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

A very interesting topic to debate about. I think it is an interesting idea to present and will make a very interesting R3 Arguments "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. " Some of these nations would be only relied on one central state to do the work. I am going to stick with an example. .. Lets say the Southeast where to include the states Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee. I am going to use these states as an example. .. My source: . https://www.usgovernmentspending.com... I also confirmed with . http://www.worldatlas.com... More Sources:. http://floridapolitics.com... Florida838,939 Tennessee297,159 Georgia474,696 Alabama200,414 Mississippi104,753 You can clearly see that Florida and Tennessee control the GDP in Millions Dollars Alabama and Mississippi are clearly holding behind the rest. So if Florida were to add these to their government, they would have to pay tons of money to fix and get these cities back on track. First off, hypothetically, the politicians alone would not want to waste the valuable money, because their politicians are obviously greedy for money. This is reflecting in Florida's mayor (Rick Scott's) 52% approval rating in Florida. People would oppose him even if he did this, but he willingly would not do it. Lets say he did it. It would cost millions of dollars to fix the economy of these states. This would cause an increase of tax and people would leave with how huge the tax would be, which would be around 12.1% property and 9.1% sales because how much money that would be spending. This is one example I am taking, there are many others that fit. the only one that could be successful would be California. R3 ARG 2 "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. " I feel like I have a right for emotion in this argument. I am going to keep using the Southeast example. They would completely want slavery because that is what would keep the economy going. Do really need to resort to slavery to have a successful environments and labour. No we shouldn't. There is so much racism in this world and now if these states were to incorporate it into their ways, we would be setting an example for developing countries, and we want to be a role model, not a villain. Not to mention slavery causes wars. These regions also have different political beliefs, so they would have tensions and end up causing wars. It would be an automatic fails. R3 ARG "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. " I am going to keep going to argument that states that don't made the best decisions, they need some federal rule so they can be prosperous. If the argument you are saying is multiple states would form, then they would have different policies on different things, like for your example, CSA. Some states would not allow it and if they were united in that group, they would disagree. In Arg 1, you said about states in a region combining. This contradicts your argument in this because because your taking about individual states, while in Arg 1, you talked about unification of certain states. This leaves the con confused and I think judges should consider con R3 ARG 4 "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. " I don't think any evidence that stated proves this point. I am left questioning this argument because I have to use my opinion which is I think corrupt state leaders would not want the best, just that cash for them. For example, ILGov has a corrupt leader name Mike Madigan, who steals money from us. Which all that power, do you think he is going to make it harder to live. He is only not taxing so much because of this federal rule. I think that argument has no evidence, while my Mike Madigan evidence is clearly stated Source:. http://www.chicagotribune.com... CONCLUSION The pro argument is interesting, put I don't think it would be best. The PRO has been confused with some state unification and only states. This leaves me confused and judgers vote con due to unclarity. It would end up falling in Civil War I leave the judges with quotes "Unity is strength. . . when there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved. " -Mattie Stepanek "United we stand, divided we fall. " -Aesop END NOTE: Thank you to the PRO for letting me debate this topic. I also want to say thanks for a respectful debate that was fun for both of us! You should keep doing this because this was really interesting to present! !! ! !