The Instigator
AlternativeDavid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robert_Weiler
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Would the United States Be Better Off Without the Deep South?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Robert_Weiler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,709 times Debate No: 60324
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

AlternativeDavid

Pro

Rules:
Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments
Round 2/3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Closing statements, no new arguments

Failure to adhere to these rules results in a loss of points for conduct.

Definitions:

The Deep South: http://upload.wikimedia.org...

I argue that the United States as a whole would benefit from a separation with The Deep South.
Robert_Weiler

Con

I accept.

I will refute arguments that the US would be better off without the deep south. I will offer arguments showing the benefits of the deep south.

I look forward to an interesting exchange.
Debate Round No. 1
AlternativeDavid

Pro

Definition of filibuster: http://dictionary.reference.com...

I argue that secession of the deep south would be beneficial to the remaining United States because...

3 of the top 4 states that are most dependent on federal aid are states from the deep south (1 Mississippi, 2 Alabama, 4 Louisiana). In fact 8 of the top 10 are red states, and 2 are purple. [1]

To go along with that, 45.84% of the state revenue in Mississippi is federal funds. That number is 44.26% in Louisiana, 38.86% in Georgia, 37.01% in Alabama, 39.49% in South Carolina, 33.13% in Texas, and 32.65% in Florida. That's an average of 38.75% between every state [2]. I'm not sure how a region that relies on so much federal funding could thrive on its own.

Without the south, the rest of the United States could have a higher minimum wage, a decent healthcare system, strong unions, legal gay marriage (everywhere), electric cars, stricter gun regulations, more restrictions on carbon emissions, stronger workplace protection, a humane immigration policy, and high revenues from a fair tax structure. [3]

Allow me to elaborate.

Without the seven states in question, republicans would lose 12 representatives in the senate, and democrats would lose just 2. This would put democrats at 53 representatives (including independents) and republicans at 33 representatives. This would allow democrats to have a super majority in the senate which would stop republican filibusters, and allow Congress to actually pass laws. President Obama's nominees have been filibustered as many times as every other president in history combined. [4]. It gets even worse when you realize that in the last six years republicans have filibustered bills 500 times. [5]. As a direct result of the republican obstructionism we have had the least productive congress in the history of the country. [6] If the southern states seceded, that would make republican obstructionism much harder.

The reason we would be able to get all of the things that I mentioned above is that there wouldn't be any more fierce resistance. Pro-Corporation republicans in the south could enjoy having their own country's jobs shipped to china, while we in the USA could enjoy the luxuries that people in Europe have like: universal healthcare and a tax system without all of the loopholes. We would finally be able to get the USA back on the same track with the rest of the west.

The south also brings down our education statistics. Out of the top seven states with the lowest achieving students, four are states in the deep south. They are South Carolina at 7th, Alabama at 5th, Louisiana at 2nd, and Mississippi at 1st. If we cut them from the rankings, our average student achievement would go up, and we would look better when compared to other countries. [7]

Southerns are also lagging behind culturally. People say that the south isn't racist anymore but that's really not true. On this website [8], after Americans voted it was found that six of the ten most racist states were in the deep south. The only state not on this list was South Carolina. Also, in 1976, five states (four deep south) voted for George Wallace. A man that had segregation as his main platform. [9]

Finally, if the south seceded, all of people in the country who held their values would leave to go join them. This would create a golden age in the United States. There wouldn't be nearly as much party politics, and things could finally get done. We would be able to compete with Europe again, and third parties would finally get a chance to shine. Instead of it being red vs blue, it would be red(republicans) vs blue(democrats) vs green(green party) vs purple (moderates) vs yellow (socialists).

I look forward to a response.


[1] http://wallstcheatsheet.com...
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com...
[3] http://www.politicususa.com...
[4] http://www.politifact.com...
[5] http://www.msnbc.com...
[6]http://www.bostonglobe.com...
[7] http://247wallst.com...
[8] http://www.thetoptens.com...
[9] http://www.270towin.com...
Robert_Weiler

Con

Economics

First, my opponent's financial aid argument is deeply flawed. He uses two sources to corroborate his claims, both of which refer to one original source, which my opponent never listed.[1] The methodology of the original source takes into account three separate factors to determine a states dependence of the federal government.[2]

However, this debate is not about dependence on the federal government, but whether or not the federal government would benefit from the separation of these states. It would not, when you compare the amount of federal aid received by these states[3], with the amount collected by the federal government from these states[4]. Let us take a look at what happens if these states left the Union, the formula is (Amount taken by the federal government - Amount received from the federal government = Total loss to the federal government if the state left the Union)

Alabama
Total collected by the Federal Government: $20,882,949,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $8,112,509,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $12,770,440,000

Florida
Total collected by the Federal Government: $122,249,635,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $22,850,620,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $99,399,015,000

Georgia
Total collected by the Federal Government: $65,498,308,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $13,794,726,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $51,703,582,000

Louisiana

Total collected by the Federal Government: $34,811,072,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $11,136,334,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession:$23,674,738,000

Mississippi

Total collected by the Federal Government: $10,458,549,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $7,725,294,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $2,733,255,000

South Carolina

Total collected by the Federal Government: $18,557,166,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $6,892,660,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $11,664,506,000

Texas
Total collected by the Federal Government: $219,459,878,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $37,310,756,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $182,149,122,000

Deep South
Total collected by the Federal Government: $491,917,557,000
Total aid received from the Federal Government: $107,822,922,000
Total loss to the Federal Government in case of secession: $384,034,635,000


The economic loss to the union would be nearly catastrophic. While the deep south, if independent, could raise taxes on the state levels to encompass that which the federal government currently takes, produce a huge net gain. Economically, it is the deep south, and not the Union, which would benefit from these states breaking away.

Claim of Racism


Absolutely irrelevant to this debate. In support of this claim my opponent submits a website that he claims shows that the south is racist and states "after Americans voted it was found that six of the ten most racist states were in the deep south." I visited this website, and found that the top ten list was created by a single user, and the ten items already listed by the user were voted on by the members, who may or may not be American. The ten options were already made, only the order was determined by vote.

Furthermore, an election nearly 40 years ago doesn't argue well for the current issues.

Filibusters and Congressional Seats

My opponent claims "President Obama's nominees have been filibustered as many times as every other president in history combined." But the very article he quotes as a source shows this to be incorrect. The Article claims that 168 filibusters of presidential nominees have occurred in US history 82 under Obama, 86 under all other presidents. 82 is not more than 86. Furthermore, the article confirms that this data does not include filibusters that may have occurred prior to 1949, so it only encompasses 12 of our 44 presidential administrations!

The Senate would have a super-majority of Democrats if these states left the Union. However, this would only lead to one party rule. No third party will be allowed to "shine" anything but Democrats' shoes.

Education

My opponent has attacked the educational system in the South. The rankings he used came from a website which ranked the state by standardized test scores. I am not a fan of standardized tests. However, I concede that some deep south states have an education problem, but this same website ranks Florida in the top ten for education[5], and Texas in the Top Ten for Best run state[6].

Citations
1. http://wallethub.com...
2. http://wallethub.com...
3. http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org...
4. http://www.irs.gov... (This information is on Table 5. Page 12 of the publication, Page 20 of the PDF file).
5. http://247wallst.com...
6. http://247wallst.com...
Debate Round No. 2
AlternativeDavid

Pro

Economics

I object to Con's bare statistics about taxes and budget.

The Deep South costs a lot of money to maintain. More money than it's really worth.

I also seriously object to Con's claims about the amount of money gained by the federal government from the south.

Every source that I can find shows that the Deep South only has one/two financially solvent states (depending on the year). It seems like pretty much everywhere shows the same thing. The Deep South leeches off of the federal government. [10] [11] [15] [16]

Source [16.5] is a chart graph from source 16, but I wanted to draw extra special attention to it.

I'm going to turn one of Con's sources around on him. "Lower-income states generate a smaller percentage of total federal income tax receipts, but because the majority of federal income tax receipts are spent on health and welfare, these lower-income states receive a disproportionately greater amount of federal expenditures since lower-income individuals are more likely than wealthier individuals to receive their health and welfare benefits from the federal government." [12]

The Deep South is home to a disproportionately high amount of the nation's poorest people. [13]
-21% of people in Mississippi are on Food Stamps. = 626,850
-20% in Alabama = 964,400
-19% in Louisiana = 874,380
-18% in Georgia = 1,785,600
-18% in South Carolina = 832,566
-16% in Texas = 4,169,600
-16% in Florida = 3,091,200
Total = 12,344,596 people on food stamps.

46,247,450 people in the USA use the program. [14]

12,344,596/46,247,450= 27%.

27% of all Food Stamp participants live in 14% of the states. (7/50).

Before anybody wants to argue that there are many states with a smaller population than these, read below.

While there are some states that have more recipients than a few of these, out of the 18 states with the highest rate, all seven of these are in there. [13]

As can be seen on the table here [15] 5/7 states in the Deep South (Georgia and Texas are the others) have a negative net federal contribution ratio.

It's actually pretty appalling how much money is lost in some of these states.

As you can see in this graph, nine of the ten states with the highest rate of non-tax payers are in the south. Seven of those are in the Deep South. http://www.slate.com...

While it might sound mean to consider kicking people out of the country for being poor, this isn't about being nice. It's about doing what is best for the rest of the country. Pure Darwinism. Take out the weak to strengthen the herd.

Claim of Racism

I heavily disagree that racism is irrelevant. Although I am sorry for not putting enough effort into investigating the source. Here's one that Con may approve of. [17].

While the source is not scientific, it is very telling. After President Obama was re-elected in 2012, racist tweets were counted. It was found that the average number of racist tweets was eight times higher than the national average in Mississippi. Alabama was a far second, but still second. Georgia and (East) Texas had their fair share too. The concentration in the South was higher than any other place in the country, and the concentration in the Deep South was way more than the concentration in the rest of the South.

On a related note: The Deep South has a ton of active KKK chapters. For any reader unfamiliar with the KKK [18].
There are 59 KKK chapters in the Deep South. 18 in Texas alone. There are a total of 160 in the entire country.
59/160= 37%. 37% of all KKK chapters aren't just radomly in this one area of such a big country. [19]

Filibusters and Congressional Seats

"The Article claims that 168 filibusters of presidential nominees have occurred in US history 82 under Obama, 86 under all other presidents. 82 is not more than 86."

This was the most recent data I could find. When I made my claim, I was adjusting it for the probability of a change in the numbers.

"It only encompasses 12 of our 44 presidential administrations!"

While I would like to apologize for the incorrect data, I would like it to be noticed that he's still been filibustered a hugely disproportionate amount of times.

My opponent seems to have completely dropped my point about 500 filibusters caused primarily by republicans.

"The Senate would have a super-majority of Democrats if these states left the Union. However, this would only lead to one party rule. No third party will be allowed to "shine" anything but Democrats' shoes."

Actually there would probably be more third parties. Democrats would be able to diversify and join other parties because there wouldn't be any real competition for them except for in Primary elections.

After the war of 1812 the Federalist party disappeared and there was only one political party with a shot at winning.

"Although this period has often been called the Era of Good Feelings due to its one-party dominance, in fact, Democratic-Republicans were deeply divided internally " [20]. There would most definitely be a party split under the democrats. We've seen this kind of political shift before. The Republicans would still exist of course. Though I'm sure many of them would leave for the new Confederacy.

I look forward to a response.

[10] http://www.occupydemocrats.com...
[11] http://www.motherjones.com...
[12] http://wallethub.com...
[13] http://www.city-data.com...
[14] http://frac.org...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org... (The second chart)
[16] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[16.5] http://cdn.theatlantic.com...
[17] http://atlantablackstar.com...
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[19] http://www.splcenter.org...
[20] http://www.ushistory.org...
Robert_Weiler

Con

Economics

My opponent states “I object to Con's bare statistics about taxes and budget”, but doesn’t state why. Bare statistics (without the spin) is how we establish facts, not rhetoric.

