The Plan.

Thank you for another debate. I accept your motion. In this round, I will be explaining just how radical, undesirable, and unreasonable this proposed change is, as well as stating a counter-proposal. There is a reason why the government has kept certain people from voting – for example, you simply cannot allow those who do not understand how the government is run to cast a vote in how they want the government run. When our founding fathers assembled to write our plan for government, they did not include women, African Americans, or Native Americans as people who had the right to vote – later, though, as we found these problems, our national government added in amendments to allow these people to vote. If there is another body of people which Rockylightning is arguing suffrage for, then we can always simply add another amendment. He has argued that 18-year-olds are forced to serve this country, and that they do not have any say in our government. However, isn't it a commonly known fact that 18 is the age at which you can cast a ballot and vote? Also, for a point of clarification, please explain how they are forced to serve their country. When the Civil War happened between the North and the South, America learned that you cannot leave the Union. We are the UNITED STATES of America, once united and never apart. Rocky suggested that we split our country of fifty states into 30 separate countries. This proposal does not sound constitutional at all, nor does it sound reasonable. He states that 18 year olds are forced to serve their country, and yet he is suggesting a system which reflects communist ideas – take the jobs which the government assigns you or be forced to work for the National Guard. Now, tell me, how many more people have a say in government with your proposal? Sure, democracy as well as republican government only works in small communities. However, how much of a hassle would it be to have to set up a three-branched government in each of 30 separate countries? Each country needs a separate Bill of Rights? Imagine having to join 30 separate countries into one Union when they have different rights protected in each. Having five presidents is a completely ridiculous idea. The United States of America does not have the time or the money to spend electing presidents five times a year. With five presidents with possibly different views on controversial issues, they will not agree on anything at all. There is no possibility of running this country with five men or women who can never agree on one thing. Outlawing political parties is like outlawing freedom of expression. People use political parties to affiliate themselves according to their views; the idea of outlawing political parties does not abide to the very rights listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without political parties, candidates running for president will not even have a broad way to express their ideas and what they want to do with our country. The people and Electoral College would have to agree with every single idea that the candidate agrees on. What is the point of the Ephors? We have a U.S. Supreme Court and Legislative Branch which has been watching over the president for corruption, and this system has been working perfectly for over the past two centuries. The idea of getting rid of large businesses and the progressive tax system which taxes the rich more than the poor is completely unreasonable; our nation is based on capitalism, the investment of money in hopes of making a profit. Your proposal discourages capitalism, the very system on which this country runs, and ends large businesses which other foreign countries depend on for imports from us! If my opponent wants free universal healthcare, where does he assume we'd get the money from? There are some people, such as doctors, who are extremely against the idea of national healthcare. Taking away the right to vote for healthcare is the removal of another one of our rights as the constituents of this country. With free college and no large companies, how will teachers be able to earn money to support their families and themselves? I completely agree that those who do not understand our government should not be able to vote, but how do you propose that we should be able to tell whether or not they understand the government or not? Do we have to go back to the Literacy Tests they had in the 1800's to discriminate immigrants? This is the United States of America, one of the few countries in the world in which we are not based upon a religion, language or race. The foundation of our country is made of ideas. My opponent's plan is completely radical, incomprehensible, and nightmarish. He starts his speech by stating that the government today is not following the laws of the constitution, but with his proposal, the rights of the citizens are not protected, and we will have less say in the government and in the way that we run this country than ever. This plan digs an even deeper hole for all of this country's problems. Among being extremely radical and ridiculously complicated, there are many weaknesses of this system. Our current system under the Constitution of the United States has been working for over two centuries, and I as the Opposition see no need to make such drastic changes. If we were to run the country the way Rockylightning states we should, we would be taking away the rights of the citizens, turning this country into a communist one, and completely weakening the way government is currently run. My counter-proposal is the following: instead of re-writing the entire Constitution and reforming our entire country with this radical, ridiculous, and absolutely inevitably destructive plan, just simply add amendments to the current Constitution to make any needed changes according to today's technology, society, and needs, the same thing we have been doing for the past two centuries without any failure. Now, I will turn this debate over to Rockylightning.