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

Politically, the republican party is better.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 32799
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




This debate will be relatively unrestricted. Only talk about political issues.
You may begin in round one.



I'll assume that we're talking about the Republican party of the USA since my opponent is an American. I'll further presume that the context of this debate is the present or the immediate past in terms of Republican party policies. My opponent has the burden of proof to show why this party is better, in general, than competing alternatives. Because I really don't see much difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, if you need me to show a counter-model, I'll make it the American Green Party, who tend to believe in almost everything the Republicans don't.

What does utopia look like?

"Better" assumes some context of what we're trying to achieve. A person who believes strongly in civil liberties would probably think it is better to support gay marriage, a person who believes in maintaining social hierarchies would probably oppose it. It all therefore depends on the premise you start from, and judging by my opponent's profile, I think we'll see the emergence of a very different set of premises tonight from mine.

Inherently there is no absolute "right" and "wrong" in politics, but there are policies that are more effective at meeting certain ends. The answer to the question of "What does utopia look like?" is thus what I or pro have to convince you of today.

According to the GOP's own statement of their political issues, they believe in (summarised):
1. Free markets
2. Peace via strength
3. No govt health care
4. Great education
5. Energy independence
6. Judicial constitutionalism

Free markets?

Politically deregulating a market inherently allows corporations to regulate the market, since corporations are large and individuals are small. Before government regulations were put in place, for example, to prevent child labor, corporations of course used children. Why? Because children were cheap, and it cut marginal costs. Although child labor makes a lot of short term economic sense, it's not a very good policy for any country as a whole (outside of a company's self-centered myopia).

That might not be a huge political issue, but the principle is the same for things like environmental controls on business , unions, or certain aspects of tax policy. For sure, markets can be more free from government, but only at the cost of being less free from corporate power, be that corporate control of the environment, worker rights, or money itself. There's a phrase that gets used a lot - deregulation. It's never happened. It has always only been re-regulation.

Outside of regulation there's also direct economic control via fiscal and monetary policy. This usually comes back to some absurd idea that we should not pick winners and losers in the market and let the people decide. In a "non-free" market, the people do decide, via a government whom they choose. In a "free" market, the biggest corporation generally wins in accordance of the economic theories of competition and economies of scale. As a matter of fact, winners and losers are picked all the time. Wouldn't it be good if the best companies were also those that performed the best? Government is there to ensure that profit isn't the only measure of what makes a company the "best" in a world where things other than money matter too.

Peace via strength

This is quite ironic given that the USA has neither any need for additional strength, being absurdly powerful (and unable to afford it), nor a good track record of peace. History proves that arms keep not peace but insurgency. Just ask the British Empire whom you guys rebelled against exactly in this way, or the Afghanis who drove out the Soviets in this way and tried to drive you out, only to be labelled terrorists for defending their land. The principle is clear - if you hold a gun to somebody's throat, they might not immediately attack you, but they're not exactly going to like you very much - and if possible, try to get that gun away from their throat. If you don't go pointing guns at everybody, that's one LESS reason for them to not hate you, not one more reason.

At best, "peace via strength" is an almost exact definition of a cold war - something that the republicans usually brag about ending (although anyone with a passing knowledge of history will in fact know that it was the Soviets, not the Americans, who ended it).

No govt health care

Funny because nobody actually takes this seriously except the big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that bankroll everything the Republicans do. Why? Because health care is a human need. If individuals cannot fulfill it, governments are the only ones who would have that power, given that it's contrary to capitalist principles. The fact of the matter is that government intervention has saved hundreds of lives and helped hundreds of people that would otherwise die or not be helped. And the cost? Imposing on others a small fee to pay for it. It's not like there's really competition anyway for healthcare because drug companies monopolise their own products with patents. See here for more examples of healthcare via govt working in the USA:

Great education

There's no point to having a super education system if only the wealthy can afford it. That's why universal education is more important than free education. It's also why learning - including tertiary study - must be considered a right. I'm so glad we don't have to worry about college funds in my country, and it's mostly government subsidies that make it possible. There just doesn't seem to be an incentive to make the trade-off.

