The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Splitting of the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 33656
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




I believe that everything from GA to Texas should break away including Oklahoma and everything up to Kentucky. This would be called Dixie.
I believe that I should be the Commander of Dixie.
My opponent may choose which topics he would like to discuss.
(We will assume that a peace treaty between Dixie and the Yankees is in effect. War betweeen the nations is not an issue that I would like to be included.)
Any issue, but war between the nations, will be considered.


I accept, and look forward to this. I think it is fairly obvious that Pro accepts the burden of proof in this debate, so I will give him the floor to make his case. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


So, I will start.
I, commander of Dixie, would be beneficial to the current southern states of America.
We will assume that there is a peace treaty between the rest of America and Dixie as I have previously stated.
The items that I would support/change/adopt are the following:
1. 30%-40% military spending. A strong military is necessary to keep the nation.
2. Cutting all welfare except for disability. I would only have six weeks of unemployment benefits provided. Wounded warriors and people born with disability would get full benefits. No food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, or anything of the sort.
3. Overall simplification of education-Teach students what the vast majority will need for life and make education more about logic, reasoning, and creating classes that would teach students for a future occupation(like trade school).
4. Adoption of FairTax-23% sales tax, no other taxes. A check would be sent to each family at the beginning of each month to cancel out taxes paid on life's necessities like food.
5. Very little to no gun control-Most people should have a gun on their hip to protect themselves. This is not a requirement but I would push for more lax gun control. Guns restriction would lie only with minors and violent criminals.
6. Law enforcement funding would be cut, primarily because of the lack of gun control making it easier for people to defend themselves.
7. Immigration-strong border control, similar to that of North Korea. No one comes in illegally and lives.
Social Issues
8. No gays allowed-no marriage, or PDA between gays. This will be punishable by deportation.
9. No abortion-baby killing is bad.
10. National religion would be protestant Christianity. Religious officials would not be politicians if you are scared of that. Mostly this would just be to ensure that things like Christmas Carols can be sung and the government can use the Bible for defense against certain bills that would be immoral.
11. National Language-English
Foreign Policy
12. Free Trade but benefits will be instituted to push for self dependency.
13. No economic trade agreements
14. No UN for us.

15. Our flag will be the Rebel flag with an "In God We Trust" written on it.
16. No segregation or slavery just to be clear.

These are the issues. Tell me which you disagree with. Defend your opinions. Any additional things you want to know bring that up in your turn and I will get to it when I respond.
Thank you for accepting my debate,
Commander of Dixie


I thank my opponent for presenting his opening argument. As a fellow son of the South, I share his fondness of this land, and wish prosperity upon its proud people. Because we differ so profoundly on how best to serve Southern interests, there is room for a lively debate, which I hope readers will enjoy.

I will now proceed by identifying the considerable problems with Pro’s primary contention that “I as commander of Dixie, would be beneficial to the current southern states of America.”

Instead of defending that unwarranted assertion by elaborating on his credentials, or on describing leadership qualities which he alone possesses, Pro lists off a flurry of fantasy policies that he would enact, all of which would either be catastrophic to Southern society, or could be accomplished by means far less drastic than a complete political overhaul and secession from the Union. Indeed, as I hope the reader will come to agree, a split would be likely to create far more problems for our good and decent Southern brothers and sisters than it could solve. Pro fails to define exactly what sort of authority and power structure exists in his fantasy Dixie, but at no time indicates that he plans to earn the post of its commander through democratic means. This implies that the people of the South would thus be less free than they currently are to elect their leader(s). Perhaps realizing the legitimacy problems and inevitable dissent he would face by eliminating the liberties afforded by a modern democratic republic and replacing it with a dictatorship, my opponent suggests a strong military (item 1), and idolizes some elements of the North Korean command and control system, namely with regards to immigration policy (item 7).

Additionally, Pro advocates eliminating the hard fought separation of church and state which our forefathers cherished, and a tradition of religious freedom which has been a beacon of hope for a world otherwise mired in religious dogma and conflict. By declaring the national religion to be Protestant Christianity (item 10), Pro would immediately and unnecessarily impose hardship on Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Agnostics, Atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Rastafarians, and countless other law abiding and contributing members of Southern society.

Its inherent ethical repugnance notwithstanding, item 8 of his manifesto would essentially mean the end of the interior design, wedding planning, fashion, fine art, and theater industries of the South. The displacement of gay Southerners would cost the Southern economy untold billions, as well as much of it's culture, meanwhile strengthening the North, where it could be presumed these absolutely fabulous exiles might settle.

Policy items 12 and 13 are inherently contradictory.

I submit to the reader that I have sufficiently demonstrated that as its leader, my opponent would not be beneficial to the South. Despotic theocracies, such as the one he advocates, routinely have inferior economic growth rates and overall standards of living, and higher levels of corruption than representative democracies, such as the one already enjoyed by Americans in the Southern states. [1] Iran could be a useful point of comparison here, so an explanatory chart can be found at the link below. I invite the reader to also try typing in North Korea to see just how unfavorably it compares to the United States.


Debate Round No. 2


1. How I take power is irrelevant. Regardless, I would have the power equivalent to that of a king, yet I would continue to practice my conservative-republican and Christian views. Just as the president is a democrat, I, as king/commander, would be republican. As far as personal freedom goes, little would change except the high chance of non-gay Americans would get more freedom because I would, as my party suggests, support deregulation.
2. I see no problem with a North Korean style immigration/ border control policy. Since I would cut welfare, people would have to get jobs, no matter how undesirable. Immigrants should not be taking these jobs.
3. As far as seperation of church and state goes, it will not be a problem for this region. Many of the states in Dixie are on the top ten list for most protestant. Furthermore, many of the states in Dixie do not have many nonreligious people. Furthermore, people would not be required to adopt Christianity, nor, as I previously stated, would religious officials also be political officials. This would not be a theocracy. However, the governmnet would recognize Christmas as the day Jesus was born. Things like manger scenes would be allowed. Thus, few social problems would be caused by my plan except that city halls can put out manger scenes without fear of lawsuits.
Plenty of countries have national religions and turn out fine.
4. As far as gays go, women can do the gay guys jobs easily. This would open up job opportunities, create new demand for these jobs, and reduces the population of Dixie. The last point will reduce the overpopulation problem.
5. Items 12 and 13 are not contradictory. I will have free trade but I will not sponsor trade agreements. Thus, we will have plenty of trade while also giving incentive for self dependency.
6. A strong military is necessary to keep a nation sovereign.
These are the only items that you mentioned, the rest go unconflicted unless you mention them later.
Thank you,
Commander of Dixie


Before I go any further, I want to reiterate a position stated in the previous round, which was “Pro lists off a flurry of fantasy policies that he would enact, all of which would either be catastrophic to Southern society, or could be accomplished by means far less drastic than a complete political overhaul and secession from the Union.” Although I may not have elaborated on some of his points, I submit to the reader that this in no way constitutes agreement with those items. As my opponent correctly expects, I may still end up writing at length about any or all of his policy ideas in later rounds if I so choose.

Radical Monarchist, not Conservative Republican

Pro has blatantly admitted that he wishes to have the powers of a king. Strangely, he at the same time claims to have conservative-republican views. Republicans, by definition, favor republics, not monarchies. If he does not believe in representative self-governance by the people and for the people, then he cannot be described as “conservative.” He is instead a Monarchist.
Meanwhile, he has done nothing to counter my argument that despotic rule on average tends to yield a less free, less prosperous, and more corrupt state of affairs for a nation than representative democratic government does. He has not shown any legitimate rationale for how his proposed Dixie would be an exception to this well established trend.

Broken Economy

The Department of Defense budget for 2010 was 4.7% of US GDP [1]. The entire budget: welfare and entitlements, defense, everything all totaled up still only amounted to 22.8% of GDP in 2012. [2] Therefore, if Pro were to get his wish of 30% military spending, then taxes and/or debt would necessarily have to rise. Either would have a detrimental impact on economic growth. On the other hand, if pro does not keep military spending at such a high level, then the free, powerful, and now hostile North poses an imminent threat to the gloomy dictatorship of the South. Pro is caught in an unwinnable scenario.
Pro has repeated an obviously incoherent argument with reference to trade, and demonstrated that he does not understand how international treaties work, and on many counts has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern.

Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3


Radical Monarchist, not Conservative Republican
You seem to make it out that all Monarchists are strong government dictators. I would be unique in the sense that I would be like a president, in which I could choose my own political party, but have the power of a king in which I do not have to go through a congress. This would make my government far more efficient, and I could determine everything. I may not have the same traditional republican views on republics, however, I support a strong military and less government interference in the economy, just as republicans do. My goal would be to, instead of take the freedom from people, give freedom to the people. I would do this by simplifying the tax code to FairTax(item 4) and deregulation. I would further cut funding across the board except for military. How would this reduce the freedom of my people? You have yet to say this. I would also make sure that I cut social programs, law enforcement, education, transportation, environmental protection, the IRS(would be gone due to FairTax(item 4)), and many other social programs that lack importance. This would balance the budget.
Broken Economy
As I have stated, taxes would not have to rise nor would we go into debt. We would simply cut spending in other areas. In reality, by cutting spending in areas I have previously stated will encourage privatization. Of course, this "unwinnable scenario" is in fact "winnable" through budget cuts, the one solution you did not mention. Furthermore, my border control would wrap around the entire country and border control will come out of military spending. Anti-Air guns, rockets, and machine guns will be all around Dixie in my country. Just as North Korea. This would double as a system to prevent illegal immigration, I do not care if people leave my country, and prevent invasion from another country. This precautionary measure will ensure that the north will not invade. Furthermore, we, Dixie, would display a system of nonaggression unless aggressed. In other words, if you attack us, we will attack you, except I would attack ten fold. I would also attack if threatened. Of course, if we ever did get into a conflict with the North, we can easily take them on, considering that many of the military volunteers come from the south anyways and that Dixie would have multiple preexisting military bases. Thus, by taking them on, we can profit off of raiding their treasury, taking their military equipment, and many more things. Of course, the national religion will tick off the middle east as well; I dare them to attack. I would happily bomb them, enslave them, and force them to drill for oil that we would sell on the world market and domestically. The oil sold domestically would be sold at an incredibly low price. The oil sold at an international level can be sold for higher prices to pull us out of debt, into a surplus, and can help build our country both militarily and economically. This is, of course, if they decide to attack. Either way, wars can be productive if fought correctly.
Foreign Policy
Look at NAFTA, upon passing it, trade increased between Canada and Mexico, and the US. Thus, the Americans imported more. If we were to drop out of NAFTA, the cost of trade with Mexico would increase making industries desire to produce goods domestically.
At this time, I will add another issue that is plaguing America that would be reformed in Dixie. The issue is education. Today's high schools teach things that are of no use to people in life. For example, hyperbola's and parabola's in math, stoichiometry and electron configurations in chemistry, and random leaders in ancient China. None of this is necessary to learn. My plan for education would involve simplification of the education as well as specialization. I will tell you how. The simplification would involve taking out the random stuff no one needs to know and replacing it with problem solving. For example, in history, students will learn about the rise and fall of different empires and use that information to come up with a solution to a real life political problem or issue. English would teach presentation of these opinions. Math would teach finance and basic statistics. Things people look at or use everyday. Then there would be specialization. This would involve teaching courses that teach students at a college level and offer college credit. As opposed to providing several core classes, emphasis would be placed on career based classes. This plan will lead to more people having education needed to get certain selective jobs. It also lowers the cost of college making it easier for a student to get in. This would allow education funding to be cut and the funding that is actually provided will be put to better use than teaching the random stuff students do not want to learn.
Withdrawal from the UN
The United Nations puts far too many sanctions on countries and has too much power. If Obama wanted to take away guns in America, he could get the UN to take them away. Anyone with this kind of power can be easily corrupted and lead to a totalitarian system of government that takes freedom away as opposed to giving it to people.
National Language of English
This is primarily so that no one can apply for citizenship unless the speak English. It also encourages pride in Dixie.

Basically, your argument lies in two areas:
Complaints about my government system
Complaints about my militarism
In this round I have shown specifically how I will give freedom back to the people as opposed to taking it away. Thus, my regime cannot be compared to that of one that takes freedom away. My plan for monarchy was simply to ensure that I would be able to pass my ideas, especially at the beginning of this nation, without conflict from a congress. I would also like to take this time to say that upon my retirement as commander I would select a group of people to lead, each with equal power, like an oligarchy. The terms for this would last six to ten years in case you would like to know how I plan to continue my plan after my death. At this point I would say that elections for this oligarchy will be, each member of the oligarchy selects five representatives, these five representatives each select one person to be in the top. The person cannot be one of the representatives in the group. No member of the oligarchy may be elected two times in a row and there must be one member of the oligarchy from each state, no more, no less.(This part is slightly out of order but I wanted to get this in here). Your second complaint about my militarism has been disproven. I have stated how I plan to find funding for the military, budget cuts, as well as how the military can give back to the country.
I look forward to your next debate, especially with these new ideas,
Thank you,
Commander of Dixie


In his previous round, Pro has provided an enlightening vision of the dystopian nightmare which he dreams of and calls “Dixie”. His delusions of grandeur become all the more curious when we consider that on some level he seems to genuinely believe that his ideas have merit and are worthy of not just of consideration, but of adoption.

The Following is Only A Fraction of the Policy Problems

I have provided numerical evidence and cited sources to back up my claim that the Southern economy could not support a military spending increase to 30% of GDP without raising taxes and/or increasing debt. My opponent assures us that cutting expenses is enough, but provides no evidence of his own. This is not surprising because he is obviously lying, either to himself and to us, or just to us. When current government expenses amount to only 22.8% of GDP, even if he cut funding to everything else, there is still a 7.2% GDP gap which much be paid for either by higher taxes or increased debt in order to get to his 30% defense benchmark. My opponent seems unable to do basic math, and yet wants to lead a nation.

n cutting other government spending to make way for increases in defense spending, Pro demonstrates not just that he is in favor of bigger government, but that he wishes for more heartless and stagnant government. With his cuts, he would let elderly citizens starve and freeze in the cold rather than pay them the social security benefits that they have contributed to for their whole working lives. He would refuse them medical treatment which they obviously could not pay for. He would end infrastructure construction projects like road building that is key to businesses prosperity and job creation. Research and development sponsored by the government would end, and since key technology centers like Silicon Valley are mostly located outside the South, technology would become stagnant, quickly allowing other countries to surpass “Dixie” in every meaningful way.

On trade, he remains preoccupied with the problem of imports, and ignores the benefit of having those imports. For example, it is clearly better to have imported cars and computers available to consumers if the quality of these goods is higher than what is produced by domestic companies. Moreover, Pro dismisses the value created by having exports, which would also be lost if we dropped out of NAFTA. Many Southern jobs depend on exporting goods to other countries, and his policies would cost those people their jobs. The South’s population is not large enough to replace all the lost demand, so contrary to his claims, those goods and services would not go to Southerners instead. That’s simply not how economics works. Economists universally agree that free trade is one of the keys to prosperity. [1]

On education, this is perhaps the one point I can remotely agree with Pro on, in that students today are often required to learn complex skills for which they will likely have no use at all for. In today’s competitive world, wastefulness gets punished. My opponent is superfluous with regards to educational adaptation, however. It is already taking place within the structure of our democracy. Florida, for example, has recently made provisions for two tracks to be offered to high school students seeking a diploma, one vocational and one that is college preparatory. [2]

Possible Psychopath

Pro tells us all manner of policy ideas with details as to how they could be implemented, but never once cites a source which would support his claims that these policies would produce beneficial results. I suppose with Pro as our king commander, that would free him from having to prove anything, because we wouldn’t really have much choice in the matter as to whether these awful policies should be enacted, now would we? Thankfully, that day is not likely to come to our reality and he will never be a king, unless he plays a computer game like Civilization or Starcraft in order to fulfill his fantasies (and I recommend he should). At any rate, Pro has the audacity to somehow assert that by denying the people our right to make decisions for ourselves, he somehow manages to make us more free. He promises to be a benevolent monarch. We’ve heard that before, from countless dictators, despots, and tyrants, and we would be fools to trust his unjustified claim to have good intentions.

