The Instigator
That.Guy
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Merda
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should we abolish the party system?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Merda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 16830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

That.Guy

Pro

The party system has been around for a long time, starting in 511 A.D. with the Oligarchoi. Many think that they form the backbone of politics, that society could not go on without them. But, I see otherwise. The intention of the party system is to group people with similar ideals together. But, they now are used to force ideas upon people.The party system is a poor idea, and is a suppressor of free thought.
Party politics ha been part of America since 1789, with he founding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties. The (remaining) founding fathers were appalled, noting several times before that they disliked the party system. They were worried about a problem that is becoming increasingly obvious today- That the parties would be too busy fighting each other to help the common man. And that's what we see today. From the close call on the budget, to the health care bill, the parties use their influence in any way possible to make the other side look bad, no matter what the cost to the American people. It's like hospitals fighting over which emergency room a dying man gets to go to. It's time for action, and that action can't happen because some party member doesn't like that action, and is telling other Republicans that it's bad. The party system is based on people forcing their opinions on the American people, and that can lead to a lot of stupid decisions.
Most people have their own opinion on sports. Most people have their own opinion about celebrities.But, when it comes to politics, many American's blindly follow the popular party. And what does that accomplish? A lot of support where isn't deserved. If anyone remembers back to McCarthyism, that was based on following a single man and his blind accusations to make it to the top. What's the difference here? Other than the fact that it's a group of people, not much. False accusations are still being thrown around (birth certificate), and people are still using them to rise to the top (Donald Trump). If people were following their own ideas (which the party system holds back), then they would realize how stupid it all seems.
In conclusion, the party system is a stupid idea and should be abolished. It prevents free thought, and hurts the common man. There's a reason that the founding fathers repeatedly warned us against it. They were the ones who started one of the world's most prosperous nations- They know what they're talking about.
Sources
___________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.kgbanswers.com...
Merda

Con

Before we begin I would like to define the terms of the resolution if that would be okay with my opponent.

Party system: Political system in which individuals who share a common set of political beliefs organize themselves into parties to compete in elections for the right to govern.[1]

Abolish: to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void[2]

Now on to my opponent's main arguments. Remember, as Pro and instigator of this debate, my opponent will retain the primary BOP in that he must bring an argument in favor of the resolution. My burden in this debate will be to refute my opponent's argumentation. Also, seeing as my opponent lives in the U.S. and he mentioned things such as the Founding Fathers and the Republican Party, I will assume that we will be discussing abolishing the party system in the United States.

A. The party system is based on people forcing their opinions on the American people, and that can lead to a lot of stupid decisions.

My opponent seems to misunderstand the point of politics in the United States. As a democratic country where people have at least some voice in how the country is run, people will naturally try to influence the way in which the country they live in is run. People who are for abortion will try to get abortion legal and people against abortion will try to make it illegal. As a democratic country, people will have differing beliefs and so, unless everyone believes the same thing, people will force their views on to others(whether it be pro-choice people forcing the belief that abortion is acceptable on pro-lifers or pro-lifers forcing the belief that abortion is immoral on pro-choicers). The party system is not the culprit in this matter, but the democratic system.

B. The founding fathers were appalled, noting several times before that they disliked the party system.

This point does not prove that the party system should be abolished in this day and age though. The founding fathers(exclusing Jefferson) had no problem with slavery being legal or denying women suffrage. If we are to accept this point of my opponent's then we must accept that the United States should never change from the original vision set by the founding fathers. However this view of how politics should run is inconsistent in that it gives us no way to deal with challenges that the Founding Fathers never had to deal with, such as globalisation or nuclear proliferation.

C. McCarthyism was the result of the party system.

This claim might be partially true. It was certainly the partial result of seeing people only by their political affiliations but it was also partially the result of an increased level of paranoia brought on by the Soviet Union emerging as the rival superpower in the world and the symbolic rivalry between Communism and capitalism and which economic system would emerge as the dominant system. It could also be said to be the result of ideological close mindedness or ignorance as to the attitudes of American Communists and socialists. So to say that McCarthyism was only the result of the party system is to leave out most of the story and most of the reasons that caused McCarthyism. It was a complicated issue with numerous reasons for it's emergence, the party system only being a minor reason.

D. The party system is the reason for the emergence of Donald Trump as a political front runner and Obama's citizenship being called into question.