Energy independence

The problem with this policy is that it's almost entirely oil-based, as the only large energy import the USA has. Any stated advantages of reduced impacts due to global oil price fluctuations would be much better achieved by simply reducing dependence on oil, as the energy independence model still leaves the country vulnerable to secondary global price fluctuation impacts like relative costs of hiring oil engineers. Furthermore, according to the economic theory of comparative advantage, the USA will always produce their oil at a higher marginal cost of production, forcing either their quality to go down or their prices to be higher.

Judicial constitutionalism

It's no surprise they support this because judges need to uphold the constitution by a law that cannot be changed. The problem is that nobody can entirely agree on what the constitution actually means. Case in point: the affordable care act. Republicans said one thing, supreme court said another - both are bound by the same constitution. That's not activism, that's a legitimate difference in interpretation. You can't expect everybody to interpret something the exact same way, especially on such complex matters. And if they did, that would be tyranny.

I look forward to my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1


Better-superior to another. In this case, the democratic party. Both parties could be terrible; however, if the Republican party is superior to the other, it is the better.
1. Free Markets- The government is expensive for businesses. The more the government intervenes, the harder the operation of the business. The government, in turn, makes the cost of operation for businesses increase. Thus, it causes the businesses to lay off more people. Free markets, while they may not ensure good working conditions, do provide more jobs. Furthermore, people can quit a job if the conditions are too bad, unlike in socialism for example, where they are stuck in that job.
2.Peace via Strength- Personally, I was for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, to defend ourselves, but I was not for staying over there for many years. Especially if we get nothing in return. Peace via strength is effective. The UN is extremely powerful and many countries would not go against the sanctions put in place by it. This is out of fear of UN forces busting down the door into their country. If the US put money into an effective military, then none would concern itself with it. Look at the Cold War. Why did Russia lose? It lost because it knew that it could never win a nuclear war with the United States. Thus, peace.
3.Government health care- Government health care is basically providing the same exact care to every single person. Isn"t this socialism. Everyone is treated the same no matter what they invest in it. Furthermore, government health care is not as effective as private health care. It could take weeks to get an appointment with a doctor. Let us not forget that someone has to pay for it. Most likely, it will not even be the people who need the health care. It will instead be the people who can afford it themselves. Why should I buy another person a candy bar just because I have money and they do not.
4.Many republicans that I know support having a more applicable learning system and cutting school funding. Applicable-teaching things that most students will need for life or most jobs. George W. Bush was one of the few that supported things like "no child left behind" and other educational acts.
5.Energy independence- Why buy a tomato from the store when you can grow one at home? It is cheaper to grow one after all. I support drilling our own oil mostly so that we do not have to involve ourselves in the craziness of OPEC and the Middle Eastern dictators. By doing this, America can set its own price for oil. In America, there is enough oil in Alaska to last fifty years, not to mention what is in the Midwest and the Gulf of Mexico. We have plenty of oil. However, I do support researching Hydrogen power because of cost efficiency. When we adopt it, it will be cheaper than gas and the US can sell the gas to the other countries of the world who need it.
6.Judicial Constitution- Many republicans that I know support putting the interpretation in the hands of the individual states. Often times, the difference in interpretation is because one party is just trying to push the wording to mean something entirely different than what it actually says. Gun control being an example.


My opponent has clearly not checked out the democrats' website recently, because on principle they agree with the republicans on every single one of these points. I'm trying to convince you that there are superior political alternatives. If pro thinks the republicans are better than anything, he needs to advance an argument to that effect. I'm simply explaining why the republicans are terrible without reference to any particular counter-model since none was specified previously, except perhaps opposing the republicans.

