The Instigator
JustinChains
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Jade75
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

America would benefit from a new political party in power.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,176 times Debate No: 15868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

JustinChains

Pro

In this debate, I (Pro) will present opinions and information in support of these points...

- The creation of a new political party and why it is beneficial to America.

- How the two political parties in power right now (Republicans and Democrats) are inefficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority.

- How a completely new vision for America's future is beneficial and why a new political party that supports this vision is crucial.

I propose these terms for how the debate shall be played out. By accepting to challenge me in this debate.. I will assume that the challenger also accepts these terms.

Round 1 - Acceptance and stating what points will be made in the challenging argument.

Rounds 2 through 4 - Arguments and conclusions.

Round 5 - Final conclusion and/or statements.

Let the debate begin!
Jade75

Con

I gladly accept this debate challenge.

In this debate, I will argue that the two parties in power right now, the Republicans and the Democrats, are efficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority. I will also argue how why a 'new vision' for America's future would be wholly un-beneficial and why a new party would be completely unnecessary. I also hope to demonstrate how a change in the political spectrum in such a way would be detrimental to the state of the country.

I agree and concur with my opponent's terms for each of the rounds of debate and wish him the best of luck in the upcoming arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinChains

Pro

I thank you Con for accepting this debate and I look forward to hearing your views.

I would like to re-establish my argument and I think Con will agree with my reasoning for doing this.

On reviewing my 1st point...

( The creation of a new political party and why it is beneficial to America.)

And reviewing my 3rd point...

(How a completely new vision for America's future is beneficial and why a new political party that supports this vision is crucial.)

I found that these two points fall hand in hand, so I have combined my 3rd point into my 1st and 2nd points.

My points are now as follows....

Point 1 - Why a new political party is needed and why this party would be beneficial to America.

Point 2 - How the two political parties in power right now (Republicans and Democrats) are inefficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority, and why a new vision for America's future is needed.

Now that I have cleared that up, I will move on with starting the debate.

Thank you Con for your patience and understanding.

Point 1 - Why a new political party is needed and why this party would be beneficial to America.

Overall, the two-party system has served us well, but there have been times in American history where neither of the two political parties were able to solve the nation's problems. At that point, great pressures emerge to form a third political party. Americans often form a third party in times such as these, and if successful, either one or both of the existing political parties adopt their issues. This happens because new issues force themselves onto the existing political process by third political parties and demand to be heard. This has been the fate of third political parties for the last 140 years. Many third parties deeply impacted public policy, but they did not become institutionalized. Their issues endured, but their party disappeared. Only twice in our history such a movement has brought forth a whole new political party to replace one of the existing parties. The last third political party to become one of the two major parties was the Republican Party in the 1850s.

It is once again time for a political realignment. I am not arguing for changing the two-party system into a three-party system... I am arguing that America needs a new political party that would eclipse one of the existing major parties and itself become one of the major parties in power. We fear that neither political party can do politically what we need to do economically to remain a great country, and that a third party built around a personality cannot force change—something just proven by Ross Perot. Bringing America's expectations in balance with our revenue will be a terribly painful and monumental task. We shall have to substantially downsize some of our most popular programs. We have ourselves in a Catch 22—where the best politics is the worst long-term public policy. Neither party can afford to take the steps in campaign reform and entitlement reform required to solve these politically volatile problems. Short-term political considerations eclipse long-term public interest considerations. We judge it to be substantially beyond the ability of either political party in the present political climate to deal successfully with these structural problems.

Point 2 - How the two political parties in power right now (Republicans and Democrats) are inefficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority, and why a new vision for America's future is needed.

Right now, both parties are failing the American people. Most followers of the two current political parties in power don't seem to expect results and most leaders of the two political parties in power focus their energy, time, and resources on bashing the opposition. So far, neither Republicans or Democrats have any "wins" on their resume and our deficit continues to grow. When are we going to start holding all of our elected officials accountable and stop making excuses for them? If politics was known as the political "game" in times past, then it has been refined to an artform today. The focus now is simply on winning the 24-hour media cycle or, increasingly, cycles within that cycle. Players, now mostly political apparatchiks, still say or do whatever it takes to win. But now policies are little more than ephemeral utterances created from focus groups and polling, summarised in a media grab. It has become a race to the bottom as they contest to be even smaller political targets. Promises and commitments too are ephemeral, to be subsequently and easily dispensed with as 'non-core' or semantics.

Personalities and their foibles now dominate. Much news is little better than Hollywood gossip. Fear and misrepresentation are fundamental to the political weaponry. Genuine policy debate is virtually non-existent. Problems remain unsolved, and are left to fester. Basic service delivery wanes. The low point, for now anyway, was the last federal election, where the electorate didn't really like either leader, in part for the way they each got there, or their policies. The lowest common denominator, an unintended, ungovernable hung parliament, was the result.

The tragedy is that the policy challenges have rarely been greater, both economically and socially. We are essentially in uncharted waters as the developed economies struggle to recover from the GFC and to avoid deflation, with many aftershocks yet to come, while the emerging nations grapple with food and other inflation. The global imperative is to transition to a low-debt, low-carbon world.

