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

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...