The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A one party system works better for America, instead of a 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 59419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Hello and thank you for accepting this debate, first off I would want you go, have BOP first my plan of annihilation needs this to be done correctly :)
I want you to tell me why our current two party system is doing great!!


Well first, BoP is on pro, because he is holding a positive assertion. I shall just offer a few thoughts in this first round.

" A single-party state, one-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of state in which a single political partyhas the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections."

Well what's wrong with this system. It sounds like totalitarianism to me. Well how has totalitarianism done in the past?

Well let's ask the survivors of the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Nazi Germany. The death toll of these states are over 100 million.

Well what does the UN's declaration of human right's say regarding totalitarianism?

^ Top

Article 21.
  • (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  • (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  • (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
If there's a one party system, not everyone can participate and be freely chosen.
The one party system also negates clause 3.

Consequential Moral Argument Against One Party-states:
P1) We should behave morally
P2) That which promotes well being is moral,
P3) One party states don't promote well-being
P4) One party states are not moral
C1) We should not institute a one party system.

P2: Throughout history one party states oppress the citizens. The state arbitrarily starves and kills citizens.

I suppose my main point is that historically a one-party state does not work.I shall offer more arguments next round. I shall remind my opponent that he has the BoP to show that a one-party system will work better than the two party system. The point of the debate is not to bash the two-party system.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright Con thank you for debating me on such a close subject to my heart.
I am not arguing that democracy is wrong. So let that be clear I am not saying democracy is bad, actually it is the greatest form of government to this day.
Especially in America the two party system does the opposite of what it should do.
Compromise, no stalemate is given. How? Look:
In 2008 Obama (D), House (D), Senate (D), took action, G.I. Bill expanded, Cash for Clunkers, Student Loan reform, partial immigration reform, Repealed Don't Ask, Don't tell system in our Army. They also finished S.T.A.R.T. between US and Russia with nuclear arms. Also they followed through with Stimulus helping the middle class.
After the House became (R), not one piece of significant legislation has been passed, why? Because the president and Senate is democrat.
Our supreme court now acts more politically than following the constitution. Our 'invisible government' like C.I.A. and N.S.A. have become stronger with each shift of party power.
Two party causes finger-pointing and nothing really to be done.

I am a strong left winged minded individual. I hate conservatism for all it stands for. But I much rather see a conservative one party government than a two liberal-conservative one. With two parties a country is divided, a house divided cannot stand. Mr. Washington warned of the evils of a party system at all. Our 1st president said so.

Look I understand history is not one my side, but wait. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot were not just liberals, they were AUTHORITARIAN LIBERALS. If I was in charge or had my way I would love to see a libertarian liberal take over the one party system. Like Jesus, or Gandhi, or MLK. These men were bad men and you can still have a democracy with a two party system and they don't have to be communist, take socialism for example. Ask how Denmark, and Sweden are doing. They're doing just fine, and have some of the highest Atheist population, a lot of people here should start to think about moving there ;)

Thanks Con back to you!


"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."

Well given that everyone in America obviously doesn't have the same thoughts, I don't see how democracy and a one party state can coincide.
Also Denamrk, Norway and like countries are not socialist in any traditional sense. They are social democracies.

America is becoming increasingly polarized. So if you have increasing polarization, but only one political party, a lot of citizens are getting cut of the loop, which the declaration of human rights prohibits.

Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.

So the point is that a one party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also the population would be in a FRENZY because of the increasing polarization. This would result in a some of the population not being represented. Once again this would negate participation in government.
Debate Round No. 2


You talk of polarization and moderate separations of parties.
The current conservative-republican party is dying, breaking into smaller parties, they cannot ever win presidency by the way the election is ran. You then have to be soon a democratic supreme court that will surly sway to a harsh left political decisions than a constitutional one. Soon a one party system will become of America with the new more liberal generation. Our country has become more easy on marijuana, gay rights, sex discrimination and very less religious. All things the right fear and hate.
If the party that has sole power upon a country that is very supportive of all people, like a new modern liberal or socialist party. Many if not all will benefit. No more struggle between state and federal governments. No chance for a civil clash or war. Like I said a one party can be so much better than a two party system if the party is correct. Legislation will be passed more and with ease.
I totally understand the point of Democracy and an one party cannot exist. You may be right, but I beg to differ that soon this country shall no longer be a two party but a multiparty system under one umbrella of a more liberal-democratic side.
Those countries I stated earlier are socialist dominated government that do well with redistribution, health care for all and amazing beneficial welfare systems. Also the best education systems as prison and so on..


