The Instigator
Spedman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jack.Jameswood1
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

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...
Jack.Jameswood1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,499 times Debate No: 61879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Spedman

Pro

Whether or not you are a Republican or a Democrat you must realize that both parties are extremely caught up in their own agenda and do not care for the rights of the people anymore. Neither party can agree to anything, and each childishly blames the other for this problem. They spend too much time trying to convince the American people what is and what isn't right, but do nothing to actually help us. The two-party system was originally created to offer different opinions with how the government is run, and for a time it worked. However, the current Democratic and Republican parties are equally unhelpful with their agendas and leaders preventing them from working with political opponents.
Today, the American people would be better off abolishing the two-party system and elect people based on their ideas and values rather than their political affiliations. We live in a new age and while I am right-leaning I truly believe the world we live in needs to be changed for the greater good. New types of governments need to be drawn up in order to protect people's civil liberties and prevent destruction due to political incompetence. We need to limit the terms of every politician in order to bring forward new ideas and prevent political domination. America would be so much better off without parties who let their agendas get in the way of representing the American people.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con


I accept. Based on your profile, it looks like we have a lot in common. I actually agree with your position personally, but I want to do a devil’s advocate debate just for the fun of it. I am already bored of taking position I support, thought the Con position on this one would be both fun and challenging. Good luck to my opponent I wish him the best. He has an endless arsenal of sources, evidence, and straightforward logic to draw from. Anyway, again good luck.


Debate Round No. 1
Spedman

Pro

Thank you Jack for accepting this debate. I know I promised this debate to another and I apologize for that, but I thought you were going to accept it hours ago and someone beat you to the punch. Once again I am sorry to that individual.

Now for my first major argument I would like to point out another famous civilization that was once on the path we were, the Romans. In the final days of the Roman Republic the Senate was becoming more and more corrupt. The Major Houses ruled it with an iron fist, and almost every Senator was affiliated with one of these houses. These houses constantly schemed against one another hoping to find damaging information to the other in order to strengthen their house. It wasn't before long someone's greed and lust for power drove him to take control of the fragile system, Julius Caesar. He made himself life-long dictator threatening to destroy the power of the people until a few brave Senators took things into their own hands and murdered him. After these Senators were hunted down and killed civil war followed between Octavian and Marc Antony. Octavian was victorious and the Roman Empire was born with the Senate for the most part being irrelevant.
Now what is the point of all this? The Democrats and Republicans are the Major Houses constantly scheming to find damaging evidence against the other in order to strengthen their party. They do this with our tax dollars and continue to do this despite the sufferings of many Americans. They are becoming more corrupt and greedy using whatever they can to destroy their opposition. When does it all end?
The one thing the founding fathers failed to realize is that the two-party system can only work for so long. It eventually comes to the point where these politicians focus too much on their agendas and positions. We will eventually be at the point where one greedy individual will take power for himself in the midst of the political chaos. We will live in a dictatorship where our rights are at the mercy of a tyrant. All because of the corrupt and greedy politicians were so caught up in their petty debates and agendas they failed to see how fragile the government had become.
I am tired of seeing people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Christie, and John Boehner look on as America slowly destroys itself. These parties can no longer be trusted to represent us and work for us. It is time to install a Congress without parties to sway each Senator and Congressman into their way of thinking. It is time to start electing people we know will represent us the way they should and try and make this country a better place while keeping the institutions that made this country great.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

General Comment on debate [non-essential for voters; they can skip to next paragraph]


Okay, I thought you would go in a very different direction but I’m actual very pleased with the Rome analogy, especially given that Octavian is one of favorite historical figure in ancient near east history, and because I’ve been fascinated with Rome since college when I took a course dedicated to Rome and the historiography of Edward Gibbon’s classic: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

[Given Pro’s second round statements, Con will focus on comments related the development of parties, intentions of founders—even though my natural inclination is to get lost and meander in deconstructing the how contemporary American politics and the decline of Rome are different and share few if any clear parallels to the United States].


Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s begins in the middle paragraph, starting with “Now what is the point of all this?” and ending with the period at the end of Pro’s round 2 statements.


Con’s quick paraphrase of Pro’s central arguments:

The US political system is contentious and divisive. As a result, these destructive tendencies reverberate through the rest of society, putting the country in jeopardy, and generally helping exacerbate problems and encourage political partisanship that has zero benefit or net value to anyone.


Con’s argument and rebuttal:

My opponent stresses the Founding Fathers failed to predict or oversee problems of the two-party system. Although this statement is partially true, it misses the much bigger and more significant facts of the system created in the Constitution and in the first three administrations (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson).