Indeed, Pro’s lack of empathy with regards to his fellow human clearly reveals the opposite: he is highly unethical, narcissistic, bigoted, and unfit for high office. Pro’s mental state seems to border on psychopathy, although I am admittedly not a specialist with the credentials to make an official diagnosis. The self-destructive cruelty with which he would treat fellow human beings is telling. He wishes to threaten, and presumably use, all manner of high tech weaponry on any immigrant who wants to enter his hypothetical “Dixie.” Even if such an immigrant comes with a special skill set, such as an Arabic doctor who seeks a better life by earning a living by saving the lives of Southerners, for example, my opponent would rather gun such a person down in cold blood than an immigrant such as him step foot on his beloved “Dixie.” Moreover, he hopes for there to be a war between his nation, and resource rich Arab countries so that he can “bomb them, enslave them, and force them to drill for oil that we would sell on the world market and domestically.” In short, he shamelessly admits to a deep seated desire to commit crimes against humanity, theft on a grand scale, and reinstitute a form of slavery, which he previously lied about and said he did not want to do. Pro very likely needs mental health counseling before he causes harm to himself or others.


Debate Round No. 4


I see multiple problems with your logic:
1. 30% military spending not being feasible without increased taxes and/or debt.
If Dixie produces R revenue, the military spending would be R x .30 . Thus leaving R x .70 for the rest of the economy. Of this, the little social benefits provided by the government, education, infrastructure, and research and development would be funded. How would only using 70% of R for non military expenses hurt our economy. How if we do not go outside of this funding. Therefore, this is economically feasible without debt or increased taxes.
2. The elderly.
All would stop paying into social security effective immediately upon my arrival in office. Thus, approximately 6.2% of the income of all the people would not be given to the government and would be kept in the people's pockets. It is the people's responsibility to invest in life insurance and retirement.
3. Technology
All I can say to this is that a silicone valley will emerge in Dixie. Google, "Supply and Demand." If there is a demand, there will be a supply.
The benefits of having imports are small. Dixie would have plenty of agriculture and oil resources to last(primary sector of the economy), would have plenty of people to build auto manufacturing companies, clothes companies, and basic manufacturing areas(secondary sector of the economy)(It also has every item required for a nation to industrialize), would have plenty of people and college opportunities to open up service type jobs(tertiary sector). Once all three of these sectors are encouraged(all of which can be encouraged giving the location and resources of Dixie), the science(quaternary) and management(quinary) sectors will emerge. Thus, self dependence will be possible with as few needs for outsourcing and importing as possible. You mentioned auto manufacturing. If imports of cars become too expensive, GMC and Ford will begin to manufacture cars and car parts in Dixie. This would produce massive amounts of jobs.
5. Exports
Exporting will still be allowed and encouraged. The country would get money into the economy through this practice. We would like to have an extremely favorable balance of trade.
6 Psychopath
I am no psychopath(at least not in the typical sense). I simply analyze things and see motives and ramifications of certain things more than others. My analysis produces results that society would be unwilling to accept and thus calls me crazy. My analysis would work. As far as enslavement, I would not have slavery in Dixie, but I would not hesitate to make other people drill for oil for free because that would increase profits gathered from oil sales. As far as bigot-okay I may can agree though, as my friend once stated in regards to me, "He does not believe that his race is better than another; however, he believes he is better than everyone." Couldn't have said it better myself. Narcissistic- How is not wanting to be controlled by a liberal government or congress narcissistic? Unethical-dislike of gays and desire to restrict the people who come into my country is not unethical.
7 Conclusion
My policies would all work and my opponent has failed thus far in disproving them. A strong military is necessary to national defense, low spending is necessary to remain out of debt, self dependency will provide jobs when possible, and a favorable balance of trade is basic economics-more revenue than expenses is a profit. While I may not be good for the rest of the world, I can assure that Dixie will be protected and economically successful. In addition to being free from powerful government control and liberal policies, education reform and a simplified tax code would be instituted by me.
A vote for me is a vote for success.
-Commander of Dixie


Pro claims to see multiple problems with my logic, but perhaps only as a rhetorical smokescreen to throw up a desperate mask over the reality that I have completely obliterated a number of his central arguments, and demolished his credibility as a leader.

1. Current GOVERNMENT (not just military) spending is only at R x .228. This leaves at present R x .772 for the rest of the economy. By my opponent's own admission, his plan leaves only R x .7 left for the rest of the economy. This is clearly worse, and will damage the economy. No matter how he wants to present it, the numbers are against him.

