The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
CrysisPillar
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

The Plan.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,652 times Debate No: 12155
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

I will state the plan in round two. Please use round one to acknowledge your acceptance of this debate. This debate will be about a plan. It is unique, so don't bring up irrelevant sources, evidence, and points.

-Thank You!
CrysisPillar

Con

Alright, challenge accepted. Off you go.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, hereby abolish the current state of government, in order to establish a more efficient and productive one. It was stated in the declaration of independence that people could abolish the current government if it violated their rights. Our government has. Our government has kept certain people from voting, made 18 year olds serve for a country they did not have a say in, and more recently, the government has recorded our phone calls. This is not the government that it was supposed to be. If the framers were to be alive today, they would vomit at how much the government has changed for the worse.
The United States will be dividend up into a series of 30 or so smaller countries. Each separate. The little countries will be in an alliance, like a Union. All countries pay a portion of their revenue to a National Guard, which will invest all the money into defense, none for offensive military weapons. Any unemployed workers who have refused jobs given to them by the government shall be drafted into the National Guard. All countries will act like a small version of the US because it has been stated over and over that democracy only works in small communities. There will be a legislative, executive, and judicial branch for each small country. There will be a bill of rights in each, protecting expression. There will be a debate council in each country. Yearly, the most controversial topics will be debated in front of the presidents. There will be 5 presidents, each elected individually at different times of year. (Example: 1 President in January, then one a few months later, to balance out power).
Political parties shall be outlawed. I have noticed a colossal lack of civic virtue recently, and the absence of political parties will cure this. Without any peer pressure, (you could say) people will think for themselves and not what the people around them will think. To balance the power of the president, there will be Ephors, which will check the power of the presidents. If they find a president to be corrupted they can impeach him. Ephors swear on behalf of the country, therefore the citizens themselves can impeach the ephor. The punishment for corruption (if impeached by ephors) is a lifetime sentence of community service.
Large Businesses shall be outlawed; any business exceeding a certain size limit will be stopped from expanding further (if the business continues to expand, the business shall be shut down). This will encourage small businesses and discourage large gargantuan businesses.
A simple, progressive tax system will be implemented. The poor are taxed at little to no rates and the rich are taxed at high rates. This will bring the poor up and the rich down. The country is based on hard work; therefore jobs will be labeled as how much effort is needed in them on a scale on 1-100 (100 being the hardest). For example, a CEO of a car company will be rated relatively low, compared to that of a coal miner; therefore the coal miner is taxed less. The people who rate the jobs will be the people themselves. Illegal occupations are labeled automatically as 1.
John Locke's natural rights include life; therefore it is essential that a Universal Health Care system be implemented. It will be somewhat like the public school system; you can also choose a private company that can do special needs. I will maybe elaborate on this more if I have space in the next few rounds.
All education (including college) is free (although if students want to stay in college for more than 4 years then they will have to pay a fee). It is essential that we have a pool of educated citizens that can recognize government corruption. A population of uneducated citizens cannot fully understand what or who they are voting for, therefore corrupting the government.

I will expand on these points at a later date, (next few rounds). These are my opening arguments.
CrysisPillar

Con

Thank you for another debate. I accept your motion.

In this round, I will be explaining just how radical, undesirable, and unreasonable this proposed change is, as well as stating a counter-proposal.

There is a reason why the government has kept certain people from voting – for example, you simply cannot allow those who do not understand how the government is run to cast a vote in how they want the government run. When our founding fathers assembled to write our plan for government, they did not include women, African Americans, or Native Americans as people who had the right to vote – later, though, as we found these problems, our national government added in amendments to allow these people to vote. If there is another body of people which Rockylightning is arguing suffrage for, then we can always simply add another amendment. He has argued that 18-year-olds are forced to serve this country, and that they do not have any say in our government. However, isn't it a commonly known fact that 18 is the age at which you can cast a ballot and vote? Also, for a point of clarification, please explain how they are forced to serve their country.

When the Civil War happened between the North and the South, America learned that you cannot leave the Union. We are the UNITED STATES of America, once united and never apart. Rocky suggested that we split our country of fifty states into 30 separate countries. This proposal does not sound constitutional at all, nor does it sound reasonable. He states that 18 year olds are forced to serve their country, and yet he is suggesting a system which reflects communist ideas – take the jobs which the government assigns you or be forced to work for the National Guard. Now, tell me, how many more people have a say in government with your proposal?

Sure, democracy as well as republican government only works in small communities. However, how much of a hassle would it be to have to set up a three-branched government in each of 30 separate countries? Each country needs a separate Bill of Rights? Imagine having to join 30 separate countries into one Union when they have different rights protected in each. Having five presidents is a completely ridiculous idea. The United States of America does not have the time or the money to spend electing presidents five times a year. With five presidents with possibly different views on controversial issues, they will not agree on anything at all. There is no possibility of running this country with five men or women who can never agree on one thing.

