Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union

Apologies in advance: this was speed written with no proofread during a very busy week. I will respond to my opponent using his numbering: Con Case: 1. Civil War 1) The consistent pattern is Jackson’s affirmation of the use of force against S Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, the Supreme Court affirming that States have no right to secede, and the Obama White House stating the Founding Faters “did not provide a right to walk away ... more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.” 2) Our involvement in Libya was still an act of war, extend all my evidence of the massive military involvement of the US in the past decade alone. The US has never been gun shy and won’t be in the face of secession. 3) Now Pro want to say Canadian secession was “relatively” peaceful- he struggles to provide even a few examples of peaceful secession. African independence wasn’t peaceful- there were massive riots and guerilla warfare in Algeria, race wars in South Africa, rampant Civil Wars across the nation, a rise in cruel dictators like Mobutu. Aside from the Cold War and violence at the hands of state police in the USSR, sure the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. It is indeed rare for secession to occur peacefully. 4) Pro offers no analysis as to how the cost outweighs benefits for the US to go to war. Pro concedes that the US would win a Civil War, and also concedes that secession would devastate the US economically and tank US Heg. Even by Pro’s count it is in the US best interest to preserve the Union by force. That some people have friends in Texas will matter about as much as all the Chinese people living in the US matter to current US-Sino relations. 5) US maintained Hegemony during the Cold War- that’s why we won and western influence dominates the world. 2. Hegemony 1) I didn’t drop the N Korea example- I pointed out that the fact that North and South Korea ARE NOT fighting proves the US stabilizes- the Korean Armistice was signed by the US. The fact that nuclear proliferation is occurring doesn’t prove US Heg is irrelevant, it just proves that some problems continue to be intractable. Hegemony isn’t a magic wand, it’s a very stable power structure. 2) Pro misses my Syria point- the UN is divided on enacting Syria SANCTIONS showing they are a non-unified actor, which impedes their efficacy. By the way the US has enacted sanctions on Syria[1]. Pro points out the economic instability of EU member states yet points to it as a reliable global force. Note that Pro drops my point that NATO is useless without the US. 3) Pro’s evidence the terrorist attacks are up is a blog chart with little cartoon faces on it and poorly documented sources. Anyways cat’s out of the bag on the US being in the Middle East- I don’t think terrorists are going to look kindly on the birthplace of GW Bush even if it doesn’t have troops in the Middle East. Extend my evidence the US Heg is key to power projection and the ability to reach far off places like Pakistan, this is how we killed Bin Laden and crippled Al Qaeda. 3) Pro gives no evidence that Texas could handle immigration better, just that there are a lot of illegals now. 4) The South China Sea is a region of border disputes and a flashpoint for wars to start- my evidence lists several examples of small scale engagements. Threat of U.S. intervention dampens these conflicts, but if Pro thinks that a war between China and Japan is in Texas’ best interest then I guess we can ignore the South China Sea. 5) Iraq doesn’t have to be a good state for the US presence to help global security. US presence in the Middle East stabilizes oil reserves which are crucial to the global economy and maintains a balance of power- clearly observable in the Persian Gulf War. Global instability doesn’t look like an Iraqi failed state, it looks like an Iraqi dictator with his hand on the global oil supply. 3. Economy 1. Pro is right- it isn’t hard to come up with a tax system for Texas- its hard to get politicians to agree to legislate a tax system that is capable of replacing federal funding. Replacing 33% of the budget will be a drawn out political nightmare. 2. The point remains that Texas can’t rely on a trade economy and depends heavily on the US via defense spending, oil refineries, etc. On a side note, I bet most of Texas’ wine comes from California. It would suck to not have wine. 3. Brain drain will occur as soon as jobs move across the Texas border. When Lockheed and Martin moves its jobs to Virginia, the workers will follow. 4. When Lockheed leaves, it will take its “assets and people” with. Top management will go where the government contracts are and it doesn’t take a corporate genius to know that a brand new country will not be nearly as reliable a customer as the faithful repeat buyer of the USA. 5. Heg has nothing to do with companies leaving Texas. Defense contractors work for the US. When Texas is no longer part of the US, their contracts with the USFG will force them to leave. Recall that Texas’ largest economic sector is defense. 6. “Higher export costs of oil means cheaper oil for citizens residing in Texas” No. It creates higher global oil prices via market inefficiency. Pro Case Economy 1. Some countries had positive growth during the recession- these were the exception not the rule, reference my R2 evidence that only 1 EU country maintained positive growth and even the growth rate of other countries slowed. None of these countries were as closely intertwined with the US as Texas is. Additionally, the total collapse of the US economy would be magnitudes worse than the recession. Finally, per my R2 evidence, the post-recession global economy is already weakened and less resilient meaning the next shock will destroy the system. 2. Pro gives no timeframe or limit on how much debt will trigger the unemployment impacts he cites- these impacts could be decades down the road, giving us plenty of time to come up with solutions. Secession is an immediate guarantee that the US and global economy collapses, meaning that even if Pro wins that the US is on a bad path Texas should still not secede. 3. My evidence also says that we have made strides toward reducing the debt growth, showing there is hope for a political solution. All of Pro’s debt growth predictions are based on the status quo, no one can account for political solutions not in place- and my evidence shows that political solutions are emerging. Again, its try-or die. 4. Extend that debt is an investment- just because some of the debt (Social Security) doesn’t directly fund human capital doesn’t change that most of it does. The bulk of the debt funds medical welfare, defense, infrastructure, etc. which help grow the economy. Culture Pro offers no evidence that Texans mostly value the same things. This whole point is silly- lets talk about how Texas should start a civil war because they don’t agree with Maine on gun control. I don’t agree with my coworkers on gun control but Im not going to quit my job over it, because that wouldn’t be in my best interest. Ability to Secede: Extend that Texas will lose all tanks, airplanes, computer systems, trucks, medical supplies, disaster response supplies belonging to the US. Good luck protecting your borders without your government issued assault rifles. Economy of Scale Even if Pro wins that there are economies of scale, this isn’t a reason for Texas to leave. Pro uses evidence that China is corrupt to prove Texas should leave the US. But the US isn’t China- Pro needs to prove the US is corrupt to prove it is worth leaving and he doesn’t do this. Also, extend that many small countries like Nigeria are very corrupt- Pro needs to prove Texas wouldn’t be corrupt. Conclusion A house divided against itself cannot stand. [1] http://usforeignpolicy.about.com...