The Instigator
DarkArtsProdigy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should America Ban Political Parties

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...
AbandonedSpring
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 63517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

DarkArtsProdigy

Pro

For years after George Washington left office, the political parties have split up this country. The Civil War was caused by political parties, and it's the political parties who declare war. Due to political parties, the winner of the elections isn't caused by the voters but the money a party puts into the candidate.
AbandonedSpring

Con

I will debate this because this is my topic, and I would like to see the other side of things
Debate Round No. 1
DarkArtsProdigy

Pro

Let's get this debate started... In America there are way too many political parties- Democrats, Republican, Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Party (those are just the major ones). Though I won't dwell deep into the numbers of parties we also have: the Communist Party of America, Justice Party, United States Pirate Party, and even a nazi party- National Socialist Movement.

Like I said earlier, political parties have split this nation into two. Conservatives bash liberals to the extreme and even go as far as to claim the President of the United States to be an illegal of this nation- I understand he's not the greatest president but he's also not the worst, even if he was he is still the president- your leader.

Many small governments have a non-partisan democracy and thrive off of it. None of these governments have to worry about people fighting over which political party rules. Speaking of ruling political parties, congress is a prime example. For a president to pass a law or an order, it must go through congress and well congress usually/always has a majority of a political party- either 60% is republican and 40% is democratic or vice versa. Due to political parties, congress can make a president look bad by not passing a law due to him being on the opposite party.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright, thanks for opening up!

Now let's begin. The constitution of the United States of America. A brave doctrine that establishes a line between the federal government, and the state government. Later, with the introduction to the 14th amendment, the state governments could no longer infringe on you human rights.

Therefore, I feel compelled to give a definition:

Human Rights: "fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, and work."

The constitution says no where that the government can do anything to hurt our ability to choose. Choice. Ultimately, isn't that all a political party is? A choice? Theoretically we choose who we belong with, therefore we choose our political party is. If the government was to come and take away out Human Rights, then why are we here at all?

I would like to know if you agree with the following statement:
The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around.

The government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion.

Thanks, I am now finished.
Debate Round No. 2
DarkArtsProdigy

Pro

Your argument is agreeable, government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion- yes. But then it should be the people's choice to realize that political parties do harm for our government. Political parties have only one thing in common- money. Due to this money wins votes not candidates. If you take a look at political corruption you can see that money is the issue. Once someone gets money, they'll become greedy and want more. Candidates running for office should be able to raise money themselves through donations or other needs to win an election- not the money of a corporation.

I also agree with your other statement, "The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around". You are correct, but with political parties people fear the government due to the party's numbers. Currently, republicans control congress and so practically controls the government- do I hear single-party system? Soon democrats will control and then they'll switch again.
AbandonedSpring

Con

I will just open up with rebuttals, seeing to how you already know my argument inside and out.

"Your argument is agreeable, government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion- yes. But then it should be the people's choice to realize that political parties do harm for our government."

If it is the peoples choice, then it would never be banned. The only way to 'ban' something is to get some form of government to disagree with something enough to get rid of it. If the people are the only bodies acting in this situation, it's not really banned, moreover just frowned upon.

"Due to this money wins votes not candidates. If you take a look at political corruption you can see that money is the issue. Once someone gets money, they'll become greedy and want more. Candidates running for office should be able to raise money themselves through donations or other needs to win an election- not the money of a corporation."

Funds are payed by people to a candidate for advertisement and things of that nature. Money does not go to a political party. In other cases, it goes to the organization, still not necessarily the party. The organization then uses that money to get their candidate in office. And of course, in a sense, money is the root of most problems. Getting rid of political parties will not get rid of corruption. Rather just move it somewhere else.

"You are correct, but with political parties people fear the government due to the party's numbers."

Not really. If I belong to a party, and that party controls a body of government, then I would not be scared of the government.

"Currently, republicans control congress and so practically controls the government- do I hear single-party system? Soon democrats will control and then they'll switch again."

Being close minded will not solve an issue. Just because something is broken doesn't mean we should remove it entirely. We should fix it. Political parties provide a safe place of belonging, where people of similar ideology can talk.

I am going to say that your biggest flaw is where you say that the people will get rid of political parties themselves. People will never want to do this because of the sense of community. And even if there was some type of nation-wide change, it still would technically no be banned. Just like how it's not illegal to wear white after labor day. While it's not something that the government can say no to, and of course people have had an issue with it for centuries, I will where white whenever I feel like it.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
DarkArtsProdigy

Pro

DarkArtsProdigy forfeited this round.
AbandonedSpring

Con

I will reiterate my overarching ideas, in a short, summed up paragraph.

To remove political parties would involve some type of government body, to take action. It would cause unnecessary conflict. Any type of conflict right now is bad conflict. It's also simply unjust to tell people that their thoughts and ideals have to be limited. It's ignorant, and somewhat communistic. Also, just because something is broken, doesn't mean we should buy a new object, we can still fix it. While lately political parties have not been doing so well, it is a extremely possible that a new political party, one free of corruption, could become popular.

Thanks, I am finished
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
@ Atmas HAHAHAHA. Oh my gosh, that's so hilarious. You literally just proved the pro's point. Conservatives believe in small government, a philosophy shared by some of our greatest presidents. And you just lumped all people who are forced to identify as "conservative" into one group and dismissed the opinions of millions of people as though they are identical.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
I agree with you on this, but I think Con will likely point out how everyone has opinions and they all want those opinions to be heard. The parties allow their opinions to be personified by a political savvy person. The opposite end of the spectrum is a one party system that has no opposition to counter their views. We need to meet somewhere in the middle where, somehow (probably with the internet) everyone's views can be shared, and majority can finally rule.

Although, I can't see why Conservatives are even listened to, almost none of their points are actually valid in the current state of the world.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
DarkArtsProdigyAbandonedSpringTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con did a decent job of illustrating the impracticality of removing political parties by pointing out that it would mean giving government more power to regulate in stopping them, and that it would not in fact be supported by people who prefer to belong in groups. People will always want to affiliate and group together whether in an official party or not. Con made the points they needed to to win the debate as far as I am concerned.