Outlawing political parties is like outlawing freedom of expression. People use political parties to affiliate themselves according to their views; the idea of outlawing political parties does not abide to the very rights listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Without political parties, candidates running for president will not even have a broad way to express their ideas and what they want to do with our country. The people and Electoral College would have to agree with every single idea that the candidate agrees on. What is the point of the Ephors? We have a U.S. Supreme Court and Legislative Branch which has been watching over the president for corruption, and this system has been working perfectly for over the past two centuries.

The idea of getting rid of large businesses and the progressive tax system which taxes the rich more than the poor is completely unreasonable; our nation is based on capitalism, the investment of money in hopes of making a profit. Your proposal discourages capitalism, the very system on which this country runs, and ends large businesses which other foreign countries depend on for imports from us! If my opponent wants free universal healthcare, where does he assume we'd get the money from? There are some people, such as doctors, who are extremely against the idea of national healthcare. Taking away the right to vote for healthcare is the removal of another one of our rights as the constituents of this country. With free college and no large companies, how will teachers be able to earn money to support their families and themselves? I completely agree that those who do not understand our government should not be able to vote, but how do you propose that we should be able to tell whether or not they understand the government or not? Do we have to go back to the Literacy Tests they had in the 1800's to discriminate immigrants? This is the United States of America, one of the few countries in the world in which we are not based upon a religion, language or race. The foundation of our country is made of ideas.

My opponent's plan is completely radical, incomprehensible, and nightmarish. He starts his speech by stating that the government today is not following the laws of the constitution, but with his proposal, the rights of the citizens are not protected, and we will have less say in the government and in the way that we run this country than ever. This plan digs an even deeper hole for all of this country's problems. Among being extremely radical and ridiculously complicated, there are many weaknesses of this system. Our current system under the Constitution of the United States has been working for over two centuries, and I as the Opposition see no need to make such drastic changes. If we were to run the country the way Rockylightning states we should, we would be taking away the rights of the citizens, turning this country into a communist one, and completely weakening the way government is currently run.

My counter-proposal is the following: instead of re-writing the entire Constitution and reforming our entire country with this radical, ridiculous, and absolutely inevitably destructive plan, just simply add amendments to the current Constitution to make any needed changes according to today's technology, society, and needs, the same thing we have been doing for the past two centuries without any failure.

Now, I will turn this debate over to Rockylightning.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

\\\When our founding fathers assembled to write our plan for government, they did not include women, African Americans, or Native Americans as people who had the right to vote – later, though, as we found these problems, our national government added in amendments to allow these people to vote.///

My point is, if the government has done such unconstitutional acts, how can we trust it? That's it.

\\\When the Civil War happened between the North and the South, America learned that you cannot leave the Union.///

No, this was the point where America ultimately contradicted the foundations it was built upon, if the south wanted to leave the Union, they had the right to (as stated in the Declaration of Independence). To the south, the north was their Great Britain.

\\\We are the UNITED STATES of America, once united and never apart.///

"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire

\\\This proposal does not sound constitutional at all, nor does it sound reasonable.///

Please explain how it is "not constitutional". You keep hammering me with assertions, provide some reasoning.

\\\He has argued that 18-year-olds are forced to serve this country, and that they do not have any say in our government. However, isn't it a commonly known fact that 18 is the age at which you can cast a ballot and vote///

I believe you need to do some history reading. The 26th amendment standardized the voting age to 18, but not after 18 year olds had been drafted into the military to go off to die in Vietnam. If the government cannot figure out simple problems like this, how will they respond to large problems.

\\\However, how much of a hassle would it be to have to set up a three-branched government in each of 30 separate countries?///

How can you compare "hassle" to effectiveness? If the founding fathers did it centuries ago where there was no television, internet, etc. I think we can do it today.

\\\Outlawing political parties is like outlawing freedom of expression.///

You can still express your opinions, your just not expressing them in a large mob of peer pressure. Simple.

\\\the idea of outlawing political parties does not abide to the very rights listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.///

If you want to talk about the constitution, fine. I have a higher source. George Washington, the first leader even WARNED us to not create political parties. Political parties (as he has predicted) create peer pressure. You can see it today, "I don't vote for that because it's republican" or "Oh, he's a democrat, I'm not voting for him" Instead of "oh he supports a health care system". If you want to talk about limiting expression, it's the political parties themselves that limit people's expression by drilling into their minds "Democrat=Bad" or "Republican=Bad". Refuted.

\\\What is the point of the Ephors? We have a U.S. Supreme Court and Legislative Branch which has been watching over the president for corruption, and this system has been working perfectly for over the past two centuries.///

Because Ephors cannot be bought and persuaded like the supreme court and congress can. Ephors stand at their post like sentinels.

\\\The idea of getting rid of large businesses and the progressive tax system which taxes the rich more than the poor is completely unreasonable///

It's unreasonable to the rich, and the rich only. I am proposing ending poverty, can you argue against that?