In Australia, the gap in the two speeds of our economy is widening, with resources enjoying an unprecedented boom in commodity prices, while the rest largely teeter on the brink of recession, and the majority find the increased cost of living crippling and the quality and availability of basic services in decline. Much of our infrastructure is suffering from neglect. None of this is being managed well. And we now have the overlay of natural disasters.

Unfortunately, it seems that neither the Republican party nor the Democratic Party is capable of giving America what it needs right now. So, America is in need of a new political party. It needs a party with a strong leader and a new fresh vision for America's future. A party that is capable of transforming America and bringing our beloved country into it's full potential.

- Justin Chains -
Jade75

Con

I graciously thank my opponent for his response!

---Preface---

Before I begin my argument, I fully accept and understand my opponent's re-structuring of his argument and thank him for being so polite in stating a change to his overall position before initializing this debate.

The way I will organize this round and all rounds is the future is by starting with a preface or clarification (if necessary), then continuing with my own arguments by the refutation of my opponent's claims while supplying additional information to support said refutations and the furthering of my positions.

That being said, let me now begin my argument.

----Arguments----

Firstly, my opponent and I took opposite sides of the notion that a new political party is a necessity in America at the current time and that it would be beneficial to the American people to come into existence. My opponent starts off his whole argument by saying, "Overall, the two-party system ... to solve the nation's problems." The first thing he does in reference to the previously mentioned topic that is currently one half of the debate is grant the fact that the two party system has served us well overall, and this would be true. Since around 1850, America has operated under the two party system of Democrats and Republicans [1]. This means that, for the most part, every decision that has been concluded and enacted through the legislature of the United States has been enacted by one of these two parties, at least after the conclusion of the Civil War and the country's subsequent reformation. The only exception to this rule as far as the American Presidency is concerned was the bid for election by former United States President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 when Roosevelt campaigned as a member of his Bull Moose Party. The point proven by this is that the two parties, at least in the past, have definitely been able to supply and uphold the most ample needs of the American people.

In this same opening sentence, my opponent stated that there have been "great times in American history ... nation's problems." I view this somewhat as a point that needs to be clarified further by my opponent. Yes, there have been times of political discord and other strained operations between the two parties, but this occurs frequently in the history of nations - the two party system, specifically consisting of Democrats and Republicans, was able to resolve those problems then (or at least reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating) and I see now as just another occurrence of an extremely similar, if not identical, political situation. Same game, different players.

The next paragraph in my opponent's argument begins with the statement that it is once again time for a political realignment. He proposes that it would be best for a brand new party to replace either the Democrats or the Republicans as one of the two major political parties in power in America. He offers opinions on why this would be necessary, referencing the economy and the supposed political inability of the two parties currently in power to solve the problems presented to us. He says, "Neither party can afford to take the steps ... politically volatile problems." My understanding of that particular argument is that my opponent is trying to say that both parties are inept at solving problems, whatever these problems may be. My counter to this, and my opponent's entire supporting argument for his first point, is that: even with all of these supposed flaws, how would a new party that replaced either the Democrats or Republicans fare any better than the party they replaced? If there is, as you say, a core, fundamental, unavoidable disability at being able to solve problems in our 'political climate', how would a party that was just formed, and whose experience in infantile in nature compared to the history and legacy of the party it just (miraculously) replaced, be able to change a climate a party with a hundred-odd years of attempts could not?

Idealism, attitude, and policy is only half the battle - the main point that would have to be change between the new party and the party it replaced would be the new party's ability to co-exist and communicate with the party of opposition, and I frankly see no evidence supporting nor confirming how that would have even the slightest bit of happening. How would America benefit from a brand new party in power, inferior to its predecessor in terms of experience on a political stage and activeness in the politics of the United States, when the same problems that existed with the previous two parties continue to be roadblocks? The answer is, quite frankly, it wouldn't. All of what I just argued is, of course, based on the fact that the two parties we have right now fit my opponent's claims - the reasons for why they do not will now be presented in the next stage of my argument that refutes my opponent's Point 2 claim.

The first thing that is necessary when considering the 'most important needs' of the population majority is to define what these most important needs actually are. So, what are the 'needs' of the population majority at this time in our country? Besides the needs provided by the U.S. constitution, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what do the American people 'need'? The definition and specifics of what the American people have needed, need now, and will need in the future vary, depending on the time period in which the topic is being discussed. For the time period in which we live in currently (and the time period in which this debate focuses entirely on), my opponent seems to consider the economy chief among the needs of the people. He starts off this argument by making more grand statements, such as his entire opening paragraph of his Point 2 contention. He mentions how the parties are "failing the American people" and how "neither Republicans or Democrats have any "wins" on their resume". I really would like to know: what constitutes a "win"? What does my opponent mean by "so far"? He goes on to mention how the two parties in power focus on "winning the 24-hour media cycle", among other things. This should all be treated as sheer speculation, considering the fact most of these statements are generalizations to why the country is broken and why we need someone, or someones, new to fix it - all without specifying past generalities what is broken in the first place.

Little changes from my opponent's first paragraph to his second. One of the things I would like to point out, however, is the part where my opponent states, "The low point, for now ... or their policies." This is simply fallacious. Data shows that the public/electorate did indeed like one of the 'leaders'. An 'ungovernable hung parliament" said last federal election certainly was not [2]. The rest of my opponent's argument contains more broad generalizations of opinionated viewpoints on the state of politics in our country without the basis of much fact, such as "None of this is being managed well" or "Unfortunately, it seems that ... America what it needs right now.". He concludes by saying that America is in need of a new political party ... without exactly specifying why.