Now, I am a liberal, but lots of citizens are not.
Ideological Self-Identification, Annual Averages, 1992-2013

Conservatives 38%
Liberals 23%
Now I agree with everything you are saying. I'd love to have a fully liberal government, but via the ToM( the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.) People are allowed to think differently. The liberal population is growing, however it will never become extinct. And these people(who's views are ridiculous) deserve to be represented. You're proposing a liberal totalitarianism, which I guess would be cool for liberals, but really not cool for others.

Now I'm gonna throw a curve-ball? What if by some miracle the tea-party get's really popular and there's and becomes the only party? That would really really suck. So the resolution isn't specific to liberals. So I think our current two-party or even add a 3rd party like in the time of the framers, but a single party always leads to problems.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to pass this round and finish my statements in the last round, thank you.


Well I just want to put forth a few thoughts

" “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

George Washington

George Washington seems to have been larely wrong. I'd say on balance we are more free(especially minorities).
What have we gained since Washington's time/
Slavery Abolition
Voting rights for all
Job rights
Vacation rights

George Washington had just had an encounter with a tyrannical state, so he was a tad paranoid.

The bottom line is on any foreign or domestic issue "X" , one might have a differen't opinion than you.
What if you're view is contrary to the one-state party? Well your view is irrelevant, and that's not right. All views are supposed to be heard, that's why democracy is so great.
Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for this very inspiring debate, I have learned some things, lost some values, and gained many more.

We are great liberal minds that think somewhat alike. The bottom issue is if we want a one party dominated (Hopefully a liberal-democratic party) we must do it the American way. We first must wake up out of the stupid Reaganomics and out of date conservative ideas. We must then take action to get the true better leaders into office.
I am always stuck on this. People like Gandhi and Jesus and M.L.K. and other great equal rights activist that support equality and acceptance for all are stuck under the same umbrella as Stalin and Hitler. If a person like one the first great men got into power of a similar type government ruled like Stalin or Hitler what would it be like? I think the country would prosper with Socialistic ideas and nationalization. A more stronger welfare system and environment protection system. A more logical immigration policy. A administration that brings job programs back like F.D.R. Civil rights fighter and minority protector like L.B.J. The country would be amazing and a outstanding look upon the earth. This could only be achieved with little to none optimal force. You would need a strong one party system to get these goal. Or have a country that is somewhat like minded and doesn't have Mississippi, or any other radical state.
The sad issue is that these opportunists have been seized by evil Authoritarian men that persecute and kill those opposed. A libertarian liberal would not persecute or compromise but do what is really better for the lesser even if they don't agree at that time.
We have a democracy and you really can't go wrong but it truly sucks...


I would also like to thank pro for this debate.

Now, I largely agree with you. However, within one-party states opression and hate seem to always follow. A one-party state is un-American. A one-party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also in a one-party stae, a lot of citizens wouldbe unrepresented.
Now pro failed in his BoP, mostly because the resolution is ambigious. Not only is a one-party state pretty much impossible, but if it was instituted,a lot of citizens would cause a RIOT.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago

Both debaters need to do some actual rebuttal here. Your arguments are like two ships passing in the night, and I end up getting little actual clash in this debate.

So I get a number of scattershot points.

I get from Con that a one-party system is totalitarian, something Pro admits by the end of the debate (which is strange, since it also means that he's bucking his point that democracy "actually it is the greatest form of government to this day") and therefore that it defies the UN's declaration of human rights. I get little in the way of analysis as to why that violation is inherently harmful. He tells me that there have been a number of previous totalitarian rulers who have massively harmed populations, but makes no inherent link to what a one-party system would turn into.