\\\our nation is based on capitalism, the investment of money in hopes of making a profit. Your proposal discourages capitalism, the very system on which this country runs, and ends large businesses which other foreign countries depend on for imports from us!///

Capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. You have yet to still refute my progressive tax system.

\\\If my opponent wants free universal health care, where does he assume we'd get the money from? There are some people, such as doctors, who are extremely against the idea of national health care.///

From the taxpayers, where else? And of course DOCTORS would be against it because they're getting rich in the current system while the common person can be turned away for having a minor pre-existing condition!

\\\With free college and no large companies, how will teachers be able to earn money to support their families and themselves?///

Taxpayer dollars. It's called a public school system. Many European countries use it.

\\\Do we have to go back to the Literacy Tests they had in the 1800's to discriminate immigrants? This is the United States of America, one of the few countries in the world in which we are not based upon a religion, language or race. The foundation of our country is made of ideas.///

Literacy tests only discriminated against blacks. I am saying that a more educated population will make better choices. Take "The Pearl" by John Steinbeck. Kino wants his son to be educated, so he can tell right from wrong. We want our people, our Coyotito, to not be bitten by the scorpion of Capitalism and die.

\\\My opponent's plan is completely radical, incomprehensible, and nightmarish.///

THINK WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. You must understand that the US has become what Britain was in the 1700's. To the British the founder's plan was "radical, incomprehensible, and nightmarish" to them! It is a valid metaphor, please understand.

\\If we were to run the country the way Rockylightning states we should, we would be taking away the rights of the citizens///

Please explain.

\\\turning this country into a communist one///

Not communist, socialist. It's what Sweden is. See links below.
http://www.thedailyshow.com...
http://www.thedailyshow.com...

\\just simply add amendments to the current Constitution to make any needed changes according to today's technology, society, and needs, the same thing we have been doing for the past two centuries without any failure.///

My opponent is stating that the constitution has not failed us for the last two centuries. Think back voters, the original draft of the constitution only allowed for WHITE, LANDOWNING, MALES to vote. So if you support this constitution so much, you are supporting something that (if it had gone as planned), would have kept you from voting. Yes my opponent would not have the right to vote today if the constitution went its course.

================>>>Conclusion<<<===================

My opponent has stated only assertions.
She has yet to refute my progressive tax system point.
She has not stated HOW it violates people rights.
She has not stated HOW it creates a communist government.
She has not stated WHY political parties DON'T create, you could say, SECTIONALISM.
She has left MANY points UNTOUCHED and failed to clearly refute others.
My plan still stands.

I would like to end with a few quotes.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." -Declaration of Independence, July 4 1776.

"Do something. If it doesn't work, do something else. No idea is too crazy."
-Jim Hightower

"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." -Albert Einstein

""Every really new idea looks crazy at first." -Alphred North Whitehead

"Every new idea is born drowning" -Bob Woodruff

"If at first the idea is absurd, then there is no hope for it."
-Aristotle

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. " -John Cage

I give the debate back over to crysispi
CrysisPillar

Con

The numbers next to each of my responses coordinate with the order of refutations Rocky has made. (In other words, his first refutation is number one, and so on.)

1) The government cannot be flawless, but we do have a system of limitation of powers – the U.S. Supreme court gets to decide whether or not actions of the rest of the government are constitutional or not. The framers of the constitution intentionally wanted representation in government, and that is what we have – we have representatives in the House and in the Senate from our states. There really is no way that the government can run completely incorruptly unless every single citizen rules themselves instead of our republican system where we delegate power. It is with this representation that we trust the government. In your proposal, the government is strict and completely controls the United States as a unitary system, which is more like communism and has more chances of reflecting abusive power.

2) You have a great point there. However, you are misunderstanding my argument; my point is that America is supposed to be united. Splitting the country into 30 separate countries contradicts the very name of who we are: the United States of America.

3) Here is the translation of the "witty saying": by dividing up our country into 30 separate ones, it contradicts our name: the UNITED states of America.

4) Alright, I will try to give more reasoning in my other points. This proposal is unconstitutional because it gives all the power to the national government and absolutely none to the "countries." The United States is based on representation, and there will be a whole lot less representation from the people with your plan.

5) They did resolve simple problems like that: they added an amendment, and 18-year-olds who had fought and survived Vietnam had the right to vote. It has been like that ever since.

6) Rockylightning's refutation has stated no proof that setting up 30 groups of three-branched governments would be efficient. Try getting 30 groups of three people to agree on everything and run as a union. One way which the Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution is according to today's needs: there are some "implied" powers, but because of the Supreme Court, the legislative branch cannot use the idea of implied powers to be corrupt. The Supreme Court can rule anything unconstitutional within reason.

7) You have not completely refuted my point. The people and Electoral College representatives would have to completely agree with everything that one candidate believes in order to want to vote for them. Also, because individual votes are kept completely confidential from the public, there should be no peer pressure. An adult voting for president knows that their vote ultimately leads to how the United States will be run.

