Political Parties In The Goverment
Debate Rounds (3)
I gladly accept the role of affirming this topic. I'm fairly new here, so I'm unsure if I should write as much as I am in the first post, but bear with me (and of course, feel free to counter all of this in your response)
1. Whomever can provide the most in terms of net-benefits should win the round, as that way there is little room lent for judge intervention and bias.
2. Examining democracy as a whole and not solely as it pertains to the US is preferable
(a) This provides us with the most amount of education, as there is no ethnocentric limit to the round
(b) On grounds of fairness, this interpretation lends to the most access to literature, as one expands usuable literature when considering a multitude of countries.
1. Political parties have inherently existed alongside democratic governments. A common understanding of political parties yields them to be the collective organization of persons sharing a defined ideology
Advantage 1: Political Participation
1. In most democracies, apathy seems to be a common enemy to the functionality of the democratic institution.
(a) Consistently, voter turnout in the US has fallen below the 50% threshold, the acception being the more recent elections, still falling short of 2/3rds of the population
(b) Aristotle postulated himself the idea that the ultimate decay of a republic comes from the apathy of voters allowing for an oligarchical or aristocratic centralization of power outside of the control of voters due to apathy
(c) A root cause of voter apathy is unequal access to resources needed to make informed decisions or underexposure
(d) Simply because the US has low turnout and political parties does not mean the parties are the cause. My advocacy is the opposite, turnout would be substantially threatened in the absense of parties
(e) Voter turnout is on the brink now; the low rates of turnouts makes the necessity of parties higher
2.Political parties allow for collective simplification of the voting process
(a) Political parties maintain a basic universally identifiable platform
(b) Additionally, by organizing ideologies into parties, fundraising becomes accessable and easier
(c) Parties allow for the classification of individuals to easily identify stances
1. Political parties seek to simplify the process and engage voters
(a) Funds raised by the collective party allow for public outreach such as advertisements
(b) Parties seek to inform voters. Intentional or not, in attempting to rally support, voters recieve more information than they otherwise would
(c) Political parties have a collective interest in engaging voters nationally
C. Internal Links
1. Voter turnout is critically threatened, making parties necessary to avoid democratic decay
2. Information and ease of understanding make political parties an extremely efficient tool
1. Destruction of democratic function
(a) The interaction of politicians allows for both compromise and negotiation with bills
(b) The lack of voter turnout allows for select groups of politicians to gain power
(c) Complete apathy of the voting policy effectively defuncts democracy
(d) In absense of competative elections, nations lack popular soveriegnty (as it depends on such), a pillar of democracy
(e) Dysfunctional governments yield to tyrranical marginalization of select populations and corruption
(f) An unresponsive government threatens individual autonomy when threats to liberty are not preventable
2. Political effiecency
(a) In parliamentarian systems in particular, political parties are crucial to effiecency.
(b) Looking at the UK in particular, one sees how allowing a few major parties allows for an extremely efficient government when formed
(c) To win votes, parties must form coalitions, meaning parties make concessions that allow for democracy to be enhanced
(d) Less centralized systems that allow for excessive parties often find inneffiecency as parties cannot reach compromise sufficient for legislative action due to a lack of coherent platforms by which one understands parties
(e) cross apply the analysis from the above impact; inefficient governments are less responsive, and therefore less democratic
Advantage 2: Marginalization
1. Currently, the most marginalized populations also have the least access to influence on governments
(a) Inherently, the most oppressed are the least in tune with the government
2. Tyrrany of the majority is a major threat to democracy
(a) A plurality of the US's founding fathers advocated to avoid tyrrany of the majority
1. Political parties provide an outlet for minority voices to have a say in government
(a) The competative nature of parties means that parties must secure a wide varity of votes, as the assumption exists that the opposition would do the same
(b) As result, parties must make positions to include minority views to ensure they have enough support
(c) In coalition governments, minority voices gain a huge degree of access from the existance of parties. Support for smaller parties co-exists with the need to form coalitions. Take the current government of the UK, two ideologically distinct parties formed the coalition on a series of concessions, giving the otherwise small minority party a substantial voice
C. Internal Links
1. Participation of minorities is the key internal link to preventing marginalization and the politicals of disposability
1. Cross apply the first impact of the first advantage: participation gives government its function
2. Marginalized voters are dehumanized
(a) In excluding minority voices from government participation, access is essentially made aristocratic
(b) Those without access do not have their opinions heard
(c) Without a voice for opinions, the value percieve to these persons becomes decreased
(d) This dehumanizing effect lowers these population's value to life. They become pragmatically insignificant, and are reduced to statistical figures, IE numbers on a page
(e) When value is not given to a group's life, it is not given to death either, and human right's violations not only become justified, they become probable
(f) Value to life is the most important impact to analyse. It supercedes all other claims as without value to life, even death is preferable. Not having a significant degree of conciousness enslaves one to their body and drags out existance that is painful
Now up this discussion I feel that you were more leaned upon the lack of education of the people and the some sort of tyrannical rule without party. Here is my counter argument:
- The education of one student of any age should be educated on our government.