The facts are that a new party:

I. Would still have to deal with the remaining 'old ' party in place.
II. Would face the same challenges the party it replaced faced, with tons less experience and political history.
III. Would be operating with an idealism new to a landscape not exactly too favorable to the success of new ideals [3].

With no proof supporting his claims, the burden of proof still remains for my opponent to show as to how a new party would even begin to help America, when it most obviously would not.

[1] http://www.gop.com...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] http://www.edgate.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JustinChains

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and also for accepting the revised version of my points.

[1]

Now, my opponent writes... ""my opponent stated that there have been "great times in American history ... nation's problems." I view this somewhat as a point that needs to be clarified further by my opponent""

I feel that my sentence already states very clearly what is meant.. But I would like to point out that my statement was misquoted.

The portion of my statement in question correctly reads...

"...there have been times in American history where neither of the two political parties were able to solve the nation's problems."

Are you saying you don't agree there have been times in history that the peoples voices weren't being heard properly or that major problems weren't being addresses, and the effects of that fact built pressure to form a third party?

[2]

My opponent states...

"the two party system, specifically consisting of Democrats and Republicans, was able to resolve those problems then (or at least reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating) and I see now as just another occurrence of an extremely similar, if not identical, political situation. Same game, different players."

Republicans and Democrats reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient to keep the country operating? And that is supposed to be acceptable? That's like 2 parents running a household of unemployed lazy drug addicts and a judge saying... " Atleast they're reaching some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating."

I'm sorry... But that is not an acceptable form of bringing our country to it's fullest. potential.

[3]

How about I throw some bones to chew on.... Bones that support my points of course.

The War on Drugs costs us $70 billion a year for the past 37 years, but drugs remain as available today as in 1971. Why does Congress ignore viable options while continuing to waste our money for its failed drug war?

Do both parties pride themselves about their $700 billion trade deficit that they facilitate annually by doing nothing to stop it? Do they brag about the $9 trillion national debt they bequeathed upon our citizens for decades to come? Can they stand tall as they rebuild Iraq but watch Katrina-ravaged New Orleans slog through the unending rubble of devastated neighborhoods of our poorest Americans? Such profound incongruence!

How about 14 million unemployed Americans while 20 million illegal aliens depress and wreak havoc on our wages and jobs across America? How do they fabricate, "Illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won't do at slave wages…."

While we give billions of dollars to Iraq–and thousands of our soldiers' lives, how can our President tolerate 1.3 million homeless people in America with 13 million children living below the poverty level?

While they send over 572,000 troops to 700 bases worldwide, how can the allow our borders to stand wide open to an invading armada of illegal aliens? How does it make sense to maintain 35,000 troops on Korea's border, but not on our own?

Is it right for our Congress to force American taxpayers to shell out $338 billion dollars annually to pay for education, medical care, language translation, food, assisted housing and incarceration costs for people who broke our laws to enter our country and break our laws daily by remaining here? What rationale does the president use for his lack of upholding the U.S. Constitution?

Why would Congress uphold and increase H-1B, H-2B, L-1 and many other visas that undermine and steal jobs away from millions of Americans? Why would those we elect to serve us enslave us? Why would they outsource, insource and offshore our jobs to third world countries in order to give our own corporations greater profits at the expense of our citizens?

[4]

My opponent states...

"Idealism, attitude, and policy is only half the battle - the main point that would have to be change between the new party and the party it replaced would be the new party's ability to co-exist and communicate with the party of opposition, and I frankly see no evidence supporting nor confirming how that would have even the slightest bit of happening. How would America benefit from a brand new party in power, inferior to its predecessor in terms of experience on a political stage and activeness in the politics of the United States, when the same problems that existed with the previous two parties continue to be roadblocks?"

I would like to address some of my opponents points here.

This paragraph assumes and falls short in it's assumption. Just because you do not see evidence of it's happening, does not mean that it could not or should not happen. One of my main points in this debate is that a new party is needed. Considering the above statement and also considering my own observations on the lack of positive communication between the two parties... It is in my firm opinion that America would benefit from a new party that is formed with a vision for positive communication in all of it's relations with the opposing party. It is not hard to see how the parties have focused on belittling one another, instead of focusing on important policy issues that are crucial to our Nation's future. I will not list evidence of this belittling between the parties as this fact is clearly seen by any reputable follower of current politics. Belittling has always been a part of politics, but with a focus on policy that has been lost in recent years past.

[5] My opponent asks...

"How would a party that was just formed, and whose experience in infantile in nature compared to the history and legacy of the party it just (miraculously) replaced, be able to change a climate a party with a hundred-odd years of attempts could not?"

And my response is... How could this new party NOT change the climate? With a new party in power the whole game changes and with the game changing, everything will have to be thrown on the table to see how the new party and the old party measure up in comparison. This comparison with the new party alone forces pressure on both parties to prove which side can handle the issues and problems better. A new opponent freshens the game and calls for re-evaluation in all respects.

