The Instigator
Boesball
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Jacorionrandle98
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Two Party System is Best for America

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...
Boesball
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 77999
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Boesball

Con

The current two party system in America of the Democrats and Republicans will be debated.


Con will be trying to prove that the current two party system is not the best for America. Con will state why this system doesn't work, and they will give alternatives to it.

Pro will be trying to prove that this system is more effective for America compared to alternative options.

First round is acceptance and clarification of the rules and positions.
Second round is the opening arguments.
Third round is for rebuttals.
Fourth round is for closing arguments and/or more rebuttals.

Let's have a good debate!
Jacorionrandle98

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate on such a topic. I also thank the viewers for taking their time out to review the debate and I would appreciate their votes, no matter which side they choose. To begin, I would like to define a political party. A political party is a group of individuals who share the same ideologies, meaning that they agree on the issue of Abortion or Gay Marriage, vice versa. Now, we have implemented that into the American Government.

The Two Party System shows a sense of organization in the American Politics, and we all know that American Politics can be very complexed. With the two political parties, American citizens have a better sense of the different issues that the two candidates differ on. They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. Recently in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party was for less Regulations in the EPA because it confuses the consumers, it slows down the refining process, etc. The Democrats, however, says otherwise. You see, there is a sense of organization in politics. There is a sense of who's who and what's what.

Organization is the key to success! America survived great times because of the two party system. In reference, American Politics has been organized and stayed organized since the Two Party System was founded. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Boesball

Con

Pro failed to follow the rules of the debate that were clearly stated.

"First round is acceptance and clarification of the rules and positions."

They started round two early, but I will still give my opening arguments here.



1. There are many different ideologies that are possible that are not the ideologies of the GOP (Republicans) and the DNC (Democrats)

First off, the two main parties do not give an accurate representation of the ideologies present in American society. The ideology of the DNC is primarily modern liberalism. That means they tend to be supportive of government intervention in the economy, and they tend to be socially liberal (supports legalizing pot, gay marriage, abortion, etc). On foreign policy areas, they tend to support intervention if it is foreign aid (1) and not military intervention. Also, the DNC supports the use of the United Nations. The GOP appears to be the opposite in all these categories. They often support less government intervention in the economy, but they often support more government intervention in personal matters (against legalizing pot, against gay marriage, against abortion, etc). They also often support military intervention over diplomacy. The parties seem to represent the complete opposite views. This creates problems. First off, they don't have complete opposite views (but we'll get to that later). Second off, what if there is a combination of these views? What if someone is more like the GOP on the economy, but they are like the DNC on foreign policy? What happens then is even if that candidate won't get nominated for either of the two main parties, and even if they have a huge amount of support, they won't have a shot at being president. Voters that share combinations of different parts of the ideologies of the DNC and GOP get under-represented in congress because the DNC and GOP are basically the only two parties with a chance to get enough support.


2. The GOP and DNC are too similar

This is a more controversial statement than the previous point, but it's just as true. The GOP has supported many legislative ideas that should be DNC ideas. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the national debt substantially even though they were supposed to be opposed to over spending in government. In the same way, the DNC has supported many GOP ideas that should be DNC ideas. Barack Obama has continued the aggressive foreign policy and encroachment of civil liberties that caused George W. Bush to leave office with a very low approval rating. Because there are only two major parties, politicians have to do what they can to get votes instead of staying ideologically consistent. Even if they do something that their base doