The Instigator
PrinceOfTheFire
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

let the red states secede

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,460 times Debate No: 11561
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

I think this thing that we call America is not working for either of us

please let the red states secede, you can have socialism if you want, even communist, we just dont care, we just wanna be left alone. We dont need your big government, we are born free and wanna remain that way

i think everyone wins if we secede

Thank you
Grape

Con

It seems that my opponent' argument is that the "red states" should succeed so that the rest of the country can establish socialism or communism and everyone will be happy. I see a few problems with this idea.

1. The blue states do not wish to establish socialism or communism. If they did, they easily could without the red states succeeding because they more more electoral votes and more seats in both houses of Congress.

2. In order to maintain global power, the United States depends on unity. US elites would not forfeit the nation's sole superpower status to resolve petty political differences.

3. Many states change from red to blue and back each election. It would be unwise to make permanent decisions based on such ephemeral factors.

4. The red states would suffer in higher education because most of the top universities (including the entire Ivy League) are located in blue states. Successful students from the south would be considered international applicants and would not have the benefits that US citizens receive, including federal financial tuition aid (or socialism as it is better known).

There are many other reason but I think this will suffice for now.
Debate Round No. 1
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

1. The blue states do not wish to establish socialism or communism. If they did, they easily could without the red states succeeding because they more more electoral votes and more seats in both houses of Congress.

We already have socialism, in the form of a big government that keeps growing. We dont have real free market or real capitalism, not at all.

Furthermore, The fact that they can even establish communism without having to consult us simply makes the argument for separation stronger

"2. In order to maintain global power, the United States depends on unity. US elites would not forfeit the nation's sole superpower status to resolve petty political differences"

we dont need to be a global power, it is the elite' interest not ours. The red federation will follow the libertarian and paleoconservative ideal of isolationism. There is no reason for us to be the policeman of the world

"3. Many states change from red to blue and back each election. It would be unwise to make permanent decisions based on such ephemeral factors"
unlike the Union, the red federation will be voluntary. If any state wanna join back to the blue states, they are free to do that

"4. The red states would suffer in higher education because most of the top universities"

The very same universities that are factories of democrats and liberals? No thank you.
Grape

Con

1. There is no socialism in the United States. There is a form of state capitalism in which the government interferes in the economy to insure that the capitalist system runs smoothly. Both Democrats and Republicans frequently use state power to aid economic interests; it is not until their economic interests differ that the word "socialism" starts getting thrown around. Some people seem to think that if the government does one thing that is slightly "socialism" than the whole system is corrupted by socialism and is no considered socialist. This doesn't make any more sense than saying that the USSR should not be considered communist if children are able to freely trade toys without government regulation. The system as a whole needs to be considered.

Also, my point that though the "blue states" COULD establish communism, they do not. This implies that they do not want to.

2. The leaders of the "red states" would disagree with my opponent here. The Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations greatly increased the power and reach of the US military. Few people in the "red states" support the "libertarian and paleoconservative ideal of isolationism."

3. Changing from one nation to another sporadically would be a bureaucratic mess. With the complexities of modern government it would simply be impossible.

4. Perhaps my opponent does not realize that I refer to the institutions that have the most resources and consistently produce the most successful individuals. Unless ideology is more important than knowledge and skills, I would consider this a very bad trade-off for "red states." I very much doubt that the nation of Georgia Tech would keep up scientifically with the nation of MIT and Caltech. There would be a huge disparity in resources and quality of education between scientists in the two nations.

With that I am running out of room, but I think I am done for now.
Debate Round No. 2
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

1. Sorry, but "state capitalism" is an oxymoron

2. People voting republican think there voting for small government. Sorrowly, the elite of the republican party is under the control of the neocons, military complex and the great corporations. it will have to change eventually, I hope, otherwise the neocons are not going to allow the secession to happen

3. I think this kind of territorial changes would be rare once the countries are consolidate, there could be some instabiliity at the beginning of the separation though, with states changing of country, reforming and splitting, until reaching a balance. remember the confederation of 1861 did not start out of sudden, the other states were joining one by one to South Carolina, some of the pro-slavery state evaluated the situation and decided to remain in the Union, other were deeply divided, and one state, Virgina, split.

4. The universities has been taken over by liberals, which, i think, neutralize any benefit that they could have. It does not matter if we get thousands of new professionals if he cost is that they will become marxists that will bring instability to the new nation and bring us to square one once more. The whole seperation thing will be pointless is we let our youth to be converted to marxism. and please dont say that most university professors are not marxist, and think we are mature enough to recognize that the universities are biased to the left.

I really think that the new states will need to create its own conservative universities at the end, if we really wanna keep our new nation healthy and prevent another cultural revolution like the one of the 1960s that by the way, started in the Universities
Grape

Con

1. There is such a thing as state capitalism. I really don't think anyone would accept such a ridiculous claim as that state capitalism is an oxymoron and therefore doesn't exist. If I think "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, does that mean I can use that as an argument that it doesn't exist? Certainly not. In the US state capitalism very watered down to the point of being almost pure capitalism, but even this is enough to whip up anti-socialist fervor it seems.

2. Yes, this is my exact argument. The leaders of the red states do not wish for them to secede. In any case, I find it very ironic that the alleged party of small government also supports foreign wars and domestic intervention in such petty things as which individuals can get married. The people of the "red states" have no interest in small government, they have interests in advancing their views and use the "small government" argument where appropriate.

3. Many of the States during the Civil War, especially Tennessee, were in a constant state of internal Civil War over whether to secede. Getting a sufficiently uniform agreement on secession would be impossible, especially today.

4. I apologize if I don't have the maturity to see that universities are run by Marxists. None of the professors I ever met were Marxist despite the fact that institutions of higher education do tend to lean to the left. If the "red states" would rather have their youth well indoctrinated with local beliefs and uneducated in both knowledge and practical skills, then I suppose universities will be of no use to them. But I doubt this will help social or economic progress.

I assure you the goal of creating conservative universities is not an achievable one. The idea that you will be able to assemble a large number of intellectuals and talented youth in one area with an abundance of information to study and not produce radical new ideas is rather absurd. Education is by nature a liberalizing process.
Debate Round No. 3
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

1. Are you for real? I mean, really... bailouts, net neutrality, the lawsuit of 2001 against Microsoft, greedy unions of state workers like the one of teachers of Illinois calling for a 50% increase of income tax, etc, etc. The truth is that the government has obstructed the natural flow of capitalism of much that corporations are fleeing USA and outsourcing and shipping production to china

2. I dont see why you would think that social conservatism is mutually exclusive with small government. Issues of marriage and abortion will have to be discussed apart, one by one. Note that the traditional definition of marriage by definition is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, the government trying to redefine what is marriage IS governamental interventionism, the function of the government is NOT to define what is marriage whatsoever, and if it tried to, it is abusing its power. Now, the republican party has always been isolationism, at least before the neocon take over. For the record, it was the democratic party that took us to WW I, WW II, Vietnam, Korea, etc, etc.

3. the short term instability will be greatly balanced by long term stability. As the blue states go further to the Left, and their open borders policy leads to social and ethnic struggle, the red states will remain fairly homogeneous, and, even if slighty poorer, the quality of life will probably remain the same, with the plus that the violence in the blue states will be kept at the other side of the border

4. well, I think it is our right if we wanna "indoctrinate" our youth. Kansas is already teaching Creationism in the schools. Blue states have no right to tell us what is best for our children, specially the amounts of violence and juvenile gangs that they have
Grape

Con

1. None of these points constitute actual communism or socialism of any kind. There is no command economy. Even the most cursory understanding of what communism or socialism actually are will easily elucidate the fact that the "blue" states have not established and do not seek to establish either of these systems.

2. This point shows such ignorance of the very concept of power that I don't know how to begin to address it. The government would not be allegedly exercising power by "changing" the definition of marriage. The "definition" of anything is not determined linguistically by the State. Instead, the government is exercising power by forcing people to conform to a certain definition. My opponent asserts "the traditional definition of marriage by definition is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife." Who creates that definition? Is it the right of a "small government" to uphold that definition?

No, conservatives have no interest in small government. Authoritarianism (and that is what social conservationism is) is inherently incompatible with small government. The phrase "small government" is just being twisted to mean anything. I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the government is overstepping its power by ALLOWING people to do something.

3. My opponent is dodging the main root of this argument, which is that it is impossible for states to switch between two countries effectively. Many of the states are not clearly "red" or "blue" and would have nowhere to go. There would be no long term stability because many states would keep seceding and seceding back constantly or they would have nowhere to go.

4. Dodging the point about the fact that "blue state" universities offer an objectively better education and better pre-professional training. I am not talking about public education at all. I am talking about private, post-secondary education. The "red states" clearly suffer as a result of this.
Debate Round No. 4
PrinceOfTheFire

Pro

well, to conclude:

1. It is not capitalism either. May be it is just extreme corporatism, as Ron Paul put it recently.

2. The government has no right to define the world marriage as it is not a function defined by the Constitution whatsoever. Fact: The world marriage has an explicit linguistical definition, over here I have a dictionary, I opened it and it says "social contract between man and woman to become husband and wife". It is no the function of the government to take words and redefine them

