Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

I can only respond to arguments posted by my opponent and visible on the page. I am not going to watch documentaries and read ravings by this lunatic Roger Hughes whoever he is. Links are for supporting your arguments not for making them. YouTube clips especially you notice cannot be linked or embedded in YourArgument. Why does my opponent think this is? I will need the entire documents referred to. I might answer by arguing that the dissolution of the United Stated would have been in its own and everyone else's best interest anyway so if this debate is intended to be about Lord Palmerston my opponent has not even. I'll finish the sentence when my opponent presents some argument. First of all there are alternatives to simply arguing the opposite of my opponent. In fairness I get to take a position too. I propose we use the Lincoln-Douglas rules of debate, although there are others: 1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative. The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution. The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement. (1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life'). (2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution. (3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent. 2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so. But any modern debating format, I will argue, should be designed to allow a maximum of flexibility in responding. This especially true when the topics are picked by just anyone. The National Forensic League meets semiannually I think to pick topics. They must be chosed with great care. Even then they can be challenged as you can see. So the first step in a debate is to pick a good topic. OK there are more than one definitions of LD format. Anyway if my opponent wants a good debate there should be something to debate. I don't see much. I would be wasting my time spending two days and 8000 characters addressing what little my opponent has posted. And it says post your opening argument so kindly do so. Instigator posts entire argument in opening round and is not allowed to add later. That's in every debate format ever. It would not be fair to ask me to develop a detailed plan for dismantling the United States if that is not what my opponent wants. I need that protection against stupid topics and stupid arguments. I should get some credit for posting within forty minutes.