Again, this is partially true. However if we were to get more specific we would see that this is really the result of America's special blend of the party system, the two-party system. In the U.S., the only officials with a chance of being elected to national office are Republicans and Democrats. So, Republicans will do whatever they can to discredit Democrats because they know if a Democrat is not elected, a Republican most likely will. Also, the emergence of Donald Trump as a political front runner can be directly attributed to the two-party system. Most Republicans take issue with the radical libertarianism of Ron Paul, the inexperience of Sarah Palin, the inconsistencies of Mitt Romney, the bigotry of Mike Huckabee or the moral failings of Newt Gingritch. So they are left with fringe Republican candidates because they are stuck in the two-party system, not the party system in paricular.

Vote Con.


[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
That.Guy

Pro

The terms my opponent defined are proper, I apologize for not specifying them in the beggining.

I'll start with the the rebuttals, and further my argument after

A. As a democratic country where people have at least some voice in how the country is run, people will naturally try to influence the way in which the country they live in is run.
This is true. But, without the party system, people would be listening to the opinions of individual people, rather than the opinions of 2 parties. By listening to many people rather than party politics, it is easier to gather multiple viewpoints and formulate them into your own opinion. I am not saying that the people will stop trying to force their opinion on others, but it is true that the opinion being forced will not have as much weight if it is being said by a single person compared to an entire group. While the democratic system will always allow the forcing of ideas on the public, the party system increases the scale of it.
B. If we are to accept this point of my [opponent's] then we must accept that the United States should never change from the original vision set by the founding fathers.
I will agree that the many of the principles of the founding fathers wouldn't fit in today's society, there is a difference in this philosophy. The difference here is that it's proven itself in today's society!The parties are constantly fighting, proving exactly what the founding fathers had feared. That party politics would take the focus away from the common man and more towards combating each other.
C. McCarthyism was the result of the party system.
That was never what I intended to say, if it did come out that way, I apologize. My point was that the madness of part politics is comparable to that of McCarthyism. In both cases, the main focus was people using completely unproven claims, along with the support of misconceptions of the American public.
D. This is really the result of America's special blend of the party system, the two-party system
This is also partially true, but you did state earlier on that you would consider this he party system in America, which would make this point invalid.

Back when the house was Democrat controlled, I listened to Nancy Pelosi and thought "This lady is loony!" But since I am a Democrat, I was immediately thought to support her. Which leads to another problem. The stereotype that people of a certain party support all others in the party. If party politics didn't exist, it would be an acceptable practice to choose candidates based on policy rather than party

I am excited to see your response

(I do associate myself with the Democratic party, despite my dislike towards the party system, because it makes me a target of Republicans(More debates), and because I agree with many of their policies)
Merda

Con

A. As a democratic country where people have at least some voice in how the country is run, people will naturally try to influence the way in which the country they live in is run.

My opponent argues that the party system increases the scale of people forcing their opinions on others, more so than a democratic system would. But how is this so? In a democratic country with relatively free speech, people will naturally band together who share similar opinions. Mutual aid is the name of the game here. People have realized that if they are against abortion, they are also most likely against gay marriage. The Republican Party gives a voice to people who have conservative social positions and liberal economic positions(liberal in the classical sense of the word). So to abolish the party system is to take away people's right to work together to acheive a common goal. All political parties in the United States were originally formed, not for the sake of forcing their views on others, but for the sake of organizing people together who share common beliefs and goals. The Federalists formed because many politicians and citizens believed in a strong federal government while the Anti-Federalists, who would later evolve into the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats believed a government that became too powerful. The parties evolution in the U.S. is because we live in a mostly free society where people will naturally agree and disagree on certain things. Forming parties is what gives the common man more of a voice.

B. If we are to accept this point of my [opponent's] then we must accept that the United States should never change from the original vision set by the founding fathers.

My opponent's response is that while the Founding Fathers were wrong about some things, they were right about others, such as being right in trying to avoid a party system. He believes that because the parties fight, this is confirmation of what the Founding Father's feared. But like his first point, arguing is the direct result of a democratic system. People have a voice in what goes on and have different ideas of how the government should be run. It follows that even if we did not have a party system, there would still be plenty of disagreement as how to best run the country.

C. McCarthyism was the result of the party system.

I understand now. My opponent was not claiming that the party system was the reason for McCarthyism, only that the two things are very similar. But how so? McCarthyism was mostly the result of paranoia and ignorance. The party system is the result of people who share similar beliefs, working together to acheive a common ends.