Social conservationism is not authoritarism simply because social conservatism is the natural state of the people when the government is not trying to social engineer them. In absence of a government, a man and a woman simply go to the Church and marry. Note that it has been the normal human way to do this since the last 2 000 years, after thousands of governments, revolutions, war, in many cases with absolute anarchy, there never was any attempt to redefine the word marriage as something between two men or anything like that, not here, not in China, not in Africa.

the point is not if the government is overstepping its power by ALLOWING people to do something, it is WHY the government should have the power to allow it or disallow it AT ALL

3. Impossible? No. Just like prussia changed sides many times during the Napoleonic wars, and Ukraine changed sides many times during the russian civil war of 1917-1921, it is not impossible by definition. Now of course that it will be a little messy,may be, but eventually the state will see what side fits it better. It is a necessary step they will eventually have to take anyways, as blue states go more and more to the Left. I see it as unavoidable

4. I think it is worthy in the long term.

as final conclusion, I would say that the positive results (abiity to keep a true social conservatist without the government trying to social engineer us, companies moving to our side) overwhelm any cost
Grape

Con

1. So my opponent has conceded that despite his initial argument, the "blue states" are not trying to instate communism. There is a degree of corporatism, but that is practiced by politicians of both parties. Corporatism in the United States is certainly not restricted by any geographic area.

2. A dictionary does not determine the "linguist" definition of a word. That is exactly what I was trying to avoid getting into because these arguments are limited to 2000 characters. Let me try to be brief: When anyone, government or otherwise, tries to assert a definition of a word which must be upheld by others, than that is an exercise of power. Whether or not the definition is "traditional" or not is beyond irrelevant; forcing someone to comply with your beliefs IS authoritarian.

What my opponent seems to belief is that if the status quo is authoritarian, it is not authoritarian of social conservatives to uphold the status quo. This is far from true. If two people wish to get married and the State prevents them, that is authoritarian. PERIOD. Power is being exercised, beliefs are being imposed. If social conservationism is the nature state of people when there is no government, why is the government the only thing that limits people from engaging in socially liberal behavior? The answer to that is extremely obvious: because my opponent's excuses are completely nonsensical.

3. This is not changed sides in a way, this is switching between two complex bureaucracies. I've beaten this dead horse enough. It is not logistically feasible for the "red states" to secede given the ephemeral political climate of the United States.

4. My opponent believes that elite universities of the "blue states" (Harvard,Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT, to name a few) do more damage through their "liberal" agenda than they contribute through training and education. Voters can make of this what they wish when considering the "Arguments" vote.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jesse0 7 years ago
jesse0
A major reason to disallow the secession of red states would be the presence of a hostile, uneducated and unemployed mass of illiterates on the border of the new blue nation. Additionally, one can only imagine the ecological disaster zone the red nation would become. The blue nation would be remiss to invite that.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
As ignorant of American politics (or indeed any politics) as I am, I'm still fairly sure that none of the Blue states wish to make America a Communist country.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
And therein lies the problem I pointed out in one of my first posts: not every state designated as "red" or "blue" in the last presidential election mirrors those states which wanted to secede in the Civil War (a lesser concern), nor does that grouping indicate any actual wish to secede. Not every republican majority state is petty enough to attempt to sever itself from the US as a whole because their guy took less ballots.
Posted by PrinceOfTheFire 7 years ago
PrinceOfTheFire
red states= states with republican majority. I would take the map of Obama wins vs McCain wins as reference
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Define Red State.
Posted by PrinceOfTheFire 7 years ago
PrinceOfTheFire
well I was hoping the contender would defend the opposite point, that would "red states should not be allowed to secede", and if so, why not
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I agree with that wholeheartedly :) But, as I said, the entire post, unless there is some alternative interpretation of the English I'm not getting at, is not just about the allowance of secession, but about the fruits of doing so. Hence, it would be 100% reasonable to argue the costs and benefits of such a decision.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I agree that the last sentence of the opening statement asserts that it would be better if the red states did secede, however, the resolution is not ambiguous, it says, "let the red states secede." The opening statement does not contradict that. It would be a whole lot better if Pro had made a real case that would have clarified what was being argued.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
To clarify, he isn't just stopping at having the ability to do so in any of his post. The instigator wants a debate in which he can claim that, at the end of the day, these states *would* secede if allowed.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
And that's all well and fine, Roy, but that's not the case that the instigator is mounting. He is creating need for a cost/benefit analysis. I don't see why they shouldn't be, technically, allowed to do so either, with the possible exception of the mass stupidity factor (i.e. the same arguments provided against things like jury nullification as a right), but the instigator isn't making the distinction that you are. At least, it doesn't look like it to me.

The topic, I think, was hastily written and remains ambiguous on its intentions.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jesse0 7 years ago
jesse0
PrinceOfTheFireGrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
PrinceOfTheFireGrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 7 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
PrinceOfTheFireGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
PrinceOfTheFireGrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03