The Plan.

\\\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