The federal government of the United States of America should be abolished.

It's quite clear that you are in favour of some sort of central body, considering your proposal of a "United Nations" type body. I am not saying you are against any federal Government. But your proposal is too weak. You want the federal Government to provide for the "wants and needs of the states" but the Government is too big at the same time? In your conceptual vision of the United States, the states would be very isolated and nearly sovereign (I am gathering this from your comparison to the United Nations/Olympics, which is a body that has little power over sovereign states) -- but the federal Government should still take the responsibility of providing for the states -- and then, all of a sudden it's too big! Either you want a central power with much power over the states (providing their wants and needs), or you want the central power to be extremely small with the nation acting as a confederation. And now the problem is democracy? You mentioned the word 'democracy' three times in your last argument but in no argument before then. I must ask you, my opponent, to please stick with a solid argument. I am now completely thrown off by your argument, because all this time I thought you were advocating an abolishment of the federal Government due to the principles of popular sovereignty, but now you say that democracy is wrong 'because it lets people vote who have no right to'; equal voting is a core principle in an egalitarian democracy. None of this even supports your argument for the abolition of the federal Government, at this point you are just simply ranting about democracy. However, in reading that rant I did pick up a "rebuttal" to my claim earlier about how we can fix the federal Government's extreme expansion. We can repair the Government BECAUSE of democracy, because we have the ability to elect who we feel will do the best job in office; this power, along with the balance of Government laid out in our Constitution, can fix the Government. Instead of electing greedy politicians who just want to expand power, elect someone (in the following scenario, a President) who will abide by the Constitution and veto any laws which do not follow the document. As a Catholic, I too am bound to God above state. But you must remember that the Catholic Church does not condemn separation of church and state anymore. In fact, in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council writes: "the right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus is to become a civil right." The Catholic Church promotes the state's responsibility to protect religious freedom and to not condemn any religion. This is completely irrelevant to the argument, I just wanted to correct you on your stance here. You misunderstand what I mean by diversity. I do not mean to insult you but your rants are very heard to read because of its error. I do not believe in a 'pseudo-liberal Marxist utopia of lies', either, because I am against federal expansion. But you obviously do not understand -- after all you say "it was flawed from the start," which I now see ties into your disliking of democracy ('demoncrazy'). There is no question that of course democracy is flawed; in fact, it is extremely flawed, but social contract theory is a theory that took thouands of years since the birth of civilization to emerge, and its creation is probably one of the greatest advances in political thinking since the Magna Carta. Since I barely understand your problem with diversity -- as you call it both 'genocide' and 'suicide' -- I will not attempt to rebut any of this. This is not a concession, just an ignoring of your argument due to lack of understanding. As for "I didnt say that the states of the future must be only one thing," which of course these 'states of the future' are only your vision, you pretty much did say there were to be one thing, because you "want the freedom for the Mormons to have a Mormon country, the Catholics to have a Catholic country, the National Socialists to have a National Socialist country, the monarchists to have their monarchy." That, along with your rant of diversity, pretty much sums up your argument that a state should be composed of one group only. Your analogy of killing the serpent (the federal Government) at its head is the false analogy fallacy -- the serpent is the politicians who are in power, the serpent is the greedy and power-hungry leaders that wish to expand the Government's reach. The Constitution, in this scenario, is a well-structured cage that the serpent has broken out of. Yes, we must not only kill the serpent, but in the rebuilt cage not only a beast that understands its place within the cage but also a beast that does not attempt to break out -- electing the correct politicians. I was about to begin another rebuttal on your next paragraph but then I noticed something peculiar. You say, "why cannot America have a Parliament and a Prime Minister, for instance? Why cannot we have royalty, if we want it? Why cannot we have a chancellor or a series of lords and lady's, if that is what we as a people desire?" I am now in complete and total incomprehension of your stance. You now are FOR democracy. First, I can nearly guarantee you that most Americans see democracy as the best form of Government (anyone that reads this and is against democracy, please note that I am not saying everyone is for democracy, but that most Americans enjoy the rights they have to control the Government through elections), so the creation of a monarchy or anything is improbable. Second, this argument stems from the principle of 'popular sovereignty' (which I mentioned earlier) which was developed by the same people who developed social contract theory and thus democracy. You are all over the place in your beliefs, I suggest you find an actual solid argument instead of ranting about everything you don't like about the federal Government.