I, for example, am a 16 year old male who is very interested in Finance and Politics.
-Where I feel you are wrong is that people have to come to some sort of realization where they really stand in this government where sadly many people aren't getting
-Yet as a student myself I have no real classes focusing in on the ins and out of the government and that I have to teach myself.
-Even a blind man can see that parties simply tear a nation apart into separated regions
-Have you noticed that the map of votes for either a Democratic or Republican President rarely ever change?
-No it doesn't, There is a reason though, once in a party, one form a single minded view that they believe is 100% correct no matter how correct their opposing party. Now I may by hypocritical because I choose to stay Democratic, but though it seems by choice I can pick which party I am in, it really is not. Family and Friends and my environment influence me to pick which political party I am in. Its not by my true "Free Will".
-Yes the number of voters we have is on the brink, but our government must learn to work with what we have. Most people who don't vote usually feel that their vote wont really count because in the end there is an Electoral College which is usually a few per state to decided for millions.
-That is the major issue about our government. We Work with what we think we have when we really don't. A prime example is money, while that itself is a very debatable topic I would like to stay away from that.
-Our Founding Fathers
- Back in the late 1700 this country was new
-Tyranny was a relevant issue back then.
-It is still an issue but, is taking away political parties going to provoke that? I don't think so. Tyranny is created when a leader becomes to power struck. With or without parties the people would not let that happen. Having no such political parties would cause the people to appreciate our government more, and eventually learn even more about this government.
-All Democrats and Republicans do is disagree
- Our recent Government Shutdown was caused by these parties. These parties are too headstrong to come to an agreement, and when they do its on the verge of an entire market collapse which I was also affected by because I am a trader.
- I am not sure if you know about this but government reward themselves by finally coming to an agreement by giving each member a 1% salary raise. It doesn't sound a lot but when you look at their number you'll see it is.
- This organization that you say was created by political parties is not true. Its just a repetitious clashing between major parties. Never have you ever heard another party ever winning the election.
Thank You for your time, I am young so my knowledge may not be too in depth but I think I do know enough.
Thank you for making this an intellectually stimulating and competative round.
I will start on the line-by-line, directly adressing statements you have made, then I will move on to extend arguments i've made.
1. Responding to your first few claims, the rhetoric you're using relies on the truth of common conception. You claim "a blind person can see parties tear apart the nation", however, in the 1800's, such a claim could have read "even a blind man can see the malicious intentions of athiests". Fundamentally, the argument you're making is self fulfilling. Because people believe it is true, it is true. My whole advocacy differs from the perception that has become somewhat common that parties are the cause of evil
(a) I certainly believe I can understand where you are coming from. However to the judges, I would like to point out that there isnt much interaction on your part with my case. Rather you make your initial claim but do not warrent it well enough to be interactive. Judge, you should prefer my warrants because they provide direct links and explinations as to why my end claim is true. The data used by the negation relies on unreliable sourcing based in common belief.
