If Texas were to threaten to secede from the Union...

1. Intent My opponent describes a threat as something with the intention of harm. However, this wouldn't be like the threat of attacking a person, but more like the threat of leaving someone or something if they don't treat you nicer [1]. Just want to get the analogies straight and all. "Threats limit the ability to act, to compromise, and to push forward peacefully. " Incorrect. Threats reveal problems in government that require compromise. For example, the government can act on Texas' threat by either agreeing, disagreeing, or compromising. Texas can then either secede, agree to compromise, or simply stay in the Union. The threat doesn't limit the Union's options at all. Sure, secession could, but that's a different story for now. The point is, the Union can still negotiate with Texas. The Union can act, compromise, and push forwards peacefully through compromise, if it chooses to. Hence, freedom. "By threatening secession, the government of Texas has the direct *intent* to cut off the ability of the US government to exercise its freedom. " My opponent calls the Union's power over Texas "freedom. " However, freedom is defined as "the freedom to do what one wants with their property that DOES NOT VIOLATE another's right to their own property. " I contend that if Texas does not wish for the Union to hold power over Texas, then the Union's controlling Texas would violate the rights of Texans who no longer consent to the Union, which "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" [2]. No consent, no just powers. Therefore, the Union's power over Texas cannot be considered "basic freedom. " In fact, if the Union were to continue to excursive powers over Texas without consent, it would be violating the basic freedom of the Texans, so this threat is used to preserve the basic freedoms of Texas. "Threats such as the one being discussed limit the ability of one party to reasonably exercise its own power, not only because it threatens any peaceful and co-operative means of arbitration by breaking down order, but because it backs a party into a corner with no way out except to give in and accept the demands placed upon them, or have the threat acted upon by the other party. " Actually, given that the threat itself is justified, as if the people of Texas no longer consent to the Union's power over Texas, then the Union has no rightful power over Texas, the Union is in the corner that it has always been in. If they want to keep a state in the Union, then they have to make sure that the state would rather be in the Union than not. If Texas decides that it would actually rather be a separate country the way things are going, it could just secede outright, but instead it gives the Union the option to keep Texas, given that it compensates for what Texas deems as a loss of freedom. The Union has as much freedom as it has always had; it just has to put that freedom into effect. Note that the Union, in this case, would never have had the freedom to both keep Texas and enact legislation against Texas, as that would not be basic freedom in the slightest. "My opponent may counter this with his definition of 'freedom' noted earlier; in advanced, I would like to note that the United States has jurisdiction over Texas by virtue of its powers and precedent. " I would like to note that my opponent's source speaks nothing of "virtue of its powers. " However, the Constitution does give the Union "supreme law of the land. " However, if Texas secedes from the Union, Texas would no longer be a state, but a nation, and therefore, the clause would have no effect. Additionally, if the power is taken to mean that Texas cannot secede at all, but must instead accept whatever tyranny is dealt to it, then this is a major blow to the basic freedom of Texans. This would also violate our Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" [2]. By my opponent's precedent, it's basically the idea that because a powerful member of the Union decided to declare the Union's federal powers to trump states rights, the Union fairly trumps state rights without denying basic freedom. The result of the case is hardly surprising, given the bias of a Union member in increasing Union power. However, this also violates the Declaration of Independence for the same reason. "[T]he intent of the threat limits the federal government's ability to exercise its freedom over its property - directly falling under my opponent's definition. " The federal government's exercise of its freedom would conflict with the Texan's basic freedom. Additionally, any "freedom" held by the Union would be transferred to the Texas government or the Texans themselves, therefore granting just as much as violating. 2. Result My opponent talks about how Quebec negotiated many rights for itself through secession. However, we have to look at Canada's decisions. It had the complete freedom to (A) let Quebec be, or (B) keep Quebec, and give Quebec certain rights. Quebec did not have to give Canada (B), but it did anyway. Canada should have been glad to have a second option. Obviously, Canada decided that keeping Quebec in Canada was so important that (B) would be a better choice than (A). Now, because Quebec gave Canada a choice between (A) and (B), this would be freedom for Canada. The only way for this not to be freedom would be for Canada to have an unalienable right to control Quebec. For the most part, Canada's policies are irrelevant, but in the United States, by the American principles of government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" [2], the Union has no intrinsic power over Texas without consent. It would be a huge violation of basic freedom for the Union to enslave an entire state. My opponent says that Quebec has blocked progress and freedom. However, Canada as a whole had the freedom not to give in to Quebec's demands, and gave in by their own terms, so no freedom was violated at all. The other provinces decided that Quebec was important to Canada to hold on to it for such costs. My opponent describes Quebec's actions as "holding hostage the federal government. " However, no definition of "hostage" [3] could fulfill this statement. It would be more fitting to use 1a and say that Quebec is holding itself hostage, saying that it will secede itself if demands are not met. Holding one's self hostage in no way violates basic freedom. Conclusion: As I have shown, by the American principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence [2], Texas has the right to secede from the Union, and the Union's power over Texas is not a basic freedom. However, instead of outright practicing its right to secede, Texas would given the Union an option (freedom): (A) let go of Texas, or (B) don't enact legislation in Texas deemed harmful by Texans, and keep Texas. Options in no way violate freedom, and if Texas wants to secede, then not trying to secede would violate the basic freedoms of the people being forced into legislation passed by the Union. The Union has the freedom to make the better choice as deemed by the Union. In no way does such a threat violate basic freedom any more than it grants basic freedom, and it immediately grants Texans the freedom to not be restricted by anti-freedom laws such as Cap 'n' Trade. Thank you, and vote CON. With that, good luck, Volkov. 1. . http://www.pcworld.com... 2. . http://www.ushistory.org... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...