The Instigator
Cowboy0108
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Misterscruffles
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Misterscruffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 32248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Cowboy0108

Pro

For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that
1. All republicans live in the southern nation and all democrats live in the northern nation.
2. Dividing the nation up and moving everyone around is not the topic. The topic is whether the two nations would be more efficient.
3. When you begin the debate, tell your political party and if the split did happen, which nation would be more successful and why.
Misterscruffles

Con

I accept your challenge.

I would like to thank my opponent here, as well as the audience (for listening in and giving their honest opinion), as well as Thomas Nast.

As you requested, I'm registered as a Republican, although I hate both parties. I don't think that splitting the nation would allow any of the split parties to be successful (although I'm getting ahead of myself here, seeing as you have not presented your opening arguments).
Debate Round No. 1
Cowboy0108

Pro

I will split my ideas into social and political issues.
I will start with social issues because this is what can draw the deapest lines between societies.
For one, a territory with all republicans would support some issues and not others(socially). For one, they would not have to live in a country with people who support abortion and gays. I know I would not want my children to grow up in a society with gay people. I would not want my children to grow up in a society with people who support baby killing. As I am sure the democrats would not want their children growing up with homophobes. I will save my additional points for later.
I will now mention political issues which involves the entire economy.
The republicans would support border control, military, lower taxes, and lower spending. The democrats would support the opposite. As of now, these issues are meeting in the middle. I simply say go all the way. With this method, the republicans and democrats would not have to compromise focing people into doing things they do not want to do when it comes to the economy and general politics.
Misterscruffles

Con

"For one, a territory with all republicans would support some issues and not others(socially)."
Gobshitte. Republicans are a diverse group, and disagree on many issues.

"For one, they would not have to live in a country with people who support abortion and gays."
So move to Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

"I know I would not want my children to grow up in a society with gay people."
Just like when good ol' southern boys kept them there niggers from prancin' around like decent white folk, eh?

"I would not want my children to grow up in a society with people who support baby killing. As I am sure the democrats would not want their children growing up with homophobes."
Societies that do not allow for dissenting speech often suffer from violent revolutions. Just look at Syria.

"The republicans would support border control, military, lower taxes, and lower spending. The democrats would support the opposite. As of now, these issues are meeting in the middle. I simply say go all the way. With this method, the republicans and democrats would not have to compromise focing people into doing things they do not want to do when it comes to the economy and general politics."
Simply not true. My mother ad my father's mother are both Democrats who favor a strong military, a strong police force, long and harsh prison sentences, and strong border control. People's political views don't just fit into neat categories, and basing policy on if that was true is a really stupid idea.
Debate Round No. 2
Cowboy0108

Pro

1. Republican have their basic principals which put them in that party. There may be differences in opinions among the party but not as much as between republicans and democrat.(I am only saying republican now but the same goes for the democrats.)
2. "So move to Iran. Or Saudi Arabia."
Or just split America. Then women do not have to wear face masks and we can remain Christian.
3. Funny(sarcasm). Difference is, black people were definitely born black but there is a question about whether being gay is a choice or not.
4. I do not understand your claim at this point.
5. It is about basic principals of the party. There will be exceptions of course. But it is on a more general basis.

1. People can live where they agree with the most people.
2. People do not have to be influenced negatively by a society they do not agree with.
3. Cuts back on bipartisanship.
4. Puts both regions back on the right track in which they become increasingly less split.
Misterscruffles

Con

I still don't understand why you think one party systems are so wonderful. Communist China was a one party system, Soviet Russia was a one party system, Nazi Germany was a one part system, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a one party system. While there are countries with one party systems that work (Tanzania under Julius Nyerere), these are the exception, not the rule. Democratic societies do not engage in genocide at nearly the rates one party systems do; when a democratic society does, it's the exception, and often because it has transformed quietly into an oligarchy or tyranny.

Cowboy: "Republican have their basic principals which put them in that party. There may be differences in opinions among the party but not as much as between republicans and democrat.(I am only saying republican now but the same goes for the democrats.)"
That's purely your opinion.

Cowboy: "Then women do not have to wear face masks and we can remain Christian."
USA was never a Christian nation. See: Treaty of Tripoli [1]

Cowboy: "black people were definitely born black but there is a question about whether being gay is a choice or not."
The preponderance of evidence is such that I feel safe to state that homosexuality is based on both genetics and factors influencing growth inside the womb; by the time you are born, sexual orientation is not "a choice". See: [2][3][4][5]

Scruff: "Societies that do not allow for dissenting speech often suffer from violent revolutions. Just look at Syria."
Cowboy: "I do not understand your claim at this point."
In part, much of our strength is from the internal conflict. The fact that we as a nation have a legal system that allows for (mostly) peaceful resolution of political conflict has meant that we have gone through only one revolution in our entire countries history, and that was 150 years ago. If you set up a system that held certain controversial political positions as absolutes that could not be changed in law, you would assuredly cause violent political strife.

