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

"my opponents first fallacy, being the slippery slope fallacy" I took a good look at my conclusions before beginning this argument and wondered if my argument met the requirements for a slippery slope fallacy. I found my conclusions were based on a common-sense understanding of cause and effect and not the product of a wild imagination. It does not require a slippery slope for people to seek what is in their best interest and avoid what is not. "I will further be assuming that this state will begin with absolutely 0 structures, in effect this state begins with nothing." No, because as you mentioned liberal policies are not sound enough to create a state from nothing. I agree with you that it would be "highly unrealistic and would result in the utter demise of said civilization." This is because liberal policies punish industriousness and reward the lack of. Since industriousness, self-reliance and hard work are essential to building anything of value liberalism would be of little help in this area. "The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of health care until it is non-existent." Government has not had a good record in the area of lowering the costs of any service it provides. It is far less efficient than private industry. I assert that costs would increase as a result of government involvement and be passed along to the citizens in the form of high taxes resulting from said inefficiencies. "The government through taxation of liberal state will slowly lower the cost of education, until education is free." Again, look at what it costs government to educate one grade schooler, or house one prisoner. The costs are astronomical when government inefficiency is plugged into the equation. Public education is not free. "My main example here will be Cuba." Cuba is a communist country. But I find it interesting that you used them for your comparison. People cannot come and go from Cuba as they please. If everything is so great there, why do they have to lock everyone in. The disadvantage the liberal state will have is that people can come and go as they please-- come for the freebies and go to avoid financial annihilation. I think for a liberal state to be successful it would have to lock its borders. I knew I would have a very good chance of winning this debate if I required that the liberal state had no barriers to entry or exit. "Europeans on the other hand often journey across the ocean for their low health care costs." You make my point about people willing to cross border in search of generosity. Hopefully I won't have to debate that with you at some point. Regarding education you say free education would be an "incentive for incoming college students to move to the state. As time goes on, and more people enter the state taxes can be focused on developing a higher class education system than the rest of the United States." Again, you admit that people (likely of modest resources) would flock to the state to take advantage of generous give-a-ways. These people will be an overall drag on the economy. When they finally do get their free education do you honestly think they are going to stay in that state and agree to hand over 60-70% of their income? Only if you lock the borders. "Liberal state would reject the American dream." Have you been reading my diary? We agree on that. Instead liberal state would promote the idea that everyone should have the inalienable right of a high standard of living. "Instead liberal state would promote the idea that everyone should have the inalienable right of a high standard of living." Yraelz, you are the first liberal I've ever heard admit this. I compliment you on your honesty. Usually libs will try to cloak this non-existent right to lifestyle as some extension of basic rights guarantied in the constitution. "This [state] would attract, as my fellow debater Kleptin mentioned, just out of college students. This idea would also attract humanitarians. It may also have the prospect of attracting some of the religious population." Yes, this state would attract many people who want to take advantage of what is available, culturally as well as social programs. Unfortunately this state would attract everyone accept the high-earning entrepreneurs, workers and wealthy people who would be needed to finance the entire operation through high taxes. It's a catch 22 I'm afraid.