8) George Washington did warn us not to create political parties. However, we have had them for a century or more, and nothing horrible has happened. George Washington was the first president, the first one to experience taking over the legislative branch.

Also, I'd like to add that George Washington is a person who agrees that the current Constitution works efficiently. After all, he was the first president under our current Constitution.

9) With Ephors, there is no point in the Senate or U.S. Supreme court. With Ephors, there is no representation for any of the citizens in the United States. Ephors have biased, personal ideas and do not consult with the people who are loaning their power to allow others to govern them. You have yet to refute this.

10) No, I cannot refute an end to poverty. However, some places, such as in the south, are where all the farms are – they need these big companies to get goods that aren't readily available in their area of the country. Closing all large companies around the entire country may stop poverty in some areas, but not in other areas. These goods and these crops are needed, and we need to depend on each other as a nation to run, not on 30 separate countries.

11) A system where everyone has the same amount of wealth is Utopian, unrealistic, and unfeasible with the United States. Prices of goods vary in different places. If you're proposing this tax system instead of capitalism, then Wall Street closes down. Big companies close down. The system in which we have run the United States for hundreds of years will be destroyed, and nobody will become rich. A huge majority of our country depends on this system. All these people will lose their benefits, and everyone will be living in poverty. How can you possibly argue against that?

12) Taxpayer dollars to pay teachers? Inevitable taxes for a healthcare system? Sounds like taxation without representation to me. Your proposal is an automatic switch to an included healthcare system, and we don't even have the right to vote on it.

13) You still have not completely refuted my argument: how will we be able to tell who can vote and who can't? Keep John Steinbeck out of this, please. This has nothing to do with it. And by the way, he didn't want Coyotito to be educated to know right from wrong; he wanted him to set his people free from poverty.

14) I see your point. However, Britain was no longer in control of the United States. In your proposal, the people will not have a choice to decide whether or not the change will happen; the government will hand out jobs, and if you refuse the job because you simply want a right to choice of jobs (a power of the people), they will send you to work for the National Guard. If you think this is unreasonable, all of this was stated clearly and concisely within your first round speech.

15) I have explained in these refutations how we are taking away the right to vote, a right to representation, and the right to choice of career, which is a power of individual people.

Yes, the government needs a change. However, Rockylightning's proposal is extremely radical and changes everything about our country, the way it's run, our rights, and our name. His plan is not the way to approach our current problems. My counter-proposal, however, is.

Simply add amendments to correct or prevent certain major problems.

This system has been working ever since this country broke off from Britain. Rockylightning's reason for changing the system, as stated first round, is because "Our government has kept certain people from voting, made 18 year olds serve for a country they did not have a say in, and more recently, the government has recorded our phone calls." Giving more power to the government and less voice to the people being governed is the way to control the government more so that they won't do these actions again?

Amendments are the perfect, fool-proof way to protect the people and keep government power consistent.

Thank you, and now for the third round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rockylightning

Pro

\\It is with this representation that we trust the government. In your proposal, the government is strict and completely controls the United States as a unitary system, which is more like communism and has more chances of reflecting abusive power.//

In my proposal, the government is strict, but for the people's good. When companies stop seeing people as customers and instead as a source of income, the quality goes down, and the living standards grow lower. An idea of capitalism is competition, if one company sells inferior products compared to another, the other would prosper. But what if the consumers are lazy and choose to spend less money on the inferior product? Living standards go down, bad things happen, idiocracy. (That's a good movie).

\\my point is that America is supposed to be united. Splitting the country into 30 separate countries contradicts the very name of who we are: the United States of America//

Who cares what we call ourselves? What are the benefits of being united? Being able to fend for ourselves? The reason why we have terrorist attacks is because others think we are a menacing figure. If we divide ourselves, we will seem like Europe, and last time I checked, Europe was the happiest place on Earth.

\\it contradicts our name: the UNITED states of America.//

Again, the what does the name prove? We're on the same team? We're not united, we are divided by the political Yankees and Red Sox. If people favor their party over their true beliefs, then the party with more people wins.

\\This proposal is unconstitutional because it gives all the power to the national government and absolutely none to the "countries." The United States is based on representation, and there will be a whole lot less representation from the people with your plan.\
You misread my plan, there WOULD NOT BE A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. They would all be SEPARATE COUNTRIES, all in an alliance. There would be NO representation, because the PEOPLE would represent themselves in a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Direct democracy is much more fair, instead of trusting your rights to some rich guy in a suit, you can speak for yourself.

\\They did resolve simple problems like that: they added an amendment, and 18-year-olds who had fought and survived Vietnam had the right to vote. It has been like that ever since.//

Which is better: punishing a criminal, or making it so the crime was never committed.