The fact that both parties have been the only parties in power for over 100 years and that our country is faced with these current perilous circumstances, is evidence in itself that neither party is efficient in running our country. If either party's leadership is so efficient, our nation would not be in such a critical state. Good leadership can find an efficient solution to any problem and given America's wealth in power, population, and resources... Any form of leadership has the proper tools to find efficient solutions in solving any of our nations problems. The problem lies with America's current political parties in control these tools, and their inefficiency in using them properly.

I remind voters that my opponent clearly agrees that both parties have been in power for well over 100 years.

It is in my firm opinion that both of these parties (Republicans and Democrats) have had there chance in using the great tools America has to offer... Tools that any political party could only dream of accessing... And both have failed to use them efficiently. Our current problems in America are evidence of this fact. These current problems are the children of all the policy choices that Republicans and Democrats have made in their pasts... This fact alone gives weight to the fact that it is time for a new party.

It's time to take out of power what is not working...

It's time to let a new party prove what it can do...

It's time for a new America.
Jade75

Con

I thank my opponent for his detailed response.

Now, my rebuttals and continuation of my points...

I would like to start with an overall note for clarification: when I am quoting a particular statement made by my opponent, I quote it in an abridged format. I do this to save space in my argument for other points of contention. For example, if I were to quote my last sentence for reference in an argument, I would quote it as "I do this to save ... points of contention." My intention is not to misquote my opponent - only to save space.

In response to my opponent's first point, I am not necessarily saying that there are not times in history that the voice of the people was partially ignored - I am asking for my opponent to clarify his statement by backing it up with an example of when this has occurred. The question that my opponent asks me in this first point differs from my point of contention - my issue with his statement, and the reason why I asked for clarification from him, is that I really would like to know when the two political parties were not able to solve the nation's problems. Of course, this depends on what it means to "solve". The question he asks me is "Are you saying you don't ... to form a third party?” That's not what I was getting at in my request for clarification, but I will answer his question with a question: are you saying that a third party would be able to hear the "peoples voices" properly, or any better than its predecessor? The answer is it most certainly would not. A new party would not benefit the country if it ran into and was impeded by the same challenges of its predecessor(s), and the one fact that party's do not always please the majority would apply to this new party as well. Just because a new party comes into power doesn't mean it is immune to all the challenges facing the political system, and to think so would be fallacious in its concept.

My opponent then, in his second point, makes a rather brutally unrelated analogy to a point I was trying to make, but I believe some can still be accomplished by examining it. The 'two parents' in question here would be the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans and the Democrats have known these 'children', as in the country, all of their lives, and have been a part of their development and responsible for their protection for as long as anyone can remember. Now, let's kick one of these parents completely out of the lives of the children in favor for an 18 year old in the hopes the 18 year old can break the horrible addiction habits of the kids AND get them to work. It doesn't matter that the parent that was kicked out was in the middle of a parenting course teaching them how to take better care of their children - we believe the 18 year old with no parental experience can do it better. The 18 year old in this analogy is the new party my opponent is talking about - as if the 'children' in question here, a.k.a. the country, would somehow benefit more from an in-experienced parent (that has no idea what they are doing) as opposed to a more experienced parent who is in the middle of trying to get things back on track using hundreds of years of pre-acquired knowledge and understanding of the situation due to their longevity. I believe the country would be better off sticking with the parent that would have an idea of what they are doing and knowledge of what needs to be done to fix the situation(s) at hand.

In his third point, my opponent lists a plethora of reasons as to why he believes our country is not being realized 'to its fullest potential'. He says that these "Bones" would "support [his] points of course." I do not see how these points support his side. If he is trying to argue that there are indeed problems with the nation, I do not disagree. If he is trying to say, however, that, due to the presence of these problems, a new party in power would be able to fix them or have a better chance of fixing them than the Democrats or Republicans...I disagree. The number one reason why America indeed would NOT benefit from a new political party in power is that a new political party would be facing the same problems that the Republicans and Democrats are right now, but without hundreds of years of experience, detailed knowledge of these problems (due to the fact that they were not in power when these problems germinated), and the fact that there is still one of those two parties that would have previously been in power still in power at the same time the new party would be. If the 'bones' that my opponent presents in his third point are all completely true (I'm assuming they are, since no sources were cited when these points were presented by my opponent) then a new party just has that many more problems to overcome with one very large handicap to fix them in comparison to the party they just usurped. What my opponent illustrated is how completely politically challenged a new party would be if they were to assume power due to a number of issues they have no idea how to deal with.

Next, in his fourth point, my opponent clearly illustrates how he completely missed the point I was trying to make. My opponent keeps claiming that a new party 'would' be able to do all sorts of grand gestures and make all sorts of sweeping change in America, without illustrating how. I can tell you how they would not be able to make any of these changes:

A new political party would be left with tons of problems (a shattered economy, two wars, and years of hate) that would have been gestated by their predecessors. They would face one of the two parties that had been involved in the creation of said problems. They would be operating in the same political climate of partisanship and a split country divided along the lines of political issues [1]. They would be newbies - an entity that would be thrown into a nearly uninhabitable political situation with no prior experience. They may have ideas, but what evidence is there that they would not face all the challenges that killed all the ideas of the party they replaced in the past? Pro has not illustrated HOW America would benefit, nor the means as to which the benefits would either come to form OR be implemented, and when you take a look at the climate the new party would be entering, who's to say anything would change from the one set of parties to the new one? I'm arguing that it would not change at all, and we would be even worse off due to the fact the new party would barely have any idea of what it would be doing or of how to proceed.

