The Instigator
Lynch
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The Party System should be Abolished

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,819 times Debate No: 6873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Lynch

Pro

Democracy is plagued by it's party system which divides society and creates deep-seated social and cultural beliefs that work to divide society instead of bringing it together and have lead in the past to civil violence and even civil war, especially in the case where different ethnic or religious groups are involved. Political parties also create a focusing of political and philosophical ideologies that allow only certain beliefs (one's the correspond to the pillars of the party; party adherence), limiting the free thought of politicians and either restricting or delaying the acceptance of any progressive ideas both in societies with deep ethnic or cultural divides (where polarized, orthodox belief is required of politicians), or in modern liberal societies where political parties are so similar in policy that they do not effect the lives of the public to a great enough extent to stir any interest towards them, and therefore inspiring no unique, progressive politicians. The indifference shown by young voters recently reflects the reality that modern politics (in Canada especially) have become predictable to the extent that people feel that whoever comes into power will not change the previous governments policies drastically enough to bother voting, revealing the democratic style of societal repression (in respect to political ideologies) which limits individual ingenuity and promotes a production-line, extremely liberal mindset that is so convoluted and tied up with politically correct restrictions that any unique thought is branded instantly as "undemocratic" or "hateful" (in an attempt to not anger any large demographic which could aid in the party's reelection), therefore making the politician just as incapable of being decisive as liberal democracy itself. In addition to this, political parties, which under a democratic regime must please the most people to be elected, lie profusely to the public and offer only empty-promises to questions regarding the welfare of their country in their inexorable quest to obtain voting support; behind all of their actions lies the lust for power, in many cases making the idea of "a government for the people" a complete fallacy: a mask to shield the public from the reality that politicians are lying to them, ultimately to obtain legislative power. This has resulted in the fate of recent elections resting in popularity and image, rather than the political policies. The reason for public ignorance (or rather of exhaustion) of these truths lies in the "of the people, for the people" ideology, which makes any change away from the democratic political system impossible as the government claims that (because of the all-inclusive voting system) any movement intending to replace democracy is "against the will of the people". The history of politics also shows conveniently that there is no responsible alternative to democracy, which ironically is because of democracy's invisible and complete control over its citizens (and textbook authors) and what they deem acceptable or not. The usage of the term "freedom" is another democratic notion that is used in the same manner as "for the people" to make any anti-democratic movements culturally taboo, and to raise public vigilance against any political organizations that threatens to topple the respective democratic regime.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

The rebuttal to this position is short and concise. I shall attempt to outline the arguments as best I can.

First, this resolution contains a fundamentally incorrect assumption that political parties CAN be abolished. Wherever there are differences in opinions about political ends, political parties will form. A government can regulate the monetary and governmental power of these parties all it wants to, but can only go so far without abridging the fundamental right to association.

Second, political parties stabilize a system. A two-party system is not nearly as stable as it should be, but writ large, the party system stabilizes government. By this, I mean that government by coalition is necessarily more politically salient than government by a single party. When government processes are the result of the agreement of several different parties, the legislation that is passed is usually more equitable and furthers the interests of a wider base of people.

Third, if there was no party system, it is inconceivable that government will function. For example, without a party system, people would align themselves on each separate issue, and there would be no sort of consensus that leads to efficient legislating.

****************************

Responses:

>> "Democracy is plagued by it's party system which divides society and creates deep-seated social and cultural beliefs that work to divide society instead of bringing it together"

Society is already divided. These divides are a prerequisite for the rise of parties. Your argument is circular.

>> [Parties] "have lead in the past to civil violence and even civil war, especially in the case where different ethnic or religious groups are involved"

This is simply false - political parties are not responsible for war - people's intolerance of different ethnic or religious groups is.

>> "people feel that whoever comes into power will not change the previous governments policies drastically enough to bother voting"

Did you some how miss the US election of 2008?

>> "In addition to this, political parties, which under a democratic regime must please the most people to be elected, lie profusely to the public and offer only empty-promises to questions regarding the welfare of their country in their inexorable quest to obtain voting support; behind all of their actions lies the lust for power, in many cases making the idea of "a government for the people" a complete fallacy: a mask to shield the public from the reality that politicians are lying to them, ultimately to obtain legislative power."

This entire line of argumentation supports the resolution that there is corruption in government, NOT that we should abolish the party system.

****************************************

Political parties are the natural result of differing views on all sorts of issues. Wherever there are people that agree on any set of issues, there will be a political party. My opponent's argument completely ignores this fact. Additionally, political parties stabilize and smooth the political process.

NEGATED.

I'd like to apologize in advance for missing the rest of the rounds - my opponent has made 30 min time limits. I may or may not catch them in time...
Debate Round No. 1
Lynch

Pro

Lynch forfeited this round.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

JustCallMeTarzan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lynch

Pro

Lynch forfeited this round.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

JustCallMeTarzan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
I'm fairly sure that there is no way to abolish the party system, because if it is tried I can only imagine that a system similar to the first party system will emerge.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Yeah... playing in the rain with my girlfriend kind of took precedence over sitting here waiting for debate timers...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
LynchJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70