America should split itself up into two or more nations.

In response to my argument about people being in the wrong nation, the Pro said that they could just move. The Pro is proposing that 40% of the population of most states just pack up and leave. This would be impractical because most people don't have the money required to do this. They would have to leave their homes and jobs without guarantee of either when they got to their nation. This could not work, so the Pro would have to prove that the split would work without a large scale move. On the military danger argument, the Pro is seriously mistaken if he thinks that splitting the nation would remove the target from our backs. It is illogical to think that making our self weaker would keep us safer. The terrorists and others that dislike the United States would take this opportunity to strike while we are weak, not let their chance go away. This proves that splitting the nation would be dangerous for everyone. Onto my opponent's arguments. The Pro states that I do not look to the long term, only the short term. This is partially true. If the plan is wrecked at the beginning, there will be no chance to see if it works in the long term. I do look to the long term though, because splitting the nation would not solve enough problems to be worth it in the end. Next the Pro says that lower population states are underrepresented, but splitting the nation would not fix this. It can be assumed that the new nations would have similar governments to the current one, so higher population areas will still have more say in the government than lower population areas. Because splitting the nation does not solve the problem, this argument is invalid. The Pro goes on to say that we should split the nation because people are different in different places. America has taken pride in the idea that she is a nation of immigrants, willing to accept everyone and use their differences for the good of all. People are different everywhere in the US, so splitting the nation would go against American ideals. According to Google, a nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. By this definition, all Americans are definitely one nation. The Pro's argument that people are interested in things that are closer to home has no effect on the resolution. People are interested in things that happen close to them and less interested in things further from them. Splitting the nation would only make people less interested in things happening further from them, not more interested in things closer to them, so this argument does not change anything. The Pro's reasoning behind the idea that people will change their party in the new nations is flawed. While this might work in an area where one party heavily outweighs the other, I have already shown that the dispersion is even enough that this outweighing is very unlikely. Also, if this conversion idea worked on the large scale that would be necessary, everyone would have already changed to one party and we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. If people haven't all agreed in the almost 300 years that we've been a nation, they aren't likely to any time soon. Pro's argument about how political geography does not hold any water. While the presidential election map does have large clumps of same party states, this is not all that must be looked at. There is the New England clump, which would be one nation, but there is also the west coast with similar views. They would want to be one nation because of similar political ideas, but geography would make this impractical. Also, the presidential voting map does not show everything just by the majority outcome. If you look at the CNN link I gave in my first round, you will see that in states like Michigan 54% voted Obama, while 45% voted Romney. Just because the state is blue does not mean that everyone would want to be part of a nation dominated by Democratic ideas. Pro's final point is that people would be less confused and more knowledgeable about what is happening in the split nations. This is illogical because people that are interested in politics will stay interested in politics and those not interested will not become interested because the topics of discussion change. Pro tries to defend the coexistence of his two points by saying that a split will prevent the nation from going to extremes, but this is faulty logic. The two different ideas balance each other out, but one party would have nothing to balance it out. A nation with only one party is much more susceptible to extremes. This can be seen with Nazism and Communism. Both governmental systems use only one party with all the power so there is no one to challenge them. I fail to see how the Pro believes that one party will prevent extremes. The Pro says that he wins because he explained how America is not working, gave a solution to the problem, and will make more people happy. Unfortunately, he has only shown that America is not working. It is clear to see that there are problems in America, but the solution that Pro proposed does not solve any of them, it only creates new problems. Because splitting the nation will only create more problems, this will clearly not make anyone happier. I do understand the reasoning behind the split, which I have proved. It is the Pro that does not understand the reasoning for staying together. I win this debate for two main reasons. First, the Burden of Proof is on the Pro because he is advocating change, but I am saying we should stay together. I have shown how the Pro does not solve any problems, so that should be enough reason for you to vote for me. If that isn't enough though, I have also shown the dangers that would come from splitting the nation.