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

You say that in my defense of you slippery-slope accusation, I assume that "People follow what is in their best interest." I still hold this as a natural and logical assumption. Your Peace Corps example showing that occasionally there are exceptions to that rule does not make it any less valid in general. Aside from that, it could easily be argued that even those who engage in seemingly selfless acts like joining the Peace Corps are doing so for their own personal satisfaction and personal growth. You attempted to challenge the second of my assumptions (that "living in liberal land is obviously NOT in a person's best interest") by stating that "liberals obviously feel that liberal policies are within their best interest or they would instead have conservative policies." I agree that liberals FEEL their policies are worthwhile, but my assumption is not based on how liberals feel. It is based on the catastrophic outcome that would result from those policies if they were fully enacted in a state with open borders. Since both of your arguments against my rebuttal on slippery-slope do not stand, I now ask the readers to ignore your attempt to discount my conclusions as slippery-slope fallacy. "From here my opponent argues that a liberal state could not begin at ground 0. I of course find myself in strong disagreement of this statement." This is irrelevant to our topic since I am allowing for a fully operational state to begin with, but maybe we can take it up in a separate debate. "My opponent on the other hand seems to define a liberal state as one guided by people who will implement a liberal policy even if it is not in the best interest of said state." Liberals would have no problem implementing policies that would not be in the best interest of said state. That is evidenced by the fact that they advocate implementing liberal policies today which are not in the best interest of the entire country. This is also irrelevant to our debate, but I just couldn't resist. "I do not disagree with my opponent, government involvement would increase the costs." Thank you for conceding this. I ask the readers to please make a note of it. "My argument is that the government would pay for these costs in eight ways." 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. You say that people would not come to lib-land for just 4 years of free college, but for many years because schooling would be free for all years prior to college. Again that would not be an exclusive offering of the liberal state, so there would be no advantage for young families to move to that state and tolerate twice the tax rate in order to get free K-12 education they could get free elsewhere. So you are wrong here as well. You say graduates would stay and tolerate keeping just half the income they could keep working elsewhere because they "would have a great opportunity to function under a liberal society." The only thing the liberal state would offer that a libertarian state would not is free health care, free college and a plenitude of social programs for the poor. Once a graduate is finished with college and finds a job, he probably will not be poor. Hence, the only freebie left in lib-land for him to enjoy is the free health care. I think the readers would agree that no intelligent person (liberal or otherwise) would give up nearly 3/4 of his income to get "free" health care, especially when insurance can be gotten in a competing state from an employer or privately at an affordable price. So your reasoning here is again faulty. "A wealthy liberal would have little objection to having to pay high taxes, they would still doubtlessly be wealthy after said tax and would never be in fear of lack of medical help." Wealthy people (liberal or otherwise) do not like handing 60% to 70% of their earnings over to an undeserving government. Also, wealthy people are not generally in fear of lacking medical help. So your argument is weak on both counts. "Higher education leads to higher innovation leads to technological advancements. So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state...." Again, when a graduate leaves lib-land in search of a job where he is allowed to keep the lion's share of his earnings, he will take his higher education with him (and all the great innovations that might have resulted). A competing state will likely derive any benefits from the "free" education lib-land provided. So you're wrong here too. "So while yes, some people might move out of state in order to be entrepreneurs some will still remain in state, arguably higher than 5%." 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. That is 95% of the people responsible for starting new businesses. Small business is the lifeblood of any modern economy. I think your comments on this subject do a far better job of proving my point than anything I could come up with. You have unanimously admitted that lib-land has little or no chance for economic survival, much less economic prosperity. Without economic prosperity you would eventually have low-paying jobs, poor government healthcare, limited social services, and a quality of life most discerning Americans would find unappealing. Thanks and good luck on your final round.