YouDebateIt.com Return To Home Page

YouDebateIt.com -- Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?
Topic: Is It Better To Be A Divided Nation?

Which do you prefer #1 or #2?
Vote below for the better argument.
Opinion #1
Debater: The Wild Goose
Once again, we must not accept superficial structures as inherent goods.
If this division becomes "the condition of an Alliance, not a nation", then perhaps we must go further than the topic suggests and cease to be a nation at all. As I have said several times, there is nothing inherently good about the states being united in a "Nation"- this unity is, and was conceived as, nothing more than a means to an end. The ends of politics are peace and freedom, and these themselves are not final ends, but mere means to a greater end, which is not political. I must also counter and say that American institutions have NOT effectively "evolved" since the founding of the country. The federal government has "evolved" into a massive, power-hungry, bureaucratic mess, and is fast evolving into a Hobbesian "Leviathan" state. Secession and nullification have protected American liberties many times in this nation's history. Checks and balances that "encourage diversity" do not long survive when the federal government is allowed to define its own power.
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.mises.org
Opinion #2
Debater: interested
Nullity and secession are slogans only.
The ideas of nullity and secession are reactionary and have had no currency in American affairs since Calhoun. Even Calhoun saw nullity as a tool to enforce equality in laws. Yet, it could only be used to achieve a condition of inequality. Jackson effectively disposed of that thought.

Secession is, as it always was, a non-starter. The states are not sovereign entities as such: they are sovereign within their jurisdictions and limits. The USA is sovereign in a national sense and sovereignty means indivisibilty. Secession has no legal basis. Neither do any of the States meet the criteria set by the Helsinki Accords for self-determination and, therefore do not meet the agreed international standards to form independent nations.

There is something inherently bad about division that outweighs any suggestion that there is nothing inherently good about Unity. That is, the conditions of inequality and dissension - perhaps confrontation - that would follow disunity. The ends of politics are-
Which argument do you agree with more? #1   #2
Which argument is more persuasive? #1   #2
READ ALL ARGUMENTS ON THIS TOPIC
POST YOUR COUNTERARGUMENT TO THE MOST RECENT ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
START A NEW OR SEPARATE ARGUMENT ON THIS TOPIC
READ & JUDGE OTHER COMPLETED DEBATES
PROPOSE ANOTHER DEBATE TOPIC
Share your view. Whose argument did you like better? I strongly prefer the argument of debater #1
I strongly prefer the argument of debater #2
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #1
I slightly prefer the argument of debater #2
I prefer the argument of debater #1, but I could do better!
I prefer the argument of debater #2, but I could do better!

  
Your comments will appear on SelectSmart.com. Look for ''Visitor Reviews''.

Welcome to YouDebateIt.com
This is the place for debate with an added element of friendly competition. This is a debating and essay resource and practice tool, not a debating society or club. There are no complicated rules, but these debates have structure. Each debate consists of a topic with two opposing views.

These are short essays limited to about 150-165 words. Present your strongest argument the first time, since you can't go back to change it--as with the National Forensic League and other speech and debate formats. Read these debates, then vote for your favorite arguments.

These debates are fun, informative and give exposure to all sides of the issues. Most debates will be archived (arguments that are obscene or offensive may be deleted). The better and more interesting debates will be featured.