\\Rockylightning's refutation has stated no proof that setting up 30 groups of three-branched governments would be efficient. Try getting 30 groups of three people to agree on everything and run as a union. //

We are forgetting our history again are we? Think back to the 1770's when the founding fathers had to divide the country into 50 SEPARATE STATES. Never underestimate the capabilities of the brain

\You have not completely refuted my point. The people and Electoral College representatives would have to completely agree with everything that one candidate believes in order to want to vote for them.//

In a direct democracy, there would be an electoral college.

\\lso, because individual votes are kept completely confidential from the public, there should be no peer pressure. An adult voting for president knows that their vote ultimately leads to how the United States will be run.//

You are taking this too literally, the peer pressure would happen before the voting period. If you are in a political party, you will favor your political party. Think about people you know, they are republican or democrat, which party would they favor more?

\\eorge Washington did warn us not to create political parties. However, we have had them for a century or more, and nothing horrible has happened.//

Ha ha that's a good one. Look around you, you see conservatives going against the Obama Health care bill without even reading or understanding it. You see liberals accusing George Bush without knowing what good he did. People are seeing politics as black and white, that is horrible.

\\Also, I'd like to add that George Washington is a person who agrees that the current Constitution works efficiently. After all, he was the first president under our current Constitution.//

George Washington died in 1799, how can he approve of a constitution that has been changing for over two centuries.

\\With Ephors, there is no point in the Senate or U.S. Supreme court. With Ephors, there is no representation for any of the citizens in the United States. Ephors have biased, personal ideas and do not consult with the people who are loaning their power to allow others to govern them. You have yet to refute this.//

Ephors ARE the people, they are not 'elected', they represent the people, ephors clearly have biased personal beliefs, that's why there is not only one of them. (Ephors are called upon this duty at least once in their lives, ephors are common people, they are not elected they are appointed, an citizen chosen to be an ephor can refuse.

\\No, I cannot refute an end to poverty. However, some places, such as in the south, are where all the farms are – they need these big companies to get goods that aren't readily available in their area of the country. Closing all large companies around the entire country may stop poverty in some areas, but not in other areas. These goods and these crops are needed, and we need to depend on each other as a nation to run,//

It's called trade. People can trade goods from "the north" to "the south". This is an easily solvable problem.

\\A system where everyone has the same amount of wealth is Utopian, unrealistic, and unfeasible with the United States. Prices of goods vary in different places. If you're proposing this tax system instead of capitalism, then Wall Street closes down. Big companies close down. The system in which we have run the United States for hundreds of years will be destroyed, and nobody will become rich. A huge majority of our country depends on this system. All these people will lose their benefits, and everyone will be living in poverty. How can you possibly argue against that?//

No, everybody (sadly) will not have the same ammount of wealth. Think of it like this, you are simply narrowing the range of wealth, there will be no extreme poverty, but there will be no more extremely rich people. (Although very rich people can put their money into banks to create interest which can easily pay the high taxes.) Wall street will not close down, miniature wall streets will pop up throughout the smaller countries. Simple, companies will not die, they will condense, to see the consumer as not a cash source, but an individual.

\\Taxpayer dollars to pay teachers? Inevitable taxes for a healthcare system? Sounds like taxation without representation to me. Your proposal is an automatic switch to an included healthcare system, and we don't even have the right to vote on it.//

We already do pay taxes to teachers. Is this a new concept? No. YOU WILL BE REPRESENTED, YOU WILL REPRESENT YOURSELF! Thats much better than having someone else [you can't trust] do it for you.

\\how will we be able to tell who can vote and who can't? Keep John Steinbeck out of this, please. This has nothing to do with it. And by the way, he didn't want Coyotito to be educated to know right from wrong; he wanted him to set his people free from poverty.//

You can make people take tests, that's common sense. Yes, Kino wanted Coyotito to free his people, he would DO THAT BY TEACHING THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG. Read the book again.

\\the government will hand out jobs//

No, you may choose your job, but the government hands out jobs if you are unemployed.

My points are not radical, the founding father's plan was even more readical, and by calling this plan radical you are ultimatly contradicting hte beleifs this country was built upon: abolishing the government if it violates your rights, and I believe I have presented enough proof t
CrysisPillar

Con

Thank you for a quick response. I will have the same system of refuting points as I did last round.

1) You state that in your plan, the government is strict, but for the constituents' own good? Allowing the citizens of our country absolutely no say in solving any of the problems which our nation has fallen across is for our own good? With your proposal, there is absolutely no representation. You have stated that the Ephors are biased just like the Supreme Court Justices, but what will the Ephors do that that the U.S. Supreme Court can't already? Also, the House of Representatives already does the impeaching, so allowing these Ephors to take over that power crosses the border by taking the legislative branch's power. This is completely inappropriate.

2) "Who cares what we call ourselves?" The founding fathers of our country and the citizens who were proud and still are proud of being American care. How does our size make terrorists see us as a menacing figure? Wouldn't splitting up into 30 different countries make us seem more vulnerable? Your example of Europe being divided into many different countries is not a good comparison to use – not all European countries are strictly under one government. I do not know where you come from when saying that Europe is the happiest place on earth, but last time I checked, people are happy to have a say in government decisions, not constant monarchy.

