If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

I will go over each issue he presented to me and offer my own rebuttal. To begin with my opponent argues that his position does not meet the slippery slope fallacy. He argues this under the premise that his argument is based on a simple understanding of cause and effect. Unfortunately my opponent is making this argument based on two assumptions: 1. People follow what is in their best interest. 2. Living in liberal land is obviously not in a persons best interest. Number one is flawed through the use of empirical examples, look to people who join the Peace Corps, they desire instead to help others. Number two is flawed through the fact that people are liberals in the United States. Obviously liberals feel that liberal policies are within their best interest or they would instead have conservative policies. Thus my opponents argument is still a slippery slope fallacy in the sense that it assumes an effect from a cause that actually has no link. From here my opponent argues that a liberal state could not begin at ground 0. I of course find myself in strong disagreement of this statement. I define a liberal state as one guided by liberal policy makers. My opponent on the other hand seems to define a liberal state as one guided by people who will implement a liberal policy even if it is not in the best interest of said state. I. E, that liberal policy makers are idiots. This is simply not true. A liberal state, one being guided by liberal leaders, would have the presence of mind to begin the state in a supportable manner. This, of course, would result in some form of debt as I mentioned. All things great start modest. Liberal state would need to build up to its free education and medical systems. My opponent of course argues that making education and medical treatment free would be difficult and actually asserts that government involvement would increase the costs. This is where I do not disagree with my opponent, government involvement would increase the costs. However my opponent misunderstands my argument. My argument is that the government would pay for these costs in eight ways. A. Free health care for residents of the state, this would attract more people to become residents who in turn could be taxed. B. Not only that but it would attract people from all countries to come for low medical costs. Low medical costs to foreigners would decrease the tax burden on actual citizens through paying some medical costs. C. People attracted from other countries would function as a tourist industry for liberal state. See my Cuba example which I will clarify on later. D. Large amounts of tourists would result in out of state industries creating "tourists traps" despite the higher tax rate in liberal state. Profit is still profit and lots of people = more profit which in turn balances with higher taxes. Government in turn taxes these industries and thereby the tourists which results in money to pay for the medical industry. E. Tourist attractions in turn result in people coming strictly to see the tourist attractions, this results in more tourism outside of the medical industry. Which in turn results in more money through taxation of this industry which results in money that can be spent on the medical industry. F. The education sector on the other hand offers nearly the same benefit, being free education for in state students, in turn leading to more people moving to liberal state. G. Education sector also offers lesser tuitions for out of state students while still charging, this takes some of the tax burden of residents. H. Education sector would also receive phenomenally more funding than out of state schools (K-college). This results in parents moving with their children to liberal land for a better education. This in turns means more residents means more tax revenue means more money that can be spent on the education and medical sectors. Which brings me to Cuba. My opponent argues that the only reason Cuba works is because people are stuck in Cuba. He justifies this argument with the idea that in liberal land people will just come for the freebies and leave. This argument deserves multiple responses from me: A. The fact that Cuban citizens are locked in does not change the fact that Cuba's medical-tourist industry is the greatest in the country. B. My government doesn't allow for freebies. Instead it allows for reduced costs for out of state persons. This cost would be made up for in the tourism industry created by it. However my government also offers even higher incentives to become residents. C. Finally my opponent specifically says, "If everything is so great there [Cuba], why do they have to lock everyone in. " I would simply like to point out that I agree the situation in Cuba is sub-par, this however does not mean that their medical tourist industry is not working superbly. My opponent then goes on to argue the education aspect in saying that people of low incomes will doubtlessly move to my state in order to exploit the free education for 4 years then move away. This also merits multiple responses from I: A. I am advocating Kindergarten all the way through College has more financing and a better education system than the rest of the country. This means that parents would move their for the benefit of their children. So while a child might be somewhat of a drag on the economy (as in any state) the two parents would still be paying taxes. B. And yes, I do think that many college graduates would stay in state because: a. Many college graduates are liberal, and would have a great opportunity to function under a liberal society. b. Look to the socialist countries of Europe now. Do we see mass migrations out of them despite their 40-70% tax rates? No. Finally my opponent advocates that the wealthy, and entrepreneurs would not enjoy living in liberal land. This depends: A. A wealthy liberal would have little objection to having to pay high taxes, they would still doubtlessly be wealthy after said tax and would never be in fear of lack of medical help. B. Higher education leads to higher innovation leads to technological advancements. So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state, arguably higher than 5%. Though I say even higher considering the idea that people can apply for grants under my society if they are working on new technology. C. My opponent concedes that it would attract humanitarians and some religious folk. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Handsoff, In retrospect every human has the right to life, from the beginning. As far as I can tell it is the only right that we all are inherently born with, and that is not saying much. But I contest that a right to life in itself is not enough. Life with a degree of quality is meaningless. A baby born into a void will die of starvation. The liberal idea goes off of this premise. Wealth by most people means money but I don't feel that is so. Quality of life is also a wealth in itself. A wealth, arguably far greater than that of the monetary. So I guess my question is this: When a society can assure that everyone has a high wealth of quality life, while allowing and at times promoting social, intellectual, mental, and even physical wealth can that society afford to lower the potential monetary wealth? Does monetary wealth even mean anything when these other forms of wealth are to be had? As a side note. .. I don't believe the constitution insures much of any of this, but on the same note I don't hold the constitution as a morally infallible doctrine.