Let me tackle Washington’s administration first because has little do with problems created in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Washington made a sincere and diplomatic effort to prevent factions from tearing apart the country, especially the divide that characterized the relationship of Jefferson (Secretary of State) and Hamilton (Secretary of Treasury) and really in attempt to try to house two disparate philosophies under one roof. I do not think it’s necessary to explore the details since the Jefferson and Hamilton debate is both well-known and continues to generate interest, measured in the number of books and political science research done specifically on their relationship and the dysfunction that resulted from two individuals with two different visions trying to work to make national policy. Next, let’s look at the Twelfth Amendment…


Twelfth Amendment

Although I agree our current political climate appears grim and dysfunctional, it’s instructive to consider problems inherent to abolishing the party system. Thankfully, I will not have to convince voters by way of hypothetical or abstract arguments. Rather all that is required is a concrete example from our past. Some background information is necessary, but it will only take a minute or two. Before the Twelfth Amendment, the President and Vice President were selected by the most votes (in Electoral College) with whoever got the most becoming President and the second most becoming the Vice President. On the two occasions where this was tried [excluding Washington because he was unanimously elected) it failed and if implemented today would create problems that would the polarization of democrats and republicans today look about as serious as chocolate and vanilla. Like I said, I am sympathetic to the proposition my opponent began with but so far I am not convinced that he arguments if tried could work and I’m more convinced that they would be worse.


I would like to thank my opponent and apologize for the delay.

Debate Round No. 2
Spedman

Pro

Spedman forfeited this round.
Jack.Jameswood1

Con

Pro’s account is no longer active—that explains the forfeiture. No matter, I will address the arguments brought up by Spedmen in Round 1. Although my opponent said the party system in the US is limited to two-parties, while technically true is not necessary the only reading of election politics. Currently there are two independents in the Senate, albeit they caucus with the democrats. Moreover, it is unclear how to accomplish this goal since it would require a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court willing to overturn recent precedent.[1]

Although my opponent notes the current political dysfunction in Congress, it is unlike how abolishing the system would do anything other than add to our existing problems. Usually, when you want to get rid of a bad system, it is worth asking and answer the most obvious question: what do you put in its place? While I am sympathetic to make of the ideas entertained by my opponent, I have very little confidence that a wholesale end to the current party organization would provide or help guarantee civil liberties and other rights, and even less confidence it would mitigate the gridlock that defines the current relationship in both houses of congress.

Even if you abolished the two party system something very similar to it inevitably would emerge because groups would reorganize based on stated goals and vision, and since the US states uses a single-choice voting system, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins.

For the sake of argument, imagine the United States has three parties. This almost happened with the rise of the Tea Party. What happened here and what would happen with the abolition of the current system? Well based on the way, we elect members of congress, one party dominates and unless the two minority parties combined their platforms, they stay in their position as minority parties. I hope that voters will read the rebuttals and vote for Con. Given that BOP was Pro’s, Con believes Con had the upper hand. In addition, voters should take into consideration the forfeiture in round three.



[1] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
@cheyenne
Those parties are mostly irrelevant because the Republicans and Democrats have all the power.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
We actually have more than 2 parties. There is also the green party and the libertarian party.They for the most part cancel each other out.there was once when a 3rd party decided an election.1992. When Ross Poret siphoned off 19% of the votes from Bush 1. That is the only reason Clinton became president.And the only reason Perot ran because that weazle bush showed his true colors in his first term.He sure was not a Ronald Reagan.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I don't know. In the 90's the republicans were in charge and we got a lot done. Even created a surplus . Now the republicans have no voice at all. They have 250 bills passed in the house that Harry Reid will not even bring them up for a vote in the senate.

The republicans in the 90's did all they could to be bi-partisan, which I knew would be their downfall. We did not send them up there to play pattycake with the democrats.We sent them up there to put a stop to socialism and communism.There is a law . Whatever you compromise decent principles to keep, you will lose.I have been observing democrats for decades. And I figured out when the are lying. There lips are moving.That goes for the wimp RINO's too. Republican in name only.
Posted by CountCheechula 3 years ago
CountCheechula
Sounds like this is going to be good. Spedman I agree with you on this one hundred percent, but for entirely different reasons.
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
The two-party system in which the main two parties control the actions of those who lean more with their side. Hence the Democrats and Republicans.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Define "two party system"...

Democrat and Republican are the richer, more powerful parties, but they aren't the only ones.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
"The two-party system" is not the problem. It is today's progressive "living constitution," as the ruling-class refuse to follow yesterday's US Constitution, which is the problem.
Posted by Spedman 3 years ago
Spedman
Sure
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Before I jump in front of someone else, I'll ask,
may I accept your debate-challenge, please
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
SpedmanJack.Jameswood1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
FaustianJustice
SpedmanJack.Jameswood1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Kudos to Con for continuing their premise.
Vote Placed by willhudson79 3 years ago
willhudson79
SpedmanJack.Jameswood1Tied
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: FF in round 3. Pro did not fulfill BOP or provide good arguments.