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
What were the Articles of Confederation?
It is somewhat surprising that the Articles of Confederation, which guided the United States through their fragile early years, seem to have been so thoroughly wiped from the American memory. Under the Articles, the United States were, more or less, a loosely organized group of sovereign entities. The national legislature was weak and decentralized. The Bill of Rights was penned to placate Antifederalists who preferred the Articles to the Constitution- these rights were NOT in danger under the loosely centralized Articles, but they WERE threatened by the Constitution. The federal government is, as Americans then knew, a danger to our rights, not a protector of them. If the states were not sovereign entities, but merely colonies, and there is no basis for secession from a sovereign entity in law, how is it possible that the "securing of independence by a colony" is legitimate? If secession is illegal, then Americans are subjects of Queen Elizabeth II.
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
Opinion #2
Debater: interested
Rights and the Constitution
The Articles and the Constitution itself were of the 18th, Century and based on 17th. Century thinking. The world moves on and the american Constitution which is far more than those two has necessarily evolved to accommodate changing times. All the world Constitutions have evolved similarly. To refer to original ideas is to place the nation in a straitjacket. Centralizing has been the experience of every nation; and necessarily so. (Too much power has shifted to the Presidency, though.)

The Bill of Rights was effective only against the Federal Government and there was no protection against most of the individual states. Centralisation of power is has brought protection to the people. It is absurd to say that the central government is a danger to the people when scattered authority was the danger. The Courts ensure this.

The backwards reference is reactionary. A colony securing independence is legitimate when it is recognized and in current international law is recognized as such.
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.