CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Finnsilly

Reward Points:6
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
81%
Arguments:8
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
8 most recent arguments.
1 point

The government may be quicker with an executive branch, but this branch will become too powerful. Since the executive is also the Commander in Chief, he can dictate his standing armies to do as he pleases. And additionally, you say that in this form of government there will be less gridlock, but if anything it will create MORE gridlock. In such a large government, it will be impossible to pass any controversial laws. The "constant clashing of opinions and representatives... will [slow] the operations of government" (pg 313). Nothing will ever get done if we are unable to agree about anything.

1 point

Your point is exactly why we should stick to smaller republics. The executive cannot understand the interests of the people, so we should be run by individual state governments instead of a central government. In a small state government, the representative will better understand his constituents since they will be people in his community. When a representative has to stand for an entire state, he will lose that connection.

2 points

A large republic will never work. In a small republic, the reason why the people listen to the government is because they ARE the government. They create the laws, so they follow those laws. In a large republic, the executive branch will be too disconnected from the people. The citizens will no longer have a drive to follow the laws since they did not create and enforce them, and the executive will be able to do whatever he wants since us citizens won't be close enough to know what he is doing and stop him. (pg 314-315) And if we don't like the laws being placed, the standing armies will be sent against us. How is this a proper way to run government? Just let us have small republics in our states! That way, we will properly be in control of our own laws and representatives.

1 point

Agreed! These Federalists claim that they want to make our government balanced, but they are endangering our states' power. This "necessary and proper" clause is a big red flag... where is the limit to something that can be necessary and proper? The federal government could deem the destruction of state governments as necessary and proper! And without a strong state government, we could not dispute it. The Constitution already set it up so that the federal government has all the good powers. (pg 309) They just gave us the scraps! Ridiculous.

1 point

If we do not have militia, then the federal governments will force standing armies onto us. These standing armies will be willing to kill citizens with no hesitation! If the executive commands them to attack civilians, they will wordlessly obey! In a large republic where not everyone agrees with the laws, the standing armies will be used to keep those who disagree in check instead of compromising (pg 315). A standing army will do more harm than good!

2 points

In such a large republic, even if it does not fail, how can we be sure that the peoples' voices will be heard? How can a state official represent every person and every opinion in the state? The short answer is the representatives won't know the people they represent anymore. (pg 313) Trying to represent an entire state will result in a mess trying to appeal to all the constituents. Instead of having a large republic, we should focus on our state governments.

1 point

We are not afraid of change, but we are afraid of our government crashing and failing before it can start. A republic will simply not work in a country as big as ours is. A republic would work best in smaller areas, such as state governments. That's why we want strong state governments instead of an overruling central government.

-1 points

The federalists can use the "necessary and proper" clause to pass any law they want. Their idea of government will just make us into the next Britain. The "supreme" federal government will make our state powers obsolete, and the executive branch will just become a tyrannical king. Why try to make a large republic when every large republic in history has failed? (pg 312) Let's just continue with a confederation with an armed militia! We beat Britain with this structure, so why stop now!

Finnsilly has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here