California Splitting into 6 States should be passed

Let me start off by saying that my opponent hasn’t set any ground rules for this debate. Hence, I am allowed to do any sort of argument/rebuttal that I want. Therefore, this round will have some rebuttals and arguments in it. Before I even begin my argument, I need to settle an issue in this debate. The following is a quote that my opponent made at the end of his 2nd round argument. “After reading your response, I am concerned that you want to argue against California splitting into six states. As I have argued above, we are not yet in a position to argue the splitting of California, because there is insufficient information.” I am supposed to argue against the idea of California splitting into six states. The resolution of the debate is “California Splitting into 6 States should be passed”. I am con to this resolution. Therefore, I must argue against the idea of California being split into six states. Since my opponent is pro, he must argue in favor of splitting California into six states. He has not done so yet, but I’ll go into more detail about that later. Now, onto my arguments. Argument #1: California is too Successful to Split Up California is a very successful state in the United States of America. If California was a country by itself, it would be among the top ten most productive countries in the world. California leads the nation in production of fruits and vegetables. California also does well in dairy farming, the wine industry, and fishing. Many high-tech companies are located in California. California stimulates the economy through its tourism and entertainment. To conclude, California as a whole state does good things for the United States of America. Therefore, it is urgent that we keep the state intact. If we break up the state, there is no guarantee that all of these great, productive things will continue. Furthermore, this can harm what would be the six states (formerly California), as well as the United States as a whole. In order to ensure the continuation of this productivity, California must remain one whole state. Argument #2: Flaws With the Idea My opponent brings up many flaws with the idea of splitting California into six states. Let’s take a look at some of these flaws. “As stated in the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis (see analysis on LAO website) , we know of many issues that would arise from the passage of this initiative…” “Items 1 and 2, above are the only issues that will be effective immediately.”“1. Immediately after voter approval of this initiative, charter counties are allowed to assume more authority over municipalities. Provisions are made to allow counties to delegate this to a regional association of counties that would represent the new state. 2. Immediately the State could not impose laws on counties without immediate compensation for costs of implementation. Presently, these payments can be delayed.” “Powers removed from municipalities may or may not take effect and will be subject to on going debate. If the outcome is disputed, it will probably be the subject of litigation. The immediate compensation of the State imposing laws on counties is nothing more than closing a loophole.” “The State has been able to defer paying these costs, essentially using the counties as interest free loaners.” “The LAO identifies the bumpy road ahead, and it should be. There are a multitude of issues to get settled, and that will be the first test.” Obviously, there are many unresolved problems with this idea. So, the question is: Why should we make progress towards making this split occur if there are many problems that will come with it? Simply put, we shouldn’t. The fewer problems we have, the better we will be. Therefore, it would be best if we don’t go any further into this idea. Argument #3: This is Pointless/Time Could Be Used More Efficiently Simply put, it’s a pointless idea. There aren’t any legitimate reasons why this idea would be beneficial. If there isn’t any reason to do this split, then we shouldn’t do it. If we didn’t do this split, we could use more time and energy into doing something more productive with the United States of America. Therefore, we should not pursue this idea. Rebuttal #1: (My Opponent) Arguing Against His Own Idea If you read my opponent’s argument, you will notice that he doesn’t argue in favor of California splitting into six states. In fact, he even argues against the idea. He basically did the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do, according to the resolution. In doing so, he added an extra argument (his own argument) that further hinders his chances of proving his point. Remember that he must now respond to his own claims, as well as mine. Conclusion: I have given a few reasons as to why California should not split into six states. I have also pointed out that my opponent argues against his own idea and doesn’t really realize what the resolution states he must do. My opponent must respond to all of my claims, as well as his own claims against his idea, in order to fulfill his duty. Resources: http://www.infoplease.com...