D. This is really the result of America's special blend of the party system, the two-party system

While it is true that we are debating on the party system in the U.S., which has a two party system, my opponent is arguing that the entire party system should be scrapped, not just the two party system. If we agree that the two party system is not working, a better alternative to abolishing the whole thing completely would be to allow the formation fo more major parties. Take the Libertarian Party for example. It consists of people who are socially liberal but disagree with the Democrat's advocation of increased government interference in the economy. It also consists of people who are socially conservative, but disagree with the Republican's advocation of government interference in personal lives. The solution to the two-party system is not the abolition of parties completely(thus taking away citizen's rights to work together to acheive political ends), but to expand the party system to allow for more parties to flourish, such as the Libertarian Party.



Debate Round No. 2
That.Guy

Pro

A+D. As a democratic country where people have at least some voice in how the country is run, people will naturally try to influence the way in which the country they live in is run. + This is really the result of America's special blend of the party system, the two-party system


I think I can kill 2 birds with one stone here. I do agree, people will naturally band together. And it would be preferable to have a multi-party system sot that parties tailored to specific ideas can band together. But the problem is, with the expansion of the 2 parties into modern society, people will still follow the largest parties with the most support. It's like people not cheering for their hometown team because they're losing. The Democratic and Republican parties will end up taking back ground lost by splitting the parties when people realize the smaller parties aren't winning elections. It's human nature to want to be on the winning side. Let's take the Bull Moose (Progressive) Party for example. A fragment of the Republican party, they had some momentum. But as soon as they lost, people went back to the Republican party. What looked like a major force for a bit, collapsed, after 4 years. This has been true many other times in history. Just to name a few: Silver Republican party, The Looking Back party, and the Anti-Monopoly party (I chose these three because their roots can be traced). These were all parties that were tailored to the beliefs of a group of people, and they all dissolved back into their original parties after losing. And this is how it will continue if we keep the party system.


B. If we are to accept this point of my [opponent's] then we must accept that the United States should never change from the original vision set by the founding fathers.

My opponent says that "arguing is the direct result of a democratic system", which I will not disagree with. But the political parties have gone past arguing, politics has become a competition. The parties are attempting to get to the top, using whatever necessary, even going against the will and/or needs of the people. For example, many people are claiming that the Republicans are blocking most/all Democratic bills. If this is true, which I cannot prove due to the fact that I am not a republican official, then they are stopping bills, which they may agree with, from passing just to make the Democrats look bad. Is this what the American people need? But, without a party system, those same politicians would vote because of the bill itself, not because of the originators of the bill
C. McCarthyism was the result of the party system.

McCarthy and his followers shared their similar beliefs that the government is filled with Communists (well, McCarthy did not believe this, but he did share it for popularity's sake) and they did work together to reach a common end- to expel the "Communists" from the government. The difference here is that McCarthy was proven wrong.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States,_1912)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.foxnews.com... (Oh the irony)
Merda

Con

A+D. As a democratic country where people have at least some voice in how the country is run, people will naturally try to influence the way in which the country they live in is run. + This is really the result of America's special blend of the party system, the two-party system

My opponent attempts to refute both of these points the same way. He argues that any third party would inevitably dissolve into one of the two main parties and that we would be back to where we started. However this is demonstratably not true. The best example would be the American Libertarian Party. It started in 1971, and in forty years has grown to the third largest political party in the United States. This is because the Democratic Party is not attractive to those who are socially liberal, but economically liberal(in the classical sense) as well. In a similar way, the Republican Party is not attractive to those who might be economically liberal, but are still either socially liberal as well, or are socially conservative but don't believe the government has a place in morality. So, the two parties have two choices. They can either change to accomodate more voters, or they can stay the same and watch as third parties emerge. Either way, the common citizen is being better recognized.

B. If we are to accept this point of my [opponent's] then we must accept that the United States should never change from the original vision set by the founding fathers.

If my opponent had shown evidence that Republicans or Democrats had voted in a certain way purely for political gain, that would have been accepted as evidence and his argument might have gone further. Though, because we have a Democratic system, in most cases, a politicians election is directly dependent on their actions. So, a Democrat who votes Republican in everything will most likely not be voted in again because Democrats want a Democrat who actually votes Democrat and Republicans will choose a Republican if both of them will be voting the same way anyways.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by That.Guy 5 years ago
That.Guy
In rebuttal to your final point, check the sources
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
That.GuyMerdaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has an interesting resolution (1 pt), however has one argument only (conflict vs results) and Tim reframes consistently to refocus and deals with the contentions well. Excellent conduct throughout, but clear win for Tim, 4:2.
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
That.GuyMerdaTied
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: con won when he showed that there was anothe 3rd party, the libertarian party, that was doing well.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 5 years ago
anarcholibertyman
That.GuyMerdaTied
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: Adequate refutations of Pro's points by Con.