My opponent’s sources diverge wildly on their statistics, because they use different metrics. Some of his sources count only federal aid money to the State budgets, while other count all “federal spending” without stating what the spending is for. Alaska is a good example of this, with some of my opponent’s sources claiming Alaska receives more than $3 per dollar collected by the feds, while others claim it receives a paltry (by comparison) $0.94. This is because the number goes higher when you count all federal spending in a State with over 22 federal employees per capita, according to his sources. These employees benefit the State itself little when you know that Alaska has no State income tax.

When you use sources that are obviously skewed to one point of view, like MSNBC, Mother Jones, or Occupy Democrats, you get bad information, and as a result, bad arguments. The raw numbers bear out the facts.

Racism

This claim by my opponent is another example of a bad argument, from a bad source. The SPLC lists MANY groups as hate groups, including the Tea Party Nation, the National Prayer Network, and the American College of Pediatricians.[7]

However, since my opponent seems fond of their statistics, let’s use them. By population the States of the Deep South comprise 22.56% of the US Population. So far in 2014 the SPLC lists 55 “Hate Incidents” 12 of which occurred in the Deep South. So 21.82% of hate incidents occurred in 22.56% of the population. Not far off from what should be statistically ideal. However, the State of New York comprises 6.19% of the US Population, and 7 of the 55 “Hate Incidents”. Meaning that 12.23% of all “Hate Incidents” occurred among 6.19% of the population. So, according to my opponent’s own source, New York is roughly twice as racist as the Deep South.[8][9]

Filibusters & Congress

Funny how Democrats didn’t mind the filibuster when they used it against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 & 1964[10]. These being two of the top ten longest filibusters in history. Democrats have enjoyed super-majorities in the senate many times[11] without the utopian society my opponent envisions ever coming to pass. One party rule by the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and yes, the party that spawned the KKK in the first place, is not a country in which any of us should want to live.

One more item.

"I'm going to turn one of Con's sources around on him. 'Lower-income states generate a smaller percentage of total federal income tax receipts, but because the majority of federal income tax receipts are spent on health and welfare, these lower-income states receive a disproportionately greater amount of federal expenditures since lower-income individuals are more likely than wealthier individuals to receive their health and welfare benefits from the federal government.'"

This is not turning one of my sources around one me. This was your source. It was the hidden source behind your first two citations that I listed to expose the flawed methodology of. Also, you are quoting not from the article itself, but from a comment left on the article. I don't mean to sound insulting, but you really need to read your sources closer before you post them.

Citations

7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.splcenter.org...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
10. http://en.wikipedia.org...
11. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I have some things about Con's round three argument that I want to address, but I can't due to the set up of the debate. Also, I'm not sure as to why I was so inattentive with my sources, that's pretty out of character for me.

I'd like to thank Con for a good debate.
I wish Con luck during voting and all of his future debates.
Robert_Weiler

Con

I thank PRO for a spirited debate, and wish him luck in this a future debates. With so many crack-pot and troll debates on this site it was nice to seriously engage someone.

Since there are no arguments that can be made in this round, and I have nothing to refute, I leave this debate to the voters.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Context will be everything in this debate
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Alternate, make a utilitarian moral argument, those usual work
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Oh can we susceed pretty please, don't get my hopes up.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
LOL, I live in TExas, but I remotely agree.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
The person that accepts should feel free to include them.
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
Just wanted to make sure. Normally the Deep South only includes East Texas and North/Central Florida.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Look at the picture that I linked as the definition
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
This includes Florida and Texas, right?
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I'd be for this idea; the South could govern itself without being forced to adhere to laws they don't agree with.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 years ago
distraff
AlternativeDavidRobert_WeilerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Pro had stronger arguments. Taking the south out of the union would make the US more democrat and more prosperous. They are also poorer than the rest of the nation. However Pro's sourcing was terrible. Pro did forfeit and I never give arguments to someone who forfeited, but I don't give arguments to Con because he did not have stronger arguments. Con gets Conduct and sources. Arguments are tied.
Vote Placed by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
AlternativeDavidRobert_WeilerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to put all of pro's sources into context which worked against pro. Pro admits inattentiveness towards his sources in his last round