It doesn't matter who (with parties of polar opposites) is elected because the outcome is the same.
Well, surprisingly enough I agree with this statement! But, I shall continue...
My first point is that when the party is elected (assuming it is a democratic state) that people choose who will benefit themselves. But the truth is that it is not possible for one party or the other to give a different outcome of they are truly opposites. This all comes down to the fact that two parties of opposites must do things in the middle in opposite ways. Both parties aim for economic growth and putting money into people's pockets. So, if they both achieve their aims then they have the same ends.
Secondly, let's take the examples of Fascism and Communism. Both of these very different ideas end in a corrupt state because somebody has to rule and take into account what the public want. Governments in both forms are flawed. In fact every Government is flawed. But the point is that in the end they both achieve corruption and a de-stabilised society. Again, they achieve the same endings.
In a democracy, supposedly, the people have the say in what happens so, surely, it doesn't matter who the supposed leader is because it should reach the same conclusion? What the people want. This sort of idea may not work in some forms of Government such as a Geniocracy, but as far as I know, there is no opposite to such a form of Government.
My final point is that how can you distinguish to things? Are things truly different? Or is it a Human illusion? Some sort of made up idea. In the great scheme of things, are there different things? Is milk different from bread, or not? We can't know, only an entity peering in, from outside of something can know it's real purpose and what it really means. We are just beings that can somehow make sense of the world with electricity, our brains can tell us things with currents moving and of different strengths. But what's to say we exist at all? What if everything is the same and every person reacts to that stimulus differently? Everything could truly be nothing.
My arguments are as follows:
1) My opponent has failed to clearly define “matter” in his title
While I share my opponent’s views of complete subjectivity in our perception, he is clearly missing the point. He uses the argument that because we can’t know anything for sure that everything could be the same. This argument could literally be used to defend any contention, pro or con, and should not be taken as evidence specifically for this debate. He is attacking the very fundamental process of reasoning stating that reasoning itself could be corrupted. While I agree with this, I do not have to prove an absolute to win this debate. Back to semantics: he fails to define “matter”. Does it matter to ants? I think not. Does it matter to me? Yes. Regardless if the outcome is the same, it matters to me. As you have not clearly defined who you are talking about, this is enough for you to lose. He has failed to show why if everything is the same in the end that this means that the time or events before do not matter. And finally, the universe does not care or not care who is elected. It is completely impartial and cares just as much as it does not care. You are confusing nihilism with objectivity.
1) Failure of my opponent to provide examples of all types of governments
My opponent gave two examples of government, fascism and communism, as evidence that all political systems are the same for the two sharing aspects such as having corruption and being flawed. He is essentially saying this: all food is the same because corn and cantaloupe both start with a “C”. My opponent as failed to show why everything ending up the same means that it doesn’t matter (objectively or subjectively) who is elected.
My opponent clearly did not prove that it does not matter who is elected by failing to state: 1) Who it does not matter to, and failed to make the case for objectivity ruling in his favor, only made the case for indifference 2) Did not provide evidence for all governments
Of course, you had misread exactly what I said, my point was that parties of polar opposites are the same, that means that I do not need to specify each and every form of Government to address this clearly. A general rule for everything is what matters, not individual, pedantic little thoughts. Also, you attempt to say that I had to specify to whom it mattered. Well, again a generalisation and since Ants, as far a we know can't truly think, nothing matters or doesn't matter to them. They can't detect the two individual states.
Again, you try to penalise me for saying things in a general manner, which would be impossible in a two-thousand character long speech. But what is worst about what is said is that no evidence is given against the statement. Therefore it can't be wrong or right in your view.
Thirdly, for pedantic's sake, you obviously can't count very well as you use the number '1' twice in a row when listing your points. Another problem with you supposed 'defence' is that you say I only used examples of two forms of Government when in fact, I use more. Such as Geniocracy.
My argument was also to do with the causes of opposite forms of Government so comparing my argument to saying that 'all food is the same because corn and cantaloupe both start with "C".'
I shall continue with my point making from here on;
It does not matter about what the approach causes in the case of two polar opposite parties because the bits inbetween if they cause the same ending they must have the same causes in the middle, maybe masked by different ways of going about things, but they will still all have the same minor consequences into some form of 'end'. These may be in a different order but should be indifferent from each other from any perspective except the perspective of the Human nature of view. The subtle workings of the two events are truly the same, for otherwise they could not end in the same manner. So, in your argument, please feel the impulse to be completely specific.
You also axiomatically say that the only way in which governments can be the same or different is in their level of corruption i.e. they all end up with corruption. You forget the road that they take to get there.
"The subtle workings of the two events are truly the same, for otherwise they could not end in the same manner" Boys and girls both end up dead. Are you saying that males and females are the same? They are both humans (governments) and both end up dead (corruption), but they are not the same.
Examples: China had/has communism, Nazi Germany had fascism. They are not the same.