Should the U.S. break up into smaller distinct nations?

Cultural and regional diversity are strengths

Question: Should the U.S. break up into smaller distinct nations?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the U.S. should remain as a whole
Argument: Cultural and regional diversity are strengths

America has long been famed as the land of the free and a home for all kinds of people. For centuries, immigrants from around the world, as well as a legacy of slavery, have guaranteed the United States as a culturally diverse place.

The argument

Though not in the Constitution, many Americans would agree that diversity is a fundamental strength of the United States and is not something to be underestimated. In fact, a new poll says that 60% of the nation believes diversity is a strength, with 75% of Republicans and 50% of Republicans within that data. Diversity is not necessarily a party issue. Diversity in terms of cultural differences from a wide range of immigrant populations across the nation, as well as diversity in terms of regional differences even within “American” culture. If the country were to separate across these fault lines, whether it be race, ethnicity, political affiliation, region, or any other suggested break, a crucial piece of the American identity would be lost. Americans themselves often tie America’s greatest qualities to its own diversity and it may even make the populace smarter and more open to change. Diversity is not a smooth road, no one argues such, but it is a road that leads to increased empathy and understanding across a populace.

Premises

[P1]A majority of Americans across party lines view cultural and regional diversity as a fundamental strength of the nation. [P2] Breaking the country apart along racial, ethnic, political, or regional lines would destroy this diversity and erase a crucial part of American identity. [P3] Sustaining diversity, though difficult, fosters empathy, openness, and understanding across the populace. [C] Therefore, the U.S. should remain whole in order to preserve the diversity that constitutes one of its greatest strengths.

Counter-arguments

Cultural and regional diversity are strengths, but not at the cost of progress. Those who would argue for ethnic or racial homogeneity are hardly true Americans, but it is a fair desire to hope for a country that can agree on political issues enough to make real last change. If America’s “diversity” is forcing the country to stay stagnant, then it is not truly a strength. Instead, if the country were to break into smaller regions, individuals could relocate to those smaller regions based on their own values, not on any other diversity marker.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] What people believe about diversity is not evidence that it is a strength; the premise substitutes opinion polling for the claim itself. The figures as reported are also internally inconsistent, giving two different shares for the same group. [Rejecting P2] Separation would redraw borders rather than remove diversity. The resulting states would still contain immigrant populations and sharp regional variation, and the premise assumes clean fault lines when in practice the divisions it names run through every region and most cities. [Rejecting P3] The benefits are asserted rather than evidenced, and the same conditions the premise credits with fostering empathy are the ones the opposing position cites as producing deadlock. Both readings fit the facts as stated. [Rejecting C] Even granting that diversity is a strength, that does not settle the question, which is whether the costs of governing a deeply divided polity outweigh it. The premises never engage the trade-off the conclusion is supposed to resolve.