2. In response to the claim "Have you noticed that the map of votes for either a Democratic or Republican President rarely ever change?" I would first respond by pointing out that this is absolutely not true. In the 1980's, only 30 years ago, almost every state voted Republican. In 2008, Virginia swayed democrat for the first time in a very long time. Many states are unpredictable in their outcomes. Otherwise presidential elections would literally not be competative.
(a) Additionally, I fail to see how your advocacy changes this. It doesnt do good just to make a claim that there is a problem without offering solvency. Ultimately, your solution doesnt solve this problem. Creating a plurality of parties that eventually conceeds to two candidates through the congregation of votes doesnt seem like it's conducive. Judges, in the absense of warranted analysis in terms of solvency, I must ask that you disregard this.
(b) There is an additional link turn here: By allowing for parties with varying degrees of support, parties will likely find they do not have money to run campaigns all through the nation. The multiplicity of political parties means that money is not congregated in 2, rather it is spread out. As result, parties will find regional support. This makes the very problem you've talked about worse. The two parties today have to appeal to a national audiance. In a world of the alternative vote, politicians only need to be regionally distinct, while holding ideologies similar to a winning candidate (so as to be preferred high enough on the ballot) to win. This means that elections will ignore national issues, and parties will not be competative, instead they will simply remain in regions.
3. You claim people don't turn out to vote because they feel that their vote doesnt matter. I would contend this is a misconception. A brief done by the University of Montreal found that "Other things being equal, more politically knowledgeable citizens are more likely to vote. Whenever it is tested, researchers find a positive relationship with voting and other forms of political participation for virtually every indicator of political knowledge. For example, a simple test conducted on the author’s behalf us ing data from the huge Roper Social Capital Benchmark Surveys , controlling for education, sex, race, marital status, religion and group membership , 1 showed a stronger relationship between voting and political knowledge than with other characteristics such as political trust, efficacy and eve n interest." (http://www.cses.org...). This means that political awareness is the most important link to voter turnout, moreso than belief in responsiveness. Extend my arguments that parties increase political awareness, as this goes conceeded. Therefore, because you have given me the link, that political parties increase awareness, and I have provided evidence that awareness is the most important factor, judge, you must prefer neg.
4. Responding to the claim that tyrranny wont come from the absense of parties.
(a) This is not a sufficient warrant analysis. You don't explain why this wouldnt be true outside of "well think about it", which isnt a good paradigm for discussion
(b) governments lacking opposition lack the inherent ability for dissenters to express voice. This in it of itself is repressive.
5. Your arguments about corruption are not solved by your advocacy.
(a) The video you presented claimed that it also defaulted to the two party system
(b) Corruption is linked to power far more easily than it is linked to the two party system specifically
(c) In order to win this point you must provide analysis as to why this corruption is not an inherency of the political system, and why it is uniquely caused by the two parties.
1. The negative fundamentally misses the warrent of this argument. This is not a claim that suddenly, tyrants will rise and democracy as a whole will be replaced by despotism. This claim shows that i. Dehumanization and marginalization already exist and ii. Removing the access to information and participation decreases the voice of the marginalized, further entrenching them
(a) My opponent makes claims casting doubt on the probability of this impact, but this impact can be seen in the US today and throughout history. Slaves barred from political participation where marginalized. Women didnt have the right to vote until the early 20th century, and temperance movements in the past repeatedly failed, but succeeded when they were given the vote. This shows that the rejection of such was solely based in the lack of voice women had. Lastly, look to the LGBTQ community today. Many politicians are blatantly offensive in their understanding of such populations. These people are highlighted because they are LGBTQ, they are seen as statistics, their life is viewed as holding that identity. Rather than being multifaceted humans, they are just defined by sexual orientation.
(b) My impact analysis goes conceeded. Value to life is more important than any other impact. Judges evaluating debate from a tabula rosa mindset must vote affirmative on this alone, as only the aff solves for value to life, and the claims go conceeded.