3) The name our country has taken for over two centuries proves that though we all have different opinions, we are the United States of America, and as our nation with liberty and justice for all, we have a say in government by vote. Yes, the party with the most votes wins. However, the party with the most votes wins because of the choices which the people make according to how they want to be governed. Not everyone can get what they want. However, with your plan, nobody can even express their choice.

4) I did not misread your plan, Rockylightning. Your plan is too complex to run. If one country broke the alliance, it would be like another world war. You even admitted yourself that in your proposed plan, there would be no representation. These rich people in suits are called the Electoral College members, and ultimately, you get to vote for the people who are in the Electoral College. Our current system is more organized than your proposed plan to split up the nation into thirty countries and try to keep them all under one alliance.

5) I see your point. However, as I have stated in all my refutations and points, your proposal will have problems in the future. There is no such thing as a system of government that is perfect. But I can tell you one thing; your proposed plan is a lot farther from it than the current system.

6) Rocky, I would appreciate it if you used more professional conduct than calling me dumb. To refute your point, we are split up into fifty states. However, are we split up into thirty different countries within one alliance with a legislative, executive, and judicial branch within each one with no representation? These fifty states aren't different countries, nor are they ones where we have no say in our government. With an electoral college in each "country," what would they elect? Do not say they will elect the five presidents; thirty countries can't decide on representatives from only five different countries.

7 & 8) If you were part of a group, of course you would favor it more. You favor more what you believe in. Your refutation is weak and does not show how people are pressured by peers to vote for a certain party. There are Conservatives who know what the healthcare bill is about, as well as liberals who know what good George Bush has done. However, without political parties, people will still have a black and white view of the way government is run overall, and that would split people up into groups, whether or not you want to call them political. Taking away political parties would do absolutely nothing.

9) Rocky, I am saying the following as peer advice, not to offend you: instead of attacking the little parts of the arguments such as examples, try to attack the part of the argument which means the most. By attacking a tiny George Washington example, you are showing that you do not know enough about this topic which you are debating to refute the point which I brought up, which is this: We have had political parties for centuries, and nothing horrible has happened with them. Without them, nothing would change. Please refute this next round.

10) Ephors who are not elected by the people do not represent the people at all. Their ideas of constitutionality would not be proportional to the ideas of the people unless we elected them. In your proposal, they are appointed. If a biased president appoints an Ephor with his views, then this is the complete opposite of our current system, which allows the people to choose the way they are governed. Our Republican system of government is what makes our country so unique, and your proposal simply takes that away.

11) We won't be able to trade easily. With thirty different countries, each with their own laws on trade and tariffs with no regulation, we will have to set up a completely new complex system to keep track of goods going in and out of the different countries.

12) The plain idea of narrowing wealth within the entire country reflects communism: everyone gets close to the same amount according to "what they need." Miniature Wall Streets are a crazy idea – let's say there are a KFC in Kentucky, and then a KFC in California at the moment. Split into thirty countries, you cannot have a separate wall street per country for the same restaurant chain. Restaurant chains would not spread country-wide. With different supply and demand levels for goods and services in various areas, you cannot simply just split up our country into separate little places. Think of our current country like cookie dough – your plan is the cookie cutter that separates the dough and gets decorated in a different way. There is no way to pull these all together.

13) If you represent yourself, you will not be heard. Everyone else will be representing themselves, and there is no such thing as a system that listens and responds to everyone in any country for what they want. It is just simply impossible to give everyone what they want.

14) Alright, we will make tests. We will make thirty separate tests, one for each country, to see if they understand the government. Do you have any idea how much money ant time this will take out of our country?

15) Some people are unemployed because they need to stay home to take care of their children, not because they are looking for a job and can't find one. Your proposal is not feasible with people with these needs.

England thought our plan was radical, but we weren't changing a plan for their government; we were creating a plan for our own. Your proposal ultimately will change the current system without the choice of the people, leave no choices for the people, and create an even bigger hole for our country. This is why the simplicity of adding amendments is far better than your proposed plan.

Thank you, and I wish you good luck for the last round.
Debate Round No. 4
Rockylightning

Pro

Before I refute my opponent's arguments I would like bring up a point of information. She calls my plan radical, but we forget our history. Our founding father's plan was much more radical. Talk about being patriotic, the spirit of America is being able to change your government for the better. That's exactly what I'm doing.

I will use the same refutation system for the last round to save space.

1. You have mis-read my plan, there isn't representation, people represent themselves. Therefore, you don't simply trust someone else to do it for you. Direct Democracy, used in Ancient Greece. Look it up. And yes, ephors are just another check on the executive branch, the only difference is that they actually are around him constantly, unlike the supreme court, therefore they can see corruption much faster.

2. The founding fathers I think would rather have us abolish a corrupt government than not because of what our country's name is. And yes, according to the latest polls and studies, Denmark is the happiest country on Earth, and in Denmark, you have the right to vote.