2. Most people are just not going to do that. It is a better idea to tax everyone, and give back to everyone later than it is to save a small percent which some will squander and others won't, and then punish the financially irresponsible with poverty and starvation. That is like punishing people who speed with death, the consequences don't fit the crime.

3. Wrong. Russia, China, and a number of other interests have invested tremendous resources into trying to create their own Silicon Valley. They haven't entirely succeeded, [1] and Pro wouldn't even have a remote chance of succeeding since he's wasting all of his tax dollars on the weapons of 20th century warfare, not 21st.

4. Pro doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. If he were put in charge of a country, it would look somewhere between Amish country and the Great Depression within about a year.

5. No one accepts one way trade deals. No imports? No exports.

6. Pro is clearly also delusional. I've already answered all of the points he raised here in earlier rounds, so I will not bore the reader. Instead, I will simply reiterate that this individual probably needs mental counseling, and express my hope that he will get the care he so desperately needs.

7. A vote for Pro is a vote for a nightmare bizzaro world.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you've enjoyed this episode of Adventures in Dystopian Tyranny.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kumquatodor 3 years ago
To con I "study" psychology.

Psychopaths do not have a clear distinction between reality and fantasy. If Pro believes he can/will take control, and that he will cause the split, he is a textbook psychopath.

He seems a sociopath, too. It seems as if he views everyone as objects. He leans towards sociopath.

Perhaps this idea of revolution, if he believes in these ideals, shows a Messiah complex.

If he himself believes he will be best for the job, he maybe narcissistic
Posted by Kumquatodor 3 years ago
This debate has to be a joke... Pro must be trolling.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
While we wait, I thought I would mention that if you're enjoying this debate, you may want to check out some of the other debates I'm involved in:

I'm finishing those up, so I will be open to new challenges if anyone has a topic that they would like to explore.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
I'd like to repond to one of the voters who suggested that I made ad hominem attacks against Pro. In most cases, ad hominem arguments are to be avoided, not just because they're tacky but because they fail to attack the underlying premise. In otherwords, someone could be an absolutely terrible person, and yet by attacking them you do nothing to disprove their argument.

In this particular context, however, Pro is arguing that he should be the commander of Dixie. He is therefore putting his own character up for evaluation. Ad Hominem attacks are therefore not irrelevant, as his character is a central feature for determining whether he is fit for the role of "commander of dixie."

Thank you all for your interest.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
I would suggest you play a game like Starcraft or Command and Conquer to help you live out your fantasy of having base defense and a strong military.
Posted by Cowboy0108 3 years ago
Someone should post a comment, I like to see what other people think about the debate. Gives me something to do when I am bored.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: TROLL DEBATE... Conduct: Basically this was not advertised as a troll debate in round 1 (other points in argument). Spelling: I prefered pro's organizational skills, but that alone isn't enough to win the point. Argument: Con did make Ad Hominem attacks, yet they were against areas that could have been dismissed anyway on grounds of relevance to the resolution. Were the resolution clearly troll, 'I Should Command The South' argument would probably go to pro. Yet this never devolved into stupidity of some troll debates, so I'm torn. If measured as a troll debate pro would win for being so crazy and awesome; but a regular debate pro would lose for having not met his inital BoP. Thus tied. Sources: Pro used a single very good and relevant source, yet it was easily outweighed by the number from con (this would have been no contest if not for the wiki links).
Vote Placed by Ardenwa 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes ad hominem arguments. Moreover, con attempts to say that Pro will be a monarch, yet fails to say that a monarch is morally wrong (aka no impacts). Con also tries to make economic points, so of them are valid, and others are nonsensical. Pro refutes some of your valid economic points. Con, your final round, you basically say Pro is going to make a 7.2% cut from the status quo, but you forget that Pro already said that the elderly would no longer pay into social security, and other programs would be cut. I am not saying that is moral, but it does explain a 7.2% cut. This was a surprisingly good debate and was very close for me. Con, this wasn't a voter, but I would have liked to see you having some power. How can I trust someone over the internet? You could be a dog; however, I get a lot of credibility out of "Commander of Dixie". I wish the Commander of Dixie the best of luck!
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con that pro could indeed by psychotic, he is at the very least an idiot, and pro failed badly in convincing that the US needs to split.