Free markets
If the government were to give my company $1000, that makes me $1000 better off. It's not an expense for me, it's income. Income makes it easier for my business to buy stuff, which in turn makes the operation of my business easier, not harder. With my state income I might be able to hire more people, not have to lay them off. It might appear that me having more money means I can bid prices higher. In practice this depends on where the money comes from - if it's just redistribution then somebody else (usually the wealthy since America has a slightly progressive tax system) loses money, so they bid prices down as I bid them up, creating stability. If it's money that's printed or on credit, the money supply increases causing inflation. Point is that monetary and fiscal policy can fail, but that doesn't mean it must fail. With sound economic thinking, it can actually improve the cost structure of the economy.

You can't just quit a job if conditions are bad, because you'll starve without food, and don't get food without money. The industrial revolution is history's most famous example of a time when regulation was lax so people were forced to work in terrible factories, but examples are everywhere - in America Frederic Taylor is probably the most prominent example in management studies of a man getting away with treating workers like cattle.

Peace via Strength
North Korea - the country who's new leader's first decree was to legalise pizza - or Syria, who can't even win a war with themselves - or Iran, who can't build a nuclear power plant even after 30 years of intensive research AND lots of help from Russia. These are the kinds of nations that might possibly attack the United States. Even if they did attack, the United States wouldn't require a thousandth of its military power to deal with those threats. The real defence problem the USA faces is with insurgency - homegrown terrorists, terrorists from abroad - those kinds of people are a much greater threat.

America did not win the cold war - the cold war ended without a result. Russia deciding to not continue fighting is not the same as America winning. As a matter of fact, four years ago Putin casually reminded you guys that officially, the cold war wasn't over at all, causing a stupidly out-of-proportion media response (at least in my part of the world). I also don't think the cold war is a great model for world peace. It was actually pretty scary during much of it, including the wars in SE Asia and the Cuban missile crisis. While it didn't turn into a full-scale conflict, there was plenty of smaller-scale conflict around the world, such as the baader meinhof group in Germany and almost all of South America being in turmoil at the time. Sure, America was safe, but now with the war over, just consider the huge challenge of controlling in whose hands the weapons fall today. Wouldn't it be better to not have a cold war in the first place? Particularly since none of your enemies right now are big states like Russia, but smaller insurgent groups whom you can't fight with tanks and battleships. Bin Laden once taunted Bush by saying he was among the Muslim masses. In a sense, the same spirit that drove Bin Laden to commit great evil rages on wherever people and their soverignty are threatened. Ireland, Tibet, Chechnya - there is zero shortage of historical examples of how great force of arms does not broker world peace.

The only thing that will bring about world peace is not force of arms, but force of will.

Health care
Government health care is more socialist than user-pays models, but as I've tried to tell you, the way to solve a social problem (sickness) is with social intervention (socialism). Going to a nightclub, going to school, marching on the streets to get the law changed - these are all common socialist phenomena - everyone goes together, everyone contributes, everyone gets results. When you put money into that equation, the human mindset changes. Suddenly they don't want to contribute for others - we become selfish.

But healthcare doesn't operate like the rest of the economy. It's basically a small series of exclusive sub-market monopolies, the most imperfect competition you can imagine. But for government control, companies can freely charge any price and demand will remain inelastic, because healthcare is a human need. Capitalism is only more efficient through competition, but that simply does not happen in the healthcare sector. Moreover, even if capitalism was more efficient, would that be ideal? I mean, would you prefer to be rushed through intensive care in five minutes with a quick'n'dirty patch job to cover up that knife wound to your heart, or would you prefer doctors and surgeons that actually took the time to care for you with the best equipment and medicine available - regardless of who you are or your social standing, just as a fellow human being in need? It's not really the same as a candy bar. I'm a pretty compassionate person, but I don't buy people candy bars - not least because it will probably rot their teeth. That's quite different from everybody chipping in an affordable fraction of their wealth to ensure society as a whole is able to prosper.

When you cut school funding, one of two things happens. Either, parents pay more, or, kids get less. Parents who are able to afford more probably will. The other kids will be disadvantaged. That's not fair, because the kids can't help it if their parents are poor. Moreover, it doesn't build much of a great education system. Access to great education is the goal, and this is a super way to undermine it.

