Political Parties Need To Cease Existence
Debate Rounds (4)
1st round: accept the debate
2nd round: Provide arguments
3rd round: Rebuttals and arguments
4th round: Closing statements
Political parties do not NEED to cease existence.
The Union v. The Confederacy
and current day, Republicans v. Democrats.
The USSR collapsed because of economics. Everyone was woking for equal pay, some lost incentive and stopped working so hard because they knew there was no opportunity to get something better in life. The USSR split from the working class people, who were all "equal", and the leaders. The USSR collapsed due to internal errors, as well as some external errors.
The Union v. The Confederacy: America was (is) decided into 2 sections. the north and the south. This was due to a split in ideology. This split led to the death of 1,264,000 American soldiers, and that's not including all of the other civilian deaths. This split can still be seen today, as many southerners still want to secede.
And finally, Republicans v. Democrats. Today, congress is officially one of the worst congress' in history. This congress can not get anything done because of whats going on behind the curtains. It's a fight between republicans and democrats. The only was to stop this madness to eliminate political parties all together.
Not to mention the fact that today, no one can develop their own opinions on a subject. Everything has to be influenced, and everybody has to be cookie cutter.
It is for these reasons I say that Political Parties NEED to cease existence. Thank you
I agree with you that some political parties throughout world history have not always acted in a way that was most beneficial to most of the population. However, I am going to attack the semantics of your argument.
A "need" is, as defined by Merriam-Webster:
* a situation in which someone or something must do or have something
* something that a person must have : something that is needed in order to live or succeed or be happy
* a strong feeling that you must have or do something
To "cease existence" is not a "need" for political parties. In fact, ceasing existence would be the exact opposite of what a political party "needs" "in order to live succeed or be happy".
In terms of public needs...
The public also does not "need" political parties to cease existence. It is well within the realm of possibility that a political party can mostly act in a way that serves the needs of the public "to live or succeed or be happy". Although, I agree with you that throughout most of history, most political parties have not acted in this manner.
Of course, all organizations must be self-serving to some extent. But this does not mean that a political party must be mostly self-serving. A political party can be self-sacrificing. However, yes I do agree that there has historically been a significant lack of desire to create such a political party.
I 100% agree with your definitions, and they seem to suit both sides of the argument, so they will remain.
Let's look back at the topic:
"Political Parties Need To Cease Existence"
While there is room for interpretation, this topic roughly translates to: "For the better of society, Political Parties Need To Cease Existence".
Thus, the definitions uphold my argument.
Next, at this point in time, it would probably be more beneficial for political parties to just abolish themselves anyways, because then maybe work could get done.
I would like to counter argue your points. The public does "need" political parties to stop. Throughout history (and the examples I have given), the state of any nation would be better of if there were no political divisions.
Since you have neither shown that my examples are irrelevant, nor shown examples of your own, you must agree with these examples, and how they prove my point. After all, abstinence is agreement.
However, I would agree that political parties do not "need" to cease to exist. Particularly because they are all a way to funnel funding into upperclassmen who do not care for the rest of us. If they cease to exist, then the money stops flowing, and thus, corruption comes to a screeching halt. So of course, the last thing the party needs is to not exist, however for the overall benefit of this country, political parties need to be stopped.
Thanks your for your time
Also, I have to strongly disagree that "abstinence is agreement". If so, then the abstinence of sexual consent during a sexual act is would be synonymous with consensual sex. However, the abstinence of sexual consent during a sexual act is rape.
But my general point is that political parties can be changed. Or that new political parties can be created "for the better of society"... or the most good for the most people. They do not have to intrinsically work against the public. I accept that there is no historic precedent for this. However, it is within the realm of possibility. It has only been a lack of desire to create such a political party that one does not exist.
Rape is irrelevant to this issue. This is due to the fact that words cannot be defined based on examples, because then there would not be any word that is safe in the English language.
I agree that political parties can be changed- to an extent. For the most part, political parties are run by large companies or business men who wish to make a profit. Therefore, it would be easier, and more beneficial to just get rid of them completely.
Next, you said "However, it is within the realm of possibility. It has only been a lack of desire to create such a political party that one does not exist."
Let's dissect this statement. I suppose if you believe that this applies to political parties, then you believe this applies to most things as well. Please tell me, has anyone ever desired to make a clean source of energy, which is much, much, cleaner, and in more abundance compared to something such as nuclear energy? If you answered yes, then you have just explained that no one has a desired to create a source of energy by the product of the fission of hydrogen molecules. Just incase you are not into science, ill explain: the person who can successful turn hydrogen into a power source will be the richest, and most well know man in the science community, because this is something that everybody desires. Every quantum scientist desires the answer to fission, alas, no one has discovered it.
This relates to the topic because I can compare this to the republican party.
This was a party started to abolish slavery (hence why Abraham Lincoln was a republican), and fast forward to today where republicans are being indicted (Rick Perry)
Thank you, I am finished for this round.
I will also continue to assert that abstinence is NOT agreement. To put it into a political perspective then: A person could (and people have throughout history) abstain from political dissent out of fear. This does not mean they agree. Rather, they do not speak up due to a perceived negative consequence. Whether this has been beneficial for them or not is irrelevant. But we digress.
Ultimately I believe it is unwise to assume that freedom from all political parties is most beneficial. I even assert that a country could be run by a dictator that provides the most benefit to the most people. It's highly unlikely. But it's within the realm of possibility. Political parties are not self-conscience entities. They are only the sum of the people that make them up.
I believe one of the major issues that is negatively affecting Americans today is a sense that the status quo can't be changed. And I believe that it is this sense that may have led you to the conclusion that, 'since it can't be changed, let's just get rid of it'.
But the status quo can be changed.
To summarize, I assert that political parties do not intrinsically "need" to cease to existence for the better of society. A better society could be created by any political party with the desire to do so.
Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: So with Pro we've got reasons why most if not all political parties are detrimental to societies, and with Con we've got the idea that maybe there can be a party out there that would not be detrimental to society. In the same breath he conceded several times that there was no historical proof that this could happen. Therefore he has conceded the debate. If Con says most political parties suck, then political parties should not be allowed to exist. Yes, there are some semantics games Con can play, but those are clearly negated by the Framer's Intent.
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.