The Official January 2016 Southern Legislative Debate

[Young Conservative]

An excellent bill. An educated populace is the best populace and with education on guns, comes decreased fear of this tool for defense, pleasure, and livelihood. I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure and work to increase knowledge on guns and fight against attempts to take our right to life, our right to defense, and our constitutional rights away from us. T

[Kingpoleon]

"This is a big threat to individual liberty by the government under the guise of a civil liberty. There are no rights to refusal, exemptions for mentally partially unstable kids, or ability to use the weapon without threatening other kids. I am fine with each classroom having guns which require the principal, the teacher, and the superintendent to press a button. The teacher enters the password, or if no teacher is present the intercom may be used to inform kids of it(it would be changed afterwards, of course). A teacher and two students should each receive a gun, three rounds of ammunition, and bulletproof vests.


"Also, every child would have the right to refuse to participate in such a program. Those that refuse would be taught to throw everything nearby at a shooter, as it's harder to shoot when being hit by many things than when both dodging bullets/having a bulletproof vest and shooting. No uniforms and no mass uniformity for students, please. We cannot afford such a threat to individual liberty disguised as protecting he safety of children. That is an awful lie to fall for. Mark my words: anyone who would give up even a speck of one own's or any individual's liberty for any number's safety deserves much. Anyone who is willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

While Mr. Steelers has yet to answer the question, the 24 hours allotted for this question have elapsed; we will now, therefore, proceed to the fourth round of our debate. Candidates have 24 hours to answer the following question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kingpoleon]

"Yes I can. I believe that commerce may be regulated both federally, for stability, and locally, as local concerns know better. I believe a sales tax, a small progressive income tax, and a business/union tax may be used by the federal government. However, the federal government should only be allowed to regulate businesses and labor unions with more than a certain number of members in any one region. All other taxes should be left up to the states, as should most non-military spending.

"I am fine with government providing welfare and healthcare, to a small extent, but I don't want any federal individual mandates on any one section of trade. Social issues should be decided on an issue-by-issue basis. Anything requiring inter-regional cooperation must be approved by all regions involved, or a majority of every region is involved, while any regions co-operating can be prevented if the government so wishes.

"To be clear: I support a strong defense, a federal overseement of protection from crime, and some welfare programs. Most other issues should be decided by a balance between the two. Perhaps the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch federally needs something resolving disputes between regions and the federal government.

"I would not mind a body for each region and federal result. Each regional "Federal Congress" would have two congressmen appointed by the President and two congressmen appointed by the President. Another one would be elected by the regional legislature. That's five per region. Another federal one would have a member each appointed by one of the Governors and approved of by at least three-fifths of their legislature. The same number would be appointed by the President and approved of by the federal legislature. A final member would be elected federally by all the regions legislatures and approved of by either half or more of the Governors and the President or at least two-thirds of the Governors."

[Kingpoleon]

"The good Governor has informed me I am mistaken by referring me to Article 10, Part 1 of the bill. I remind him that none of my other ideas are incorporated, which I shall strive for, and under the current bill, no minor may object. I charge this as being a refusal by the legislature to acknowledge that minors have rights, too. Furthermore, grades 5-8 need the safety elements I proposed, while 8 would also have the gun training idea so they could transition into it. I would also like a partnership program if possible for students.

"I ask that all other debaters privately message me if my points have weakened their resolve at all, or if the rights of children should not be a concern when the bill itself is supposed to defend our children."

(Bill in question: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=225661.msg4847088#msg4847088 )

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

"Great question, I want a government so small you can barely see it. I believe in state's rights, Leinad's been a great governor in doing that and having a small government. I believe the federal government shouldn't have the right to impose all these strict regulations, and spend spend spend. That shouldn't be the Atlasian, or Southern way. I believe in low taxes, cutting regulations to help small businesses, and slightly raising the minimum wage. I believe this will make a better and safer south for us all. Thanks."

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

I am pretty much satisfied with how our present Constitution determined rights of regions and federal government.

[Pingvin]

"Very good question. I consider myself to be a minarchist when it comes down to the powers of government and I wholeheartedly agree with the the "night-watchman state concept". Federal government should only have the control over the military, law enforcement, courts, printing currency and foreign relations and the local government's job is to make sure it doesn't get weird on the regional level. I believe that the market can do the rest - education, healthcare et cetera. We saw that red tape bureaucracy always slows down the economic growth and overall functionality of the system - this is why I supported the budget cuts related to the government agencies that do more harm than good."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The time allotted for this question having expired, we will now proceed to the fifth round of this debate. Candidates have 24 hours to answer the following question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Following a rigorous vetting process, absolutely. We can't have a Paris happen in the South and after I believe that each single refugee is tested, if they're nice, peace-loving people, let 'em in. I see no harm to allowing people to live in our great region if they are nice people, which I believe most are but still, in Paris, a few people changed the course of a nation, if one wrong one were to come in it could change our South. Very vigorous process, and checking social media. I mean if we do it to our own people, disgraceful, what about using it for something necessary?

[Kingpoleon]

"Our background checks need to be very deep and efficient - both for refugees and guns. I believe the South should show a heart of gold. We will welcome these people fleeing for their lives. I declare to the governments of these nations to send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses who want to breathe free, free to not fear, and free to hope once more.

