The Plan.

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.