The Plan.

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. http://www.youtube.com...