"To those who wish for freedom for themselves or anyone at all, I tell you that we must accept these refugees, just as we would wish to be accepted. I remind you that we may either hang separately or all together in regards to the liberty of these our brothers and sisters. I would gladly hang with them now than watch them hang now and be hanged later myself."

[Young Conservative]

I believe no vetting process currently present is vigorous enough. We need severe restrictions on refugee intake. We can't accept a massive number of people of different religion and culture and expect no backlash. We can look at Germany where they've accepted almost  1 million refugees and in response, they have suffered catastrophic social implications, such as their recent disastrous and crime filled new year's eve. In Germany a mob of migrants essentially conducted mass sexual assault on hundreds. We can't allow this in America. We need limits. Refugee has a very specific definition of those leaving due to political pressure, not economic or social reasons. We can't accept everyone or we will suffer because cultures will class severely. We can be selective with our immigration because we are in high demand. Rather than accept everyone, let us accept good, honest, hard working, and highly educated people to our country as Australia and Canada do.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

First of all i must agree with Mr. Young conservative, we cant allow sexual assaulters from abroad becouse we dont know what to do with our own. I am a little bit ironic.
I was deeply against quotas which offered Mr. State secretary, because they was religiously inappropriate and they cover a small number refugees from Syria. If we want to be World power and simulate world policeman we must take responsibilities.
I understand that we can't accept all refugees who try to escape war areas but we can not allow ourselves to be like Catholic fundamentalist states like Poland or Slovakia and making quotas by religion.

[Pingvin]

"Look, the current refugee crisis is a result of a domino effect. We shouldn't have gotten ourselves into the Syrian crisis and let them handle their own problems, but it's too late for that.
It's impossible to do the background checks for the proposed numbers of refugees (many of which actually are economical immigrants looking for welfare paychecks) and you have to be blind to don't see an analogy with the Trojan Horse - countries like Germany and Sweden already fell for it, and what they got is a rape crisis. There are confirmed reports of ISIS agents having sleeper cells among the people who leave Syria for Europe and Americas and we can't afford that risk. We should have a temporary moratorium on immigration. I'm sure I will be called heartless for that, but there's one thing that you must understand - policymaking cannot be driven by emotions, especially when the stakes are this high. Sorry, but that's the truth."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We will now begin the sixth round of the debate. Candidates have 24 hours to answer the following question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kingpoleon]

"While I generally support it, I would consider cutting five to ten offices from the legislative branch to create a Triumvirate(one appointed by the President, one elected by the Governors, and one elected by the higher legislative branch), or Pentavirate(one elected by each region's legislature), or Heptavirate(five elected by each regional legislature of the five nominated by the Governor, one elected by the national higher legislative body of those nominated by the President, and one elected by the other members, with the leader of the Lower House acting as a tiebreaker in the case of a three-three vote). This branch would act as the balance between the two if one branch supported a law the other didn't. Of course all legislative nominations is ballot-by-ballot, with the lowest nominee receiving votes being eliminated, and no more than two of the five an executive nominates could be from the same party as any of the five.

"It is important we use innovative ideas when creating our government, as otherwise we may fall into the trap of any one branch having ultimate power. We cannot allow something like A New Start to threaten our very existence again, and so I propose another branch. I propose change not along ideological lines but along new lines. Modern and innovative ideas against the very stable traditions and ideas must have a balance between the two, and I firmly believe I am that balance, which is what the South truly stands for."

[Pingvin]

"I believe that lower chamber for the national legislature is a good idea, but there's no point in creating a separate branch - I think that the best way to do it will be the meeting of the regional legislators from every region so we can be sure that we elect people who will bear both responsibility on local and federal level."

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I believe the more representation we have in the federal government, the better. I feel like we have a serious under representation in government. We're limited to two senators? Really? What if, say in the future they were just to become normal corrupt politicians? Shouldn't there be a way of stopping that, regional representation in the federal government? I'm all for a House. It's a great thing.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

I am always for more people in politics, but when we attract more citizens then this will possible. In this moment this number is enough.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We will now begin the 7th round of this debate. Candidates have 24 hours to answer the following question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I think the more representation the South has in government the better. Normally I'm against bigger government, almost always actually, but the people need more of a voice in our political system. I believe that a House should be set up, as well as an active and healthy legislature and better for our people. We do need compromise, let's work together on the issues, not against each other. Thank you.

[Kingpoleon]

"I would support it, but I'd prefer a creation of a legislature composed of four members, who elect a Lieutenant Governor by ballot. A two-to-two tie would result  in the Governor breaking the tie if there is no incumbent Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor would break a tie vote in the legislature and succeed the Governor. Furthermore, the legislature would add or subtract two members for every four voters in the last election.

"That said, if our voting base grows to, say, fifteen or so, I would support creating a bicameral legislature, or a five-person legislature with a triate(one member elected statewide, one elected by the legislature, and one appointed by the Governor) balancing a disagreement between the majority of the legislature and the Governor. This allows for separation of powers between the various branches.

[Pingvin]

"I have worked in the 5-member Legislature back in the day and it was a perfectly working system. I believe extending the number of members from three to five will allow for better voter representation."

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

As i said on previous response, i am always for more people in politics. If we have a number of people who want to work for South i am always for give them a chance. Of course that doesnt mean that we must destroy democratic process of election. Maybe in next elections we had a less candidates or more. So for now i am for this amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We will now proceed to the final round of this debate. Candidates will have 48 hours to deliver a closing statement.