3. You still don't get my plan, EVERYONE CAN EXPRESS THEIR CHOICE, direct democracy! Remember? History class? Direct Democracy is a better way to represent the people. I have presented enough evidence today to support this. In the political party, every voter loses his/her own interests in favor of the party's interests. Therefore nobody REALLY gets what they want. They get what they think they want.

4. There would be no representation, yes. THE PEOPLE WOULD REPRESENT THEMSELVES!!! You keep ignoring the second part. And last time I checked, a country depending on another country wouldn't go to war with them.

5. Another simple assertion. ===VOTERS=== Please note that my opponent repeatedly brings up simple assertions like "that won't work" or "its not good".

6. I didn't call you dumb. *sighs* . There is no electoral college in each country. In direct democracy, there is no need. There isn't a federal government, I said 5 presidents for each country, not for a large federal government.

7&8. No, you don't understand. People are lacking the civic virtue that the framers thought they would have. Instead of caring about the country as a whole, they care about what benefits them and their party more. It's simple and true.

9. You ignore my refutation again. HORRIBLE THINGS DO HAPPEN. As I stated before, with political parties come a colossal lack of civic virtue.

10. Ephors who ARE THE PEOPLE clearly REPRESENT THE PEOPLE because THEY ARE THE PEOPLE. This is a simple idea. They are appointed like a common person is appointed for Jury duty. It is random, they go down the list. My system of government gives people a voice because they speak for themselves, they don't give their voice to a representative. A representative can PROMISE to do something, but not. This is common in today's society.

11. The system will be easy, the countries decide on a universal trade policy. Simple. This is a minor problem.

12. No, narrowing wealth reflects socialism. Restaurant chains (to deal with this problem) will be confined to their own countries. I had addressed this problem in the plan. To the cookie dough analogy, after we cut the cookie, the cookies trade amongst each other to exchange decorations, therefore the cookie analogy is down.

13. Not everyone will get what they want. The reason for creating smaller countries was to let people be heard. If there is a smaller population, direct democracy works better and people will be heard. We can even endorse sites like this so people can be heard even more.

14. NO, one test, the whole country. Money and time is not a valid argument, if our country built an atomic bomb in a few years, I think we can hand out political tests. We already hand out SAT and STAR tests, how hard can it be?

15. That is a good point, but what I am talking about is REAL unemployed people, people who need a job. People who stay around the house don't need a job, therefore they are not eligible for the National Guard draft. (To clarify, in the national guard you serve on a tour of about 5 years, then are returned to your home.)

We were changing a plan for THEIR territory, therefore it was their government. You have not addressed that the declaration of independence clearly states that the people can abolish a government if it violates their rights. I have presented enough evidence to day to prove that.

===VOTERS CONCLUSION===
My opponent has misunderstood my plan in many parts.
My opponent has brought up NO reasoning and NO evidence, only assertions.
My opponent fails to address the point that the declaration of independence gives this plan a right to be instated.
My opponent fails to bring up any sources but her personal opinion, while I quote the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, and many more.

I urge you to vote pro. Please do not vote-bomb, please actually vote who had better conduct, who made better arguments etc. Don't vote for your personal opinions. You have the two top boxes to do that.

Now I must turn the debate over to my opponent so she can put words in my mouth and bring up more assertions.
CrysisPillar

Con

Thank you again for a quick response and another debate.

I would like to bring up that in the last round, I did address the point that calling his plan radical is a contradiction; England found it radical. However, the government we had set up wasn't to control England, so though England did not have a choice on how we were governed, it did not affect them. This proposal will affect us, the people, without any choice.

1) I see how you could say that I misread your plan, Rocky. However, I already did address this point last round; in a direct democracy, you represent yourself, but you will not be heard because not everyone can listen to every citizen at once and meet all of their needs.

2) Allow me to outline your plan right now: the government is being corrupt to the people, so we…
a. Give the people less choice and less voice because nobody can keep track of everyone's wants and needs in a direct democracy of millions of people, split into countries or not
b. Give the people less representation in government, including taxes for healthcare without representation
c. Take our country and split it into separate countries with different laws in each one and attempt to keep them all under one alliance, making it harder for trade due to trade laws and taxing per country, and harder for relatives to visit each other from coast to coast without a passport
d. Ultimately make everything harder on the people because the government is being corrupt.

Your plan contradicts the very base of your reasoning to change the government, which was to keep the government under control. Now, the people who were hurt by the government will be hurt even more. Do we not matter? Denmark is not a full proportional representation of Europe and is not an example of a place that shows thirty countries in an alliance; your examples are faulty.

3) I have refuted this point in my first refutation of this round; there is no possible system where everyone can get what they want, political parties or not. Therefore, taking away political parties would do no difference. If you would like to argue about political parties, let's start another debate; that would be an interesting one.