"People can live where they agree with the most people."
You're asking for the impossible here. People are inherently argumentative.

"People do not have to be influenced negatively by a society they do not agree with."
Not having to listen to viewpoints that you disagree with is not a good thing. Just look at how scientific and technological advancement have atrophied in certain extremist parts of the Middle East.

"Cuts back on bipartisanship."
Not necessarily a good thing.

"Puts both regions back on the right track in which they become increasingly less split."
Not at all. In California, for example, Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly a third [6], but slightly more voters call themselves conservative than liberal.

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
Cowboy0108

Pro

1. Republicans do have a set of principles that guide them. This is what makes them republican. Not my opinion.
2. Though the US is not a Christian nation, it is made up of predominately Christians, especially in certain regions of the country.
3. I could use the Bible to prove my point about gays, but I am sure that you do not want to hear it. I will simply say that my opinion differs.
4. My issue is not about a war between the two nations, I am simply trying to make this debate about the two nations benefiting politically and socially, particularly socially.
5. By stating that they agree with most people, I am not saying that everyone will be the same. I am stating that most people would agree on many issues with slight discrepancies. For example, one person may be completely pro life but another may be pro life except for rape cases. Both are pro life, one is just conditional.
6. Cutting back on bipartisanship is a good thing. Or at least it is not as bad as keeping it. You are saying that it is better for disagreeing parties to reach a stalemate because none can agree, then to all just agree and get something done.
7. The final point that you are providing is me saying that instead of continuing on a path of increasing separation, we could the republican nation on a path to better agree(one major strategy of persuasion is agreement with opposition, Republicans can better agree with other republicans who are their opposition. This means that the republican being persuaded is more likely to switch.). The same goes for the democrats.

I will save my remaining points for my closing arguments.
Misterscruffles

Con

"2. Though the US is not a Christian nation, it is made up of predominately Christians, especially in certain regions of the country.
3. I could use the Bible to prove my point about gays, but I am sure that you do not want to hear it. I will simply say that my opinion differs."
We're getting off topic here.

"1. Republicans do have a set of principles that guide them. This is what makes them republican. Not my opinion."
"5. By stating that they agree with most people, I am not saying that everyone will be the same. I am stating that most people would agree on many issues with slight discrepancies. For example, one person may be completely pro life but another may be pro life except for rape cases. Both are pro life, one is just conditional."
Not at all true. You're a Republican if you're registered as one, or a Democrat if you're registered as one. A Republican traditional conservative Evangelical, a Republican libertarian Atheist, and a Republican neoconservative Catholic will usually have tremendous differences in ideology that will cause conflict and cannot be handwaved.

"4. My issue is not about a war between the two nations, I am simply trying to make this debate about the two nations benefiting politically and socially, particularly socially."
By splitting the US in such a way, you would cause such tremendous political disturbances that a violent conflict of some sort would be all but inevitable. The US was not set up to be divided, and cannot be safely.

"6. Cutting back on bipartisanship is a good thing. Or at least it is not as bad as keeping it. You are saying that it is better for disagreeing parties to reach a stalemate because none can agree, then to all just agree and get something done."
You have continuously asserted this claim without support. My claim is not that bipartisanship was good, but that it whether it is a "good"(however you define that term) thing or not is circumstantial. Sometimes, a lack of opposition means that poorly- written laws can pass Congress without oversight.

"7. The final point that you are providing is me saying that instead of continuing on a path of increasing separation, we could the republican nation on a path to better agree(one major strategy of persuasion is agreement with opposition, Republicans can better agree with other republicans who are their opposition. This means that the republican being persuaded is more likely to switch.). The same goes for the democrats."
"we could the republican nation on a path to better agree" Is nonsensical.
I will assume that you are talking about diplomacy here. If you want to see where a one party nation, where no diplomacy is required for the ruling regime to lead, look at the fantastically successful examples of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China.

"I will save my remaining points for my closing arguments."
...That was your set of closing arguments.

In closing, I would like to argue that while my opponent demonstrated differences between Republicans and Democrats, and asserted that mostly these groups are more similar than they are different, he failed to meet his burden of proof for the assertion "A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two." I would further argue that my opponents argument is way off base; the world has suffered at the hand of way too many one-party countries. We don't need another Nazi Germany [1] or Soviet Russia [2] or Khmer Rouge [3].

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://1.usa.gov...
[3] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
Political diversity creates a middle ground on a lot of issues. As an example of extreme proportions, one party may believe in total world domination, and the other may support zero military no matter the circumstances. These two parties alone would fail, or lose countless lives, but together they compromise and create a strictly defensive military. A much better idea than the original plans.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gondun 4 years ago
Gondun
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet the BoP, so Con wins the round.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I give Con arguments because Pro didn't convince me the nation would prosper with one party. I agree there are some benefits but non that constitute a division.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
Cowboy0108MisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguements were well thought out and were source backed, pro really didn't put much effort into this debate.