The problems with applicable learning would take a whole other debate for me to fully describe. You simply can't prepare kids for their future jobs in any economy with no job security, and where new jobs are invented every month.

Energy independence
America cannot set its own price for oil. It will always depend on the cost of running refineries, of building oil wells, of avoiding Greenpeace boats etc. At best, America can avoid dependence on OPEC, such as caused the supply shocks of the 70s. In this way America can increase supply of oil reducing the price, but increasing dependance (who wouldn't be dependant if it's cheaper to be so) and allowing OPEC to increase supply to everywhere else in the world (since they're not selling it to you), so marginally your oil will still be expensive. The problem is oil dependance, the cure is not more oil. It's not even a short-term solution to the problem, any more than injecting a meth addict with a ton of meth will solve their meth addiction.

Gun control is a good example actually. The wording says you have a right to bear arms. So - all arms? Should Americans be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction while strolling about Times Square? Probably not what the intention was. So you have to draw the line somewhere, and the constitution does not say where. Obama says semi-automatic isn't OK, loads of people disagree. That's no surprise since when the Bill of Rights was written, semi-automatic weapons did not exist. So whether they are allowed or not is a legitimate difference of opinion, not something that should be forced on anyone.
Debate Round No. 2


It is apparent that my opponent is more concerned with attacking the republicans than proving that it is a superior political party. Therefore, I will simply attempt to defend the credibility of the republicans.
Free markets:
In America, the government does not hand out money. Instead, it regulates things. This takes money away. The second the government establishes a new regulation, jobs are lost and inflation occurs. It is not good for people to lose their jobs at the same time prices go up.
Peace Via Strength:
Organized terror, not necessarily from the government of say, Iran, is the problem. America should intimidate those terrorist organizations. In addition, though North Korea is small, it still has an extremely large military and nuclear weapons. It also has no regards to sanctions and rules placed against it. Though it may not take much to take them out, it will not take but one nuke to take out LA. America should intimidate North Korea so that it is obvious that they would not be able to take it out if they started a fight. Who would pick a fight with the biggest kid in school? No one.
Health Care:
People becoming selfish is not a bad thing. It is instead, keeping what they earn. That is not a bad thing. However, socialism just takes that away. If people in America do not like their social standing, they cannot blame the rich, they can only blame themselves and do what it takes to gain a few social steps. Socialism is taking away from the workers and giving to the non-workers. Healthcare does also create competition between businesses. If two businesses both required the same things from workers, but one paid better and had better conditions, people would choose it. Lets say that the better company provided healthcare for its employees and the other did not. People would choose the one that provided healthcare. Therefore, the other company would have to adopt a healthcare plan or superior retirement plan to bring in employees. This competition makes conditions better.
Judiciary Courts interpreting the constitution:
Why should gun owners lose their right to keep and bare arms because someone who does not like guns determined that the constitution could be interpreted differently? In this case, I support the old principle called state's rights. Leave the interpretation of the constitution more directly in the hands of the citizens in the area affected as opposed to people three hundred miles away.
The topic of debate seems to have changed. I have defended my party while my opponent has attacked it. Both sides have good points but my side provides personal freedom, or at least more than my opponent.
Vote for me, though neither side, I admit,really met their BOP. I have offered reasoning for my party and why its policies are important or effective.


In this debate, I would have expected pro to give at least one argument for why republicans are better. I gave you five reasons why they are worse. Proving that they're not worse does not prove that they're better. However, I believe pro has even failed to do this. While he accuses me of doing nothing but attack republicans (which is no surprise since my position in this debate, as given by pro's resolution, is that republicans are inferior), pro seems to have done nothing but attack a small number of specific democrat measures, despite my analysis in round one that the two big parties are not political opposites. In those ways in which democrats are different from the republicans they are superior, but to show a more reliable picture of what policies fail and why, I used the far more reliable counter-model of simply the opposite of the republicans, which is essentially the Greens. I did not explicitly have to prove the superiority of the greens, only the inferiority of the republicans.