4) A country depending on another country is like the United States getting stuck in Afghanistan. Our country right now is a country dependent on itself and other countries, and I don't see what the trouble is with being a whole county right now. You have not explained what splitting into sections would do that our country can't do now, besides direct democracy. However, I have already refuted that point many times.

5) It is inevitable that your plan will not work, and I have stated that in all of my points and refutations throughout the entire debate. There is no such thing as a perfect government; that is why the founding fathers included the possibility of adding amendments to whatever is needed. As I have stated in all of my points, your plan of government is twisted and corrupt.

6) Okay, voters, think about this: thirty countries with five presidents in each. This is an even more complex system, one which would be hard to bring into an alliance.

7&8) It is simple. However, the things that the parties do, the things that they advertise as slogans while running for president, are things that are meant to be good for the country as a whole. Notice how all of the presidents try their hardest with civic virtue to set aside their own needs; they don't spend a ton of their money for themselves or for their parties. Their job and duty is to carry out the country, execute the laws, and do what is best for a country, and that is exactly what they do as president. One who does not do that gets impeached.

9) I have refuted your civic virtue point in the last refutation. Also, as I have stated, with direct democracy instead of political parties, the people will have absolutely no say in government due to a complete disorganized system.

10) You never stated until now that the Ephors are randomly chosen; I see your point now. However, what is the point of your proposed direct democracy if we are just going to pull out and ask random people to represent themselves? This guarantees no voice to the people who are not Ephors.

11) You never mentioned a universal trade policy until now; clearly, you are just bringing in new ideas to fix every little thing to refute mine. You have not addressed my refutation about supply and demand in different areas for different goods; a universal trade policy would not work.

12) Again, the trade policy will not work due to different amounts of supply and demand. If restaurant chains were only set to one of the thirty countries, there would be tons of people without jobs who would maybe have to move to keep up with their chain. All of the restaurant chains would go to the countries with the farmland, and there would be no chains left in the dry desert areas.

13) People will be heard, but people will not get anything of what they want because the Ephors are chosen to speak for them whether they agree on things or not. Your proposal is ineffective in terms of allowing the people to be heard and get what they want at the same time. People are already heard in the current system by voting.

14) Money and time to make a national test is a valid argument! We may already have state testing, but imagine how much money and time it would take to write a completely different test, send it out across thirty countries, and count up all those scores! This idea is completely non-compelling and undesirable.

15) I shall refute this point in my closing statement.

Because he wants to slim down the wealth range, his plan represents communism, controlled by government and evened out by regulations.

Yes, we technically in their territory. However, the Constitution, our plan for government, was written after the Revolutionary War, the war that ended with a peace treaty between Britain and the colonies. Only the Declaration of Independence was written earlier, and that was not our plan for government. Therefore, the United States or America did not belong to the British when we made our new plan for government, our current one, not the Articles of Confederation.

Voters, I would like to point out some faults my opponent has made. He…
1) did not address my point that we need capitalism; instead, he said "capitalism doesn't work."
2) failed to even touch up on my counter-proposal of just simply adding amendments to the Constitution. He has stated that we should "prevent the crime before sending the criminal to jail," but I have clearly refuted this point by saying that no government is flawless, providing plenty of reasoning why his proposal would not work. He did not clearly refute this.
3) keeps adding in extra parts to his proposal up to the very last round to keep up with my refutations. (This is a refutation to point number 15 – he is merely adding on extras.)He obviously has no idea where his proposal is going and does not have enough information to support it.
4) tried to refute my points by saying that "catchy sayings never mean anything," and then tacked a bunch of them to the end of his speech in round 3.
5) has consistently used poor conduct throughout the debate, including the statement, "Never underestimate the capabilities of the brain."
6) has accused me for using opinionated points when they are completely full of reasoning.
7) spoke about George Washington disapproving the current system and then came back the next round to refute his own point.
8) provided a case with no support whatsoever, a proposal which is gnarled, twisted, and corrupt in every way, which is supported by my case.

For the reasons that I have refuted every one of his points, his case was very weak and without support because he had no knowledge on the topic, and he has not even touched on my counter-proposal, Con clearly wins this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
:D hehe.
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
Kfc.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
DID YOU SAY kfc?!?!?
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
It's fine.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
go right ahead
Posted by newbwhothinkshesgood 6 years ago
newbwhothinkshesgood
i might use this in a congress round at a debate tournament
hope thats ok
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
hmmm....
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Rocky. I agree totally that our current combination of democracy/capitalism doesn't work and needs urgent review and massive reform. If i could vote (I can't as the confirmation thing isn't working for me) I would support you merely for your attempt at building a new system from scratch. If you haven't already, read some Bakunin. While his Collective Anarchy system is flawed, he is on the right track.

Peace.
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
@Shestakov
Why?
Posted by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
Rockylightning... I am speechless...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Sam1324 6 years ago
Sam1324
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 6 years ago
BobMarleyIsDead
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 6 years ago
Atheistassociate
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:24 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 6 years ago
pbplk58
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
RockylightningCrysisPillarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25