Finally, let's examine my opponent's fifth point of contention:

"With a new party in power, the whole game changes..."

No it doesn't. You still have the same set of problems and a country divided along lines of political ideals. Same voting, same electoral college, same game.

"everything will have to be thrown .. measure up in comparison."

Haven't the voters already seen how they measure up in comparison when the new party was put in power?

"Good leadership can find an ... solving any of our nations problems"

Don't you think a more experienced party has a better chance of finding "good leadership" than a fledgling party in power? Or that a more experienced party has a better chance at solving the nation’s problems with their better understanding?

Problems does not equate the need for a new political party - they equate the need for someone who knows these problmes from experience to come up with good solutions to solve them.

Its not time to take anything out of power - it should be time to fix what already is.

I await my opponent's response!

[1] http://blogs.forbes.com...

Debate Round No. 3
JustinChains

Pro

[1]

I understand that my opponent compresses the wording of quotes to save time. The difference here is that in the quote I was pointing out, even in it's compressed form was not worded correctly.

[2]

My opponent asks me to point out a time in history when neither the Republicans nor the Democrats efficiently solved a problem or addressed the voice of the people adequately. There are many, but I will give one below.

1.) Illegal immigrants coming across American borders to live here in America. This problem has never been efficiently addresses or solved by either party. This problem could be solved by building a wall around our nations borders and posting guards to keep it in order. This is something that has been done since ancient times to protect borders and is very effective.

This solution would also create more jobs. It would do this in two ways...

- The building of the border wall and any adjoining facilities would create jobs during the construction phase.

- The border wall and any adjoining facilities would need guards, administrative personnel, maintenance crews, etc. to occupy and manage the new structures, which creates jobs.

This solution to my first example is easily solves the main problem, while also helping some of Americas other important problems at he same time. This nor any other efficient solution to this problem has been accomplished by either party. You see... It's not a question on weather or not these parties have the capabilities, man power, or experience to create and follow through with efficient solutions to our nations leading problems. Neither of these parties solve our Nation's leading problems efficiently. It seems seems that my opponent would like to justify this fact by stating that these problems are here regardless of who is in power, when the truth is that the people that have been in power are the ones that put us in these situations in the first place. They did this through a lack of vision for America's future.

So it is time for a new party to step in the ring and throw on the gloves.

[3]

My opponent's use of portraying the 2 parties as the "parents" of our country falls out of context with my original earlier statement when I used the word "children". But I will elaborate on my opponent's scenario usage, to open voters eyes towards another way to look at it.

My opponent states that "The 'two parents' in question here would be the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans and the Democrats have known these 'children', as in the country, all of their lives, and have been a part of their development and responsible for their protection for as long as anyone can remember. Now, let's kick one of these parents completely out of the lives of the children in favor for an 18 year old in the hopes the 18 year old can break the horrible addiction habits of the kids AND get them to work. It doesn't matter that the parent that was kicked out was in the middle of a parenting course teaching them how to take better care of their children - we believe the 18 year old with no parental experience can do it better. The 18 year old in this analogy is the new party my opponent is talking about - as if the 'children' in question here, a.k.a. the country, would somehow benefit more from an in-experienced parent (that has no idea what they are doing) as opposed to a more experienced parent who is in the middle of trying to get things back on track using hundreds of years of pre-acquired knowledge and understanding of the situation due to their longevity. I believe the country would be better off sticking with the parent that would have an idea of what they are doing and knowledge of what needs to be done to fix the situation(s) at hand."

First, my opponent makes assumptions and paints the bleak picture of a near worst case scenario. The new party I agree would be newly formed, but comparing it to an 18 year old teenager is not an accurate comparison. This party would be filled with intelligent men and woman, men and women of all ages with fresh new ideas and also learned old wisdoms. I see through my opponent's argument that he/she makes the mistake of assuming that all of the people involved will be inexperienced. There are many people of power and influence in the world of politics that could join hands with such a party and only a party that was worthy of being in power would ever get my vote.

Second, if one of the 2 parents or both, are not fit to be a parent... That is, if they demonstrate irresponsibility, acting self centered, acting unreliable, letting greed direct their motives, acting cruel, doesn't show proper care or concern towards the children's needs, etc... If any or all of these things are shown for a prolonged period of time, say 100 years or more, then the parent or both parents should be stripped of their parenting powers, to let new parents try and do a better job.

My opponent says "I believe the country would be better off sticking with the parent that would have an idea of what they are doing and knowledge of what needs to be done to fix the situation(s) at hand."

Neither party has demonstrated prowess in efficiently solving the majority of our nations problems. If my opponent disagrees with my opinion or statement, then I kindly request evidence that supports these two parties have demonstrated such prowess.

The parents should be replaced not by an 18 year old teenager, but by a parent or parents that have always wanted to parent children and have always wanted to solve those children's problems... But were never given the opportunity. They wanted to be parents because they had seen the way the current parents were parenting the children, and seen that this kind of parenting was not working efficiently and the children's problems were not being corrected and/or solved as they could or should be.