Five issues arose in this debate, corresponding to my five arguments since pro had none.

On free markets, I wonder what pro thinks the auto worker's bailout was if not handing out money? In fact the government hands out money all the time - for example, social security. And if they compete in a market, that's a special form of handout too. My opponent sees some instant connection between regulation and lost jobs / inflation, but he never explains what this connection actually is. As I said in the first round, "markets can be more free from government, but only at the cost of being less free from corporate power, be that corporate control of the environment, worker rights, or money itself." Corporations can lay people off - in fact they do so much more than government already. Corporations can bring about inflation. But corporations can also ruin you and your life. There is no link between any of this and regulation - the law making murder illegal, for example, does not cause unemployment.

On achieving peace, the fact that terrorists pulled off 9/11 despite the fact you have the world's strongest army and they had only a few machine guns from the 80s proves they are not intimidated. My opponent's argument is a medieval fantasy of war where both sides line up their troops and march at one another. We live in an age where strength at arms no longer determines who attacks whom. Likewise, North Korea is not intimidated against you despite the fact that every single one of their nuclear tests has gone well below expectations, and you guys have thousands of nuclear warheads pointed right at them. The world is not a schoolyard. What we need for peace is co-operation, and nobody will co-operate when you hold a gun to their throat. As a matter of fact, like it or not, they'll fight back.

My opponent ignored most of my points for healthcare. Competition doesn't work because you need patents for inoovation or else diseases won't be cured, but patents inherently block competition (of course, legalising generics can help, but republicans generally oppose that too). There's a big difference as well between blaming the rich and charging the rich. Sometimes beggers ask me for money, and sometimes I help them out. I don't think they blame me for them falling on hard times. Sometimes only they are to blame, sometimes there was nothing they could do to escape their fate. However, they probably do believe that I can be part of the solution. Nobody "keeps what they earn" - inflation guarentees that, but moreover everybody needs to spend money. Socialism only asks for social spending - giving money to improve society. Finally, pro does not contest that efficiency isn't an ideal in healthcare.

On the judiciary, the reason why people should lose their rights when those rights are proven unconstitutional in a court of law is precisely because that's what happens in a constitutional democracy. Don't like it? Throw out the constitution. My opponent's support of state's rights is a tacit admission that the constitution can be legitimately interpreted in multiple ways, and so there's nothing unconstitutional about making certain assault weapons illegal. Multiple times throughout this debate my opponent has affirmed states rights, something which the republican party does not support, and moreover contradicts that very same constitution directly.

My opponent has dropped his arguments on energy independance and education, which I extend my rebuttals to.

Right at the very end, my opponent argued that he is the harbringer of personal freedom. The same guy who would limit personal freedom in favor of corporate freedom and market freedom. The person who believes in holding all non-Americans at gunpoint, forcing them to be slaves to America's wishes - who doesn't mind Americans living in a cold war style environment of fear. Who believes healthcare should only be a privilege for the upper class, as should school. If that's freedom, then that's tragic.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
Who's Nicholas Osgood?
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
That kid is totally Nicholas Osgood!
Posted by Cowboy0108 3 years ago
Admittedly, I wanted this debate to be with an American democrat. I tried to argue with what I was given though.
Posted by baylieboo22 3 years ago
No party is really "better". Different people believe in different things, or at least that's how I see it.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Would arguing for neither be acceptable?
Posted by Crevaux 3 years ago
I might want to debate you on that one, too. Only, define "political"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro generally had comparatively weaker arguments. I don't necessarily agree with either side. Con's strongest arguments were related to foreign policy and how "peace through strength" is the wrong direction for a nation's defense plan.
Vote Placed by LaL36 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Con was the only one who used sources. Arguments: Pro had the BOP to prove the Republican Party is better and has not provided a single argument. side note: con had one more round to debate.