Meanwhile, Pro keeps claiming that this government is going to be liberal, that it's going to give all the social services to everyone and that the U.S. will be a happy-go-lucky place. There are a lot of assumptions being made here:
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
1) That the persons in office will be liberal
2) That the system of checks and balances doesn't hold them back
3) That that government will never become corrupt
3a) That their lack of desire to court the electorate won't change their views
3b) That every single leader will continue to have the best interests of the country at heart
3c) That there's no reason why a single elected party wouldn't engage in any practices that enrich themselves or their allies
4) That there will never be riots or dissent as a result of this leadership
5) That social services are beneficial

Those are just some of the assumptions coming through here, and I'm never sure that Pro establishes these to be reasonable. He tells me that the Republican Party is fracturing, but only asserts that to be the case, despite the fact that they still hold a majority in the House and a substantial minority in the Senate. Con never gives me that argument, but it's basic common sense, and an assertion doesn't dismiss it. I never get any analysis on 2 by either side, which is confounding because a one party system has no apparent need for any checks and balances, yet the system would still include the three branches of government. Does the USSC just vanish? 3 is probably the biggest hole, but it's never exploited by Con at all, and without seeing those arguments I can only assume that such a system would not be corrupt. Con finally hits at 4 in the final round, but it's too late at that point to count in the debate, and it's an unwarranted assertion at that. I agree with it completely, but I can't count it. Point 5 doesn't get any analysis either, and I think Con just outright granted it, which is fine, but a missed opportunity.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
In terms of other arguments that came up, I think Pro takes it too far saying that the leader would be "like Jesus, or Gandhi, or MLK." I buy Con's examples more because none of these men ever led a totalitarian state. I also don't buy Pro's comparisons to Denmark or Sweden, despite a relative lack of response. Both of these countries are democracies. The only major difference is that the countries as a whole lean further left. That doesn't mean that they function as good examples, that just means that liberal policies can work well. It doesn't help your point much. Lastly, Pro's argument that we're moving towards this anyway is just confusing. The warrants aren't there for the supposedly inevitable collapse of the Republican party, and even if they were, that's actually a bigger problem for you. All Con had to do was say that your case, then, lacks inherency. If the system is becoming a one-party system, then you're not changing policy at all. You're just speeding it up, and you never provide any reasons why increasing the rate of change is beneficial. But, again, I never see that argument.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
But given the arguments, here's my conclusions.

Really, all I have against Pro's case is that the person in office might not be liberal, and would be totalitarian. I get limited analysis on why either case is bad, though at least I get some good examples from Con here. I get that people will be upset, but not a reason why that is bad. If people aren't able to vote for a separate candidate, that's a huge deal, but I need to see why. I see an assertion that the Tea Party could get in, but this only functions weakly since the likelihood seems vanishingly small by comparison to either of the major parties getting into this role as the one party to rule them all.

Still, it's just barely enough to give Con the win. Even if I buy that the government coming in will be liberal, I get just enough analysis from Con on totalitarianism to believe that these are the only options when it comes to this kind of government in the long term. I get no rebuttal to them, and only claims that we will have a great and benevolent leader if only we allow a one-party system to come to fruition. So long as I believe that the ultimate outcome is totalitarian rule under the thumb of an oppressive military state, even if we got social services out of it, I cannot support Pro's case, and thus vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
Well guys, I'm not sure what you set the ELO restrictions to, but you are preventing anyone from voting on this debate at all given how high they are. I'll still post my RFD anyway, but I'm pretty annoyed that I can't vote on this and that Pro made no mention of the ELO restrictions at all.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
wtf... I wrote a 900 character RFD and couldn't cast my vote because of voting elo restrictions... >.>
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
Voting restrictions?
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
Liberal population is growing, but the conservative population will never become extinct*
No votes have been placed for this debate.