The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 63474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




I am affirmative on the issue.
1st round: accept the debate
2nd round: Provide arguments
3rd round: Rebuttals and arguments
4th round: Closing statements


I accept your debate and take the position that:

Political parties do not NEED to cease existence.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks you for accepting this debate! I would like to begin by stating that when ever there is a devision in a unified body, corrupting, greed, and progress will halt. This is a situation which has happened, and is bound to happen again. The list includes but is not limited to:
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


Yes and thank you for creating this debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


I would now like to analyze your arguments.

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


It might be "more beneficial for political parties to just abolish themselves" or it might not be. It could go either way depending on the populous.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


1st, Abstinence, definition: "any self-restraint, self-denial, or forbearance."

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 agree that "political parties are run by large companies or business men who wish to make a profit" in America today. But I assert that it does not intrinsically have to be this way. The status quo can always be changed.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I actually formed my opinions over a lifetime of observation.And my opinions are closely related to the republican idea. Not the RINO's that have infected the party.Not one thing about the democrat foundation do I agree with. Small, very small government is best for all. Not this monstrosity that now exists.

Republican means person that wants to live in a republic. Rule of law.Not ruled by government. Democrats are about turning this republic into a democracy, mob rule. Majority rule. That would be alright if the majority were independent from government. But as the majority of people are depending on government, ,they cannot be trusted to do right. Freeloading off the labors of others is bordering on criminal when forced by government.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
You have no idea!
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
Cheyennebodie is a perfect example of why political parties suck.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
Dont pretend like republicans are some golden party. No one is necessarily "the best". They both have their flaws. I do believe that republican have their fare-share of free loaders as well. What I'm trying to get to is that to achieve a nation once sought after by George Washington, we have to remove ourselves from political parties, and allow ourselves to create and form our own opinions, which have not heavily influenced by the others in our political party.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Just like banning nuclear weapons is a pipe dream, banning political parties would take banning politics.As long as their are freeloaders, you will have democrats.And as long as you have people that want equal protection under the law, whether rich or poor, you will have republicans.
Posted by Jackconway 2 years ago
Thanks to Pro for the great and polite debate. Hope to debate again soon. Perhaps we could start a debate about "Abstinence is Agreement" soon. Thanks to Pro again.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
Not necessarily. Today, it is the standard to belong. However, we should all be aware that it's okay to have political ideology that does not belong to the party one might associate themselves with.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
I suppose that no one of a party will challenge you, as they are nothing but weak kneed followers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
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.