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

Alright so last round I began by arguing that my opponent entire argument was a slippery slope fallacy off of two assumptions those being: 1. People follow what is in their best interest. 2. Living in liberal land is obviously not in a persons best interest. On the first plank I argue that people join the peace corps and that isn't necessarily in their best interest. My opponent turns around and agrees with me but says in general people will follow their best interest. My response: a. My opponent offers no evidence to show us that people will usually follow their best interest. b. Best interest is entirely subjective. I may have been to hasty in stating that people joining the peace corps are doing so outside of their best interest. It may very well be that subjectively to them, joining the peace corps is in their best interest. Myself as an example, I love helping people with their homework, this may not seem like something that benefits me but it is non-the-less in my best interest. c. Conclusion, even if my opponent has somehow proven to you, as voters, that people follow their best interest despite his obvious lack of evidence, then I still contest that a persons best interest can lead them to help others. Liberal state is all about helping others. The second plank I attacked by stating that their are liberals in the United States so obviously some people (roughly 50%) agree with liberal policies. Therefor many people feel it is in their best interest. My opponent attacks this by stating it is true but he feels such policies will have a catastrophic outcome. I will get to the catastrophic outcome later, for now keep in mind that about 50% of people would feel it is in their best interest. Next my opponent offers this argument which I have many responses to: "The only way the state will pay for anything is by way of heavy taxation. Your tourism scheme is flimsy at best. Keep in mind this state will not have exclusivity in its ability to provide attractions such as art, music, theater, restaurants, or even marijuana lounges. It will be competing with other states that provide these same attractions, but without the high prices necessary to subsidize high taxes on business profits. Libertarian states for example would be offering the best of both worlds-- all the lifestyle freedoms and attractions along with affordable prices due to low taxes. So here you are wrong by falsely assuming lib-land will have the market cornered on such attractions." 1. He simply calls my tourism scheme flimsy. He doesn't bother attacking my eight part plan on how it works. He doesn't bother attacking the Cuban example, nor the examples of socialist European countries that I offered. So my question, I guess, is: does calling something flimsy hold up as evidence in a debate? If so.... 2. My opponents entire case is rather flimsy. 3. My opponent seems to be advocating a flimsy case. 4. After calling my tourism scheme flimsy my opponent goes on to state that my state would not have, "exclusivity in its ability to provide attractions such as art, music, theater, restaurants, or even marijuana lounges." This is very true! Its a very good thing I never said it would. The main draw to my tourism scheme is the medical industry! MEDICAL INDUSTRY! Which would offer prices for medical care at significantly lower rates than any other state in the Union! How do I happen to know that this would draw people to liberal state for tourism, because Cuba, offers the cheapest and arguably the best health care in the world. Which in turn has created their largest industry, which is? Tourism! Liberal land has exclusivity in the sense that it would have the largest funded medical program in the country! My opponent never argues this..... 5. Brief recap. Liberal Land offers low medical costs. People come to take advantage of this. Tourism industries see this and build a tourist industry in Liberal Land. Now Liberal Land has exclusive medical care and an on par tourism industry when compared to other states. Which means with the added exclusive medical, Liberal Land has a greater tourism industry than any other state. Liberal Land taxes these industries to pay for medical industry, which is owned by the state. 6. And then we have my opponent last comment in this paragraph, "Libertarian states for example would be offering the best of both worlds" a. I don't care because purely libertarian states don't exist. My state is being added to the current 50 states, not the current 50 states plus libertarian state. b. This idea seems flimsy.... Next my opponent argues that free education is not exclusive for K-12. Yep, that is pretty true free education is not exclusive from other states. I guess its a good thing that I advocated that, "H. Education sector would also receive phenomenally more funding than out of state schools (K-college)." And it seems to me that if the education sector would be receiving PHENOMENALLY more funding than out of state schools (K-COLLEGE) then that would kind of be something exclusive.... My opponent however ignores this point, so I guess I don't have much to rebuttal. My opponents next paragraph (You say graduates would.....is again faulty.) basically draws the idea that no one would stay in a state where 3/4's of their income is stolen when they could go elsewhere. Arguments: a. My opponent ignores my entire incentives argument from my last speech. Notice this, "grants to develop new technologies would outweigh the increase in taxes." Liberal Land offers grants to develop new technologies. My opponent concedes this. b. Liberal land is doing free health care, education, and grants. There is absolutely no gaurantee that this will suck 75% of the income. The United States could arguably do this right now if it dropped out of the Iraq war and still keep the taxation of its citizens about where it is. Finally my opponent advocates that entrepreneurs would leave the state. He does this while ignoring my grant arguments. Then he quotes me twice from the same sentence and says, "I'll give you this, because it only helps my argument. If lib-land retains around 5% of its entrepreneurs, it effectively chases away 95% of them." Which would be totally fine with me except for the fact that he ignored my last sentence stating, "Though I say even higher considering the idea that people can apply for grants under my society if they are working on new technology." But just for fun we will pretend that my opponent is totally right and it will only keep 5% of these workers that are of a higher education than the rest of the country. For fun I will call them "the intelligent". This means that 95% of them will split and divide hypothetically between the other states. Which means each state would end up getting 95%/50 or 1.9% of "the intelligent". Which in turn means liberal state with 5% compared to 1.9% will output more technological advancements and reap the profits. So thats my case.... Sadly my case is all basically moot in comparison with the topic of this debate, "If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there." which he redefined in his first speech as, "liberal state must compete with other non-liberal states in the union for population." As my opponent has allowed me to take religious folk, humanitarians, the college population, and, through dropping my argument that K-12 would have increased funding, the U.S population that falls in that age group plus their parents- my opponent has therefor conceded that my state would easily be able to compete in population with any other state. Thank you for the debate.