Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

I'm going to start the round off by making my own constructive case, then go on to refute some of what my opponent said, since the rules never specified if this round was to be used solely for constructive cases or not. Each of the "parts" that I use in my first part of the round are going to be parts of my constructive case, just as an FYI. -----Part I: Washington D. C. Our founding fathers never meant for Washington, D. C. to be a state. In their minds, this would grant more power to an individual state (D. C. ) than to the others (such as Nebraska or California), since they are in charge of the central government. State powers and federal powers ought to be separate, since the establishment of federalism is that very basic concept. One could argue about the whole "No Taxation Without Representation! " deal that is going on in the D. C. area, but we can actually off-set this entire argument by just amending the constitution to allow D. C. to have a representative and a couple senators, since they actually ought to have some representation. Another reason that I believe that Washington, D. C. should not become its own sovereign state is because it is such a small area, that it would be pretty bad to make it its own state. If we should make Washington, D. C. a state based on population, we should make "North New York City" and "South New York City" states too, because that is just as logical. Having a city-state will lead to the erosion of federalism, which come on, we don't want, since that is basically the erosion of the basic idea of the united states. Bad, bad, bad. Part II: Puerto Rico. I want to start off this little "part" of my constructive speech by giving you this statistic: 14% of Puerto Ricans are out of work [1]. Now, do we want to give statehood to a territory that would bring down this great nation with such high unemployment numbers and such high poverty rates? Do we want to gain statehood to a territory that would lead to the downfall of this nation? NO! One of the main points that people have about granting statehood to Puerto Rico is that they ought to have the right to vote. Yes, I totally agree! BUT, we can give the right to vote to territories WITHOUT bringing down this nation! We can just pass a bill in the congress that says, "hey, puerto rico, you can vote. thanks for waiting <3". Another point that I want to make, is that establishing statehood to Puerto Rico would mean that we would be cutting out their culture by enforcing the Westernization and America-nization to them. -----Rebuttals:Puerto Rico: Yeah, you are correct in saying that 61% of people in Puerto Rico want to be a state, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. 61% of people could say "we should kill all blacks", but that doesn't mean that we should in fact do that. Your logic doesn't really follow through, unless you can provide a card that says that 61% of already STATE-BORN Americans want Puerto Rico want to be a state. North Colorado: Because you like ending political disputes, I assume that you're in favor of gerrymandering? Just because it would reduce debate on the state level does not mean that it is beneficial to the state. You have some okay logic in saying that only 11 counties are republican, and thus we should make those 11 counties their own state, but then that would mean that we should make "Omaha, Nebraska" it's own state, since it tends to vote democrat in a red state. Logic = false. State of Jefferson: Thanks for conceding that the work that it would take to make this a state would be VERY much. Besides that, it's just not the morally right thing to do. "Trololol california im takin ur land that u rightfully own trol! " is basically what you are trying to do, and that's immoral. Taking away federally given things is not good, so you cannot stand in affirmation of granting statehood to the State of Jefferson. [1]: . http://www.tradingeconomics.com...