My opponent makes the mistake of assuming the new party would not have any idea what they are doing....

Why would my opponent assume such a thing? How would a a party that does not know what they are doing, overthrow a party that has been in power for over 100 years?

The fact is that when a party does overthrow one of the two parties in power in America, they will have proven themselves and won the heart of America.

This party will do this through painting a new vision of America for the people to see.

A vision that has efficient solutions to America's current problems and how those solutions will greatly prevent the conquered problem from rising again.

This is what the new party would stand for.

This is the party that will fix America.
Jade75

Con

I again thank my opponent for his response.

1. I apologize, but I do not see an error in my quotation. Can you please point out the difference between my wording and the correct wording for clarification or what you mean by "not worded correctly"? I honestly do not see an error.

2. I'm assuming, judging from your previous arguments, Pro, that you are imagining the "voice as the people" as the voice of the people who specifically share your ideals and views of what the right "solutions" are that solve the problems you are talking about. There have been countless debates on this site (and on many others, I am sure) that have raged about illegal immigration in some form, and to argue the topic with you would be a complete waste of time. The reason I highlight your second point in this manner is that, while the debate generalizes the term "party", the "party" that I believe you are talking about would be one that shares the same ideals as you. The example you provided in response to my question is also a perfect example as to why such a party would not be beneficial if they miraculously came to power. Here is why: firstly, there are issues that would stem from such a radical action such as building a wall like you talk about, at least in Texas [1]. Secondly, there's that huge national debt thing [2] that would probably skyrocket thanks to the cost of building such a behemoth structure ANYWHERE [3]. Third, what you are talking about as far as job creation would only be a temporary fix for the construction workers. To follow your logic, why doesn't the United States just build a bridge, a HUGE bridge for no apparent reason whatsoever (it would do as much good as that border wall you brought up, considering the fact so many illegals are already in our country) other than for it to just exist so that a bunch of unemployed people with no background in the construction industry could get up off their couches and do something? I mean, that would get people employed, right? I hate to be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that if the new party in question would share the same ideals as the ones you seem to be presenting, I can guarantee that it would NOT benefit America. Rather, it would be exponentially more detrimental to the common well being of the country than you consider the two current parties to be at the current time.

To back this up, I will now quote my opponent:

"This solution to my first example is easily solves the main problem, while also helping some of Americas other important problems at he same time."

No it didn't. There is no proof of this easily solving anything, except any worries the Chinese may have had of us paying off our debt.

"This nor any other efficient solution to this problem has been accomplished by either party."

I really, really want to hear what statistics categorize THAT as an efficient solution.

"Neither of these parties solve our Nation's leading problems efficiently."

According to whom?

"It seems seems that my opponent would like to justify this fact by stating that these problems are here regardless of who is in power, when the truth is that the people that have been in power are the ones that put us in these situations in the first place. "

Even if it is true that those who are in power now put us in this situation, whoever is leading the country in our hypothesized fantasy-future would still have to deal with them. You may have misunderstood me, but I cannot be sure due to your wording.

"So it is time for a new party to step in the ring and throw on the gloves."

That's an opinion, not a fact. To someone who doesn't believe in the ability of two political institutions that have guided this country for the past hundred-or-so years to be the leading economy on the face of the Earth to fix the problems that you ADMITTED they have the tools to fix, then yes, it is time for a new party to step in the ring. But what if it's the gloves and not the fighter? This debate, as we know, was not over a change of ideals - it was over a change of party power in the politics of the nation. I would be presenting a whole different argument if this debate was about ideals - it appears to me that, instead, it is the discussion of a lack of patience and faith in leaders whom you may not agree with in your own ideals. We can't all be President. That's why there are two parties in the first place - because people disagree.

3. "This party would be filled with intelligent men and woman, men and women of all ages with fresh new ideas and also learned old wisdoms."

The only problem is that this is not a certainty. Assumption can lead to trouble if applied in high risk situations, such as the direction of a nation. Whose saying these new ideas would work? Who is saying they "learned" anything? I never said the eighteen year OLDS, plural, would be inexperienced - I was referencing the party as a whole. The "argument" my opponent saw through was non-existent - I was talking about the party itself, which my opponent has admitted to be "newly formed". In my mind, newly formed = inexperienced in the political spectrum as a party.

"Neither party has demonstrated prowess in efficiently solving the majority of our nations problems. If my opponent disagrees with my opinion or statement, then I kindly request evidence that supports these two parties have demonstrated such prowess."

Evidence: (see source [4])

"The parents should be replaced not by an 18 year old teenager, but by a parent or parents that have always wanted to parent children and have always wanted to solve those children's problems... But were never given the opportunity."

If the "parents" have never parented, can you still call them parents? If they are completely new to the game, can you call them experienced? If they show no signs of bettering the child's life, should they be given an opportunity?

"Why would my opponent assume such a thing? How would a a party that does not know what they are doing, overthrow a party that has been in power for over 100 years?"

Two things:

1. This party would have little to no idea as to how to run a country, considering the fact they have never done it before as a whole.

2. There is no evidence showing a party like this taking power, and I believe I may have mentioned earlier that there is absolutely no way the scenario in which said party would overthrow other said party is supported by any evidence, especially since you have provided none.

"The fact is that when a party does overthrow one of the two parties in power in America, they will have proven themselves and won the heart of America."

....What facts do you have as to how said party would even dream of overthrowing one of the two parties in question? You haven't provided any!

"This party will do this through painting a new vision of America for the people to see."

A new vision doesn't necessarily constitute a new party. You're right, Pro - visions change all the time. Parties do not. And the vision you have presented, as I have already touched on, would definitely not be beneficial to any America I know!

"This is the party that will fix America."

I'm sorry ... how would this fix America again? You have spent four rounds arguing as to how America is broken, but haven't delved into how this new party would be beneficial to America or "fix" it.

I have yet to see burden of proof presented by Pro.

I await my opponent's response!

By the way, who says the parties in power now can't fix what is "broken"? If a party can come to power as my opponent describes, hey - anything is possible, right? It's clear to see they would have a better chance at correction then a party rooted in imagination - which is all this new party seems to be.

[1] http://notexasborderwall.com...
[2] http://www.brillig.com...
[3] http://articles.sfgate.com...
[4] http://www.perkel.com...
Debate Round No. 4
JustinChains

Pro

I will not start any further arguments as this is the 5th round. Me and my opponent will not agree and is the whole point for debating... WE could go on for another 5 rounds most definitely.

I will keep my final round a bit shorter than the others to simplify this matter.

[1] My opponent says...

"why doesn't the United States just build a bridge, a HUGE bridge for no apparent reason whatsoever (it would do as much good as that border wall you brought up, considering the fact so many illegals are already in our country) other than for it to just exist so that a bunch of unemployed people with no background in the construction industry could get up off their couches and do something?"

I say...

I would love to hear you say that statement in a real debate over national television, in front of the 98% of the population that it involves. That was quite a low blow...and a grand assumption towards construction workers and how important they are to our country in general. All civilization and anything structural that matters, starts from the work that construction workers do. Your comment was smug and uncalled for.

[2] My opponent says....

"The reason I highlight your second point in this manner is that, while the debate generalizes the term "party", the "party" that I believe you are talking about would be one that shares the same ideals as you."

I say....

While this may be my opponents belief... It really fall into the category of a grand assumption. An assumption that could not be more false and one that goes to build the foundation for a large portion of my opponent's 4th round. My opponent's 4th round wall filled with empty assumptions and statements.

I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE NEW PARTY I AM TALKING ABOUT SHOULD BE REVOLVED AROUND MY IDEALS.

I never said such a thing and I take offense towards such an assumption, for if the assumption was true it would mean that I am a childish, self centered simpleton... Which I certainly am not.

[3] My opponent says....

"Even if it is true that those who are in power now put us in this situation, whoever is leading the country in our hypothesized fantasy-future would still have to deal with them."

That is the whole point here... The people in power for the last 100 years HAVE put us in this situation. The fact that a new party would still have to deal with them is common sense and therefor would never need to be stated unless you are talking to a child that lacks common sense. And making smug remarks again, as in "whoever is leading the country in our hypothesized fantasy-future", really?

I take offense to my opponent's smug demeanor in delivering his/her perspective. I am a deep intellectual and I do not appreciate being talked to like a child.

[4] My opponent says....

"That's an opinion, not a fact. To someone who doesn't believe in the ability of two political institutions that have guided this country for the past hundred-or-so years to be the leading economy on the face of the Earth to fix the problems that you ADMITTED they have the tools to fix, then yes, it is time for a new party to step in the ring. But what if it's the gloves and not the fighter?"

1.) "That's an opinion, not a fact."

I never said that all of my argument consists of facts, nor even the majority. My stance on this subject is one of opinion. An opinion that has been formed through an intelligent observation over the efficiency in leadership that the Republicans and Democrats have given America over the last 100 years. This is my opinion not fact and I urge other people that feel the same way to take a stance and help change it.

2.) "But what if it's the gloves and not the fighter?"

Tools are only as good as the life that uses them... Be it 1 person, 1 party, 1 civilization, or the entire human race.

It can never be blamed on the "gloves" it is always the fighter.

If you feel that Republicans and Democrats have had their chance to show their leadership could bring America to it's full potential... And feel that it's time to take one of these two parties out of power to be replaced by a fresh party with a new vision for America...

Then vote for me.

Thank you for you time and interest in this debate.

- Justin Chains -
Jade75

Con

As my opponent did, I will not start any further arguments in this round. He is right - we COULD go on for another five rounds, and, who knows, we might at some point in time.

My final refutations and conclusions....

1. My opponent missed the meaning of my quote entirely. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of construction workers already employed - it takes a lot of training and expertise to go into that field, as my opponent said. The fallacy I was attempting to illuminate in my opponent's argument was that a border wall could just be constructed by people with little to no training. How many of the unemployed, or the people that this building would seek to employ, are certified construction workers or have background in the field of construction? I made, or at least did not intend to make, any "low blows", and I was most certainly not trying to be smug. I believe my opponent may have simply misunderstood. The "bridge for no reason" part was an attempt to draw a comparison between the border wall and something as likely to work - not to insult. I hope this clarifies any confusion.

2. This is no grand assumption. The fact that, for the entire debate, my opponent has consistently brought up reasons for why a new party is needed in HIS opinion and why the country is failing in HIS opinion leads to the simple fact that he is illustrating why a party would benefit the country as it pertains to the correction of what is wrong in HIS opinion. It may not even be intentional - this debate is largely based on opinion, in general. What defines "benefit"? In whose opinion are we arguing from? There could be someone out there who is very happy with our country's state at the moment and think nothing could possibly be better. While many are not happy and want to see things improve, the purpose of this debate was for my opponent to illustrate how a new party would benefit our country and lead to benefits for said country. He presented this in accordance to his opinion - it doesn't matter if he wanted to or not. Morals, values, and perception come from how we were raised and our life experiences - he thinks one thing, I think another. We were supposed to illustrate these differences in this debate, which I believe we did! The problem was that my opponent did not back his arguments up with facts. There are literally no sources in any of his arguments to support the points demonstrated. As far as I know, all he said could be pure opinion. While this is not probable, what did he do to make me think otherwise? As far as him thinking this means he is a "childish, self centered simpleton" goes, I have no idea how he came to that conclusion, but if he did, I apologize.

3. The reason I used the terminology that I used to describe the scenario being presented by my opponent is due to the fact said terminology describes exactly what we are arguing about: the future is the future in which said party has taken over - the fantasy is that future ever coming to be. The statement quoted by my opponent was brutally taken out of context and used to paint me, his opponent, in a negative light, and I personally do not appreciate such indignation.

4. "I never said that all of my argument consists of facts, nor even the majority. My stance on this subject is one of opinion."

Then how does anyone know anything you are saying has a shred of truth?

"An opinion that has been formed through an intelligent observation over the efficiency in leadership that the Republicans and Democrats have given America over the last 100 years."

How does anyone know that your observation is accurate with no proof, facts, sources or reference? I respect you as a speaker and you appear very intelligent, but just because something is presented well doesn't mean it's presented accurately.

"This is my opinion not fact"

So what you are saying is that we just conducted a five round debate with you basing your entire hypothesis....off of opinion? Prior knowledge is one thing - having a complete example of an end result with no factual backing nor verification of presented information is something quite different.

"It can never be blamed on the "gloves" it is always the fighter."

Let me end with a simple scenario:

Two fighters are in a boxing ring. One of the fighters is a real heavyweight - a mighty beast of a man who has been raised on the very sport he participates in in this match. His challenger could be one of two people: one of the people is a battle scarred veteran, someone who had fought this champion a hundred times - some fights he had won, some fights he had lost. This, to him, was just another fight in the long history of the two men. However, there is now another man who wants to fight the heavyweight as well. This man is new to boxing, and even though he has been trained by a master of the sport, he is inexperienced and had never been in an official match before. No matter how many matches he has watched, no matter how much he has trained, he has still never physically been inside the boxing ring against a real opponent, let alone such a tough opponent as this particular heavyweight. This second fighter is weak, new, a young fish plucked from the stream of life and thrust into the middle of a pond with a vicious barracuda. He wants to fight against a brutal man that only the other, more experienced fighter, the one this young gun was competing with to partake in this particular fight, has ever beaten.

My opponent is saying we choose the second, less experienced boxer against the champion, even though he has near to no chance at beating him. He's saying the second boxer will do better than the other boxer who could face the heavyweight, based off the fact he's "fresh" - something he never proved in this debate past opinion. Forgetting the fact no one would ever choose him over the first boxer in the first place, the second boxer is the one who will fight in this match. My opponent argues that he would win the fight …

I'm telling you the second boxer would lose.

This has been truly a great debate and I thank my opponent for participating and being as courteous as he was. He made some good points and I feel my spectrum has been widened due to hearing his opinion - even if that is all it was.

Thank you for reading and for your interest in this debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SHadowR 6 years ago
SHadowR
GO LABERTARIANS!!!!
i fully agree with the instigator in this debate
Posted by Jade75 6 years ago
Jade75
I see "rich text" when writing your argument means "make the text two sizes smaller and reduce the spaces in between lines." Sorry if that causes any inconvenience when reading my round 3 anyone!
Posted by JustinChains 6 years ago
JustinChains
Thank you for complimenting the debate.

My stance here is that either of the two parties in power should be overtaken. It is in my firm opinion that both have been given there chance to show what they can do... And neither party has brought America to it's full potential. I have views that side with some points that both parties stand for.. Bu the point here to to stand for something new. A party that stands for the best points, has a vision for the best policies, has clear cut debates that focus on the topics at hand instead of a focus on belittling the opposition, and a party that has strong leaders that now how to lead and aren't afraid to crack a few skulls along the way... Metaphorically of course.

So, my answer to you is...

Whichever of the two main political parties in power that you don't agree with, that party should be replaced. This will also help to streamline your current favorite parties efforts and force your favorite party to regroup with a new "zest" on it's image and where it stands in the overall political field.

I hope this explanation helps clear up my stance on this topic.
Posted by american5 6 years ago
american5
This is a good debate but I think pro should be more clear about which party he wants to eclipse because I wont agree to something unless I know who is getting the boot
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
JustinChainsJade75Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments but didn't cite anything
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
JustinChainsJade75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: equalling v-bomb
Vote Placed by Justin_Chains 6 years ago
Justin_Chains
JustinChainsJade75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: America needs a new vision!