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

Americans need to break free from the 2 party corporate trap.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Michaelbjenkins has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 101400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




The Republican and Democrat parties in America are controlled by corporate elites who pay off politicians and control political decisions through unfair wealth distribution and rigging of electoral processes by suppressing voices that go against their war agenda. We must embrace third parties and open debates so that we don't go too far down this path of unethical behavior and lack of compassion for humanity and the general environment. Imagine the country we could build if we didn't spend as much as we do on the military.


We should not break free of the two party system, for one thing, because it has worked for the last 200 years. There is no need to change a system that works.

Second, while the two party system seems to bring about an "us vs. them" attitude towards everything, it balances out. If the two sides of the political spectrum are as extreme as people say that they are, having a republican president elected right after a democrat will actually bring this country into balance.

If you really delve into the politics of individuals who believe differently than you do, you'll find that when it comes to the actual issues, we do believe many of the same things. (Source 1)

While there are parts of the system that should be changed, having more than two parties would complicate the system, making any positive change ineffective. For instance, if we elect a member of the green party (whos financial investments would likely go mostly to the environment) other parts of the government wouldn't be able to thrive. We would be investing all our resources into solar panels and wind energy, while health care, education, imigration, transportation, etc. would fall to the wayside.

Next, multiple parties - contrary to popular belief - would leave little room for discourse. It's an idea that would split the voting power of the people.

So let's say that you're really against Trump's proposed budget (source 2); While Trump is president, future democratic nominees have time to flesh out and propose something radically different. A budget that maybe gives less funding for the military, and allocates it toward space exploration, environmental efforts, and education. Because we seem to be electing extreme candidates, it is very likely that our next presidential candidate will be someone who is experienced in economics, and qualified to make positive changes.

While a decent military is important, I halfheartedly agree with you that we could be a bit more conservative when it comes to funds for that particular area of government.


Debate Round No. 1


You must clarify what you mean when you say this system "works." Just because we've been doing the same thing for 200 years doesn't mean it has worked as well as it could or well at all. Almost half of eligible voters didn't even vote this past election; a democracy requires full participation by the people to be a democracy. But the corporate elite would rather not fix this problem because if they did, then more people would realize that both parties have been funding the war on terror instead of investing in our own country.

The green party goes beyond the progression of just the environment; education, health, and many other things would be addressed that haven't been addressed under the current system. The system is already ineffective because we spend so much on the military instead of rebuilding our infrastructure, education, health, transportation, and everything else that is fucked up; you don't think increasing military spending is complicating our country's progress and well being? A good military is important, but the size of ours is unnecessary.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Michaelbjenkins 1 year ago
Actually BoeingG, the last election showed that third-parties do have a lot to say. The voting rate for third party candidates is literally higher than it's ever been, despite barely being covered by the media.
Posted by BoeingG 1 year ago
You want another party? Then tell them to bring something worthwhile to the American people. The only reason no other parties have been implemented into debates is because they haven't anything to actually say.

I mean, what else do you want me to say?

As for the previous comment, that may be - however they've got quite a bit more work to do to match up with the beneficial ideas of the other 'reigning' parties.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Not me, I'm an independent. And actually, independents are on the rise. Independents are also the plurality in America now. No party has a plurality or a majority.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
To be honest,most people choose to join those 2 parties.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.