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
Secession is common, historical, and recognized.
If two publishing companies get together and agree that nobody may ever start a new publishing company, does this agreement have any basis in the natural law or justice? Does it bind a man in conscience or in action? No, because it is clearly an agreement by two biased parties to protect their own interests. So it is with "international law", and other agreements between states about matters like nationhood. Secession is a historical fact, which has happened many times. If it has no basis in law, then what is the Irish Republic? What are the United States of America? Are they subjects of the crown, or not? All former colonies are clearly subjects of their former masters, if secession is not legal. Of course, one might say that peace treaties between the former colonial power and these nations have made them independent, but this is like saying that crushing rebellion is justified, unless you lose, and then the war was still justified, but you have to let the rebels go free.
Supporting URL[s]:
http://www.mises.org
http://www.mises.org
http://www.mises.org
Opinion #2
Debater: interested
Secession is not; never has been legal or recognized.
Secession has never been recognized as legal or justified. Only hostile states have ever recognized the secession of part of another. International law is the consensus of the world and it is not even remotely akin to a business combination to monopolize a trade.

The Irish Republic did not secede since it was a colonized nation. The Unites States is a grey situation but it, if it is considered secession, did it through force of arms and legality is not a question.

Former colonies can not be considered to be subjects of their former masters. They are colonized peoples who are freed. They are peoples and not part of the people of the colonizing power. Your argument would be a justification for slavery which, as you, yourself, have noted, was efectively ended by the 14th. Amendment.

Rebels do have to go free if they have won their freedom by force and can maintain it. If they are domestic rebels, they will not be recognized by the international community until their is no way back.
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.