2. Extend accross the warrants made in my second advantage, which go largely unresponded to (although counterwarrants are made), and extend the internal links, which go conceed, giving the affirmative access to the impacts.
1. My opponent accepted my framework, which asks us to look at democracy throughout the world as a whole rather than just in the US. However, my opponent's responses to this argument completely disregard other countries. This makes the affirmative warrants ultimately the most preferable.
2. The links go conceeded. Look to the evidence provided above. Because both a. Political parties increase voter awareness and education and b. voter awarness is the most important factor in voter turnout, you must prefer my impact claims as the two party sytem is the internal link to voter responsiveness.
(a) No counterwarrant is provided as to how the alternative increases awarness, while a warrant against such a claim is made.
Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent. You are definitely very educated and this has so far been extremely stimulating. Keep up the passion!
- My opponent reserves to relying on what the past had for this nation dealing with political parties. I will not deny that political parties have not had their success in the past before. But lets look at things much more close to the present. Political parties may create an organization of the nation representing the people in some sort but it is not the way the people should be represented. As a nation we are meant to be a whole not just faction relying on a representative to cast in our vote. Competition causes destruction, I would know as an investor because once a company has public competition their sales revenue will spike momentarily but crash detrimentally afterward. This is what the future of our government hold if it continues have these "hiccups" in our government. Political Parties are in a way an organization of the normal citizen. But in today's government what political leader is not a demagogue. MY argument may solely be on the opinion of myself and of the future upcoming generation of this country. Though a debate should withheld with only facts, opinion does hold some weight. As the generation usually called the "failure generation" us students have a negative attitude especially when our international ranking falls deeper in the counting. But when looked at politically, what are we doing wrong. I know this is seems like a moral argument but its a valid point to bring up. Political Parties rarely agree with each other, the FED and Treasury don't know where to fund this money cause, hell, when was the last time there was any thought of an educational boost to help our generation become from the failure generation to the generation to succeed. I state this final reason only because political parties no matter which one holds its own innate kind of evil that hold our own nation from advancement. George Washington, arguably the best president in the world, John Adams both despised the use of political parties. Once quoted by Adams himself, "I am a party of one". He had the humble view of saying that he much rather be the VP of Thomas Jefferson than be the President of the United States. Neutrality has been United States strongest pawn on this chess board, that is what makes our foreign trade alive, our foreign policy alive, and our foreign relationship alive. What the use of neutrality when inside our own country we go against our own morals and principals?
Thank you very much for your time this was a great debate. This was a desperate grasp from your previous response which I felt was very persuasive and intelligent. As a student interested in Politics and Finance, I would like to know more of what you do as in what your major is and such if you are comfortable with that. If so please message. Thank You for the great debate!
I appologize for the long delay in responding. I have been extremely ill due to too infections and havent been able to do much besides lie awake in bed.
I thank my opponent for his kind words. The debate has been fun, and a great engagement
Since I am still fairly sick, and since this is the concluding round, I will do an overview, with some extensions at the end. All around very brief.
Judges, the reason you are voting for the affirmative is because the concessions, not only unintentional(IE via omission) but also intentional (what was recognized as being dropped by the negation) have given the affirmative the only access to impacts and solvency in the round, and there is unanswered impact-offense against the negative. The negative begs for an esoteric ballot without any framework warranting the use of it in round, or as to what the advocacy of the neg does.
First, look to my framework, where I say "1. Whomever can provide the most in terms of net-benefits should win the round, as that way there is little room lent for judge intervention and bias." This goes conceeded. The negation conceeded that the round should be evaluated using net-benefits, ie real world impacts.
Second, extend my impact analysis. The neg offers no impact defense, so you must assume that my impacts occur and occur with a high degree of likelyhood.
Then look to the impacts themselves. I claim not only that my case prevents real world harm that is already occuring to a smaller degree from expanding, but also that the world the con constructs would make these problems worse. This impact offense goes conceeded, you must assume the negation side has negative implications for the world, and the affirmative also has a risk of solvency for problems. I hope you vote Pro in this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.