. Only a fool could say that every Red belief is right, or that every Blue belief is wrong. And Vice-Versa. The Fire Nation will never be able to pass (or even consider) a more logical view if that view is Blue. By keeping the nation together, we can garner the support for the logical decision, regardless of which side of the spectrum it's on, because both sides have large amounts of support. If all else fails, we can at least debate for the best choice. You can't do that in a one party State (and yes, a nation chosen from only Red States will have one party), the choice is already chosen by the Nations political side of the spectrum.



==Unitomic==

Debate Round No. 2
Liberals

Pro

Liberals forfeited this round.
Unitomic

Con

Arguments Extended.

==Unitomic==
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Lol. This is the single most stupid resolution I have ever seen.

Seriously, think about it. Splitting the US into two diametrically opposed nations, a sharing of their nuclear arsenal, and placing them right next to each other... You are just begging for something to go bang.
Posted by Liberals 2 years ago
Liberals
Indipendents could live wherever they want.
Posted by GamnQ 2 years ago
GamnQ
The conservative - liberal destinction isn't based around states, it's much more reliant on country vs city.
It would never work as people living in the countryside simply naturally become more conservative with time, wheras people living in cities become more liberal.

If you went about this it would make much more sense to make large cities federal districts, or make them all into a couple of fragmented states.
Posted by mentalist 2 years ago
mentalist
what about independent?
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
Is first round acceptance or first argument.
Posted by DiogenestheDog 2 years ago
DiogenestheDog
Define conservative. Do you mean everyone who is a republican?

There are a lot of moderate democrats and moderate republicans that do not necessarily fit the definition of liberal vs conservative, but more like somewhere in between.
Posted by Liberals 2 years ago
Liberals
Dude, it makes plenty of sense. Each political party can function without the other one getting on their way.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
This makes no sense. Are you trolling?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
LiberalsUnitomicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter-arguments required addressing, and since that did not eventuate, Con wins arguments by default. Con wins sources by just a bit, despite the technical stuff-up and the lack of quality sources. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LiberalsUnitomicTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
LiberalsUnitomicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes Con due to forfeit. S&G go Con because Pro had more spelling and grammar errors in their five sentences than Con had in their entire multi-paragraph case. Arguments go Con because they had an exceptional case and also Pro gave no arguments. Sources go Con because Con actually used them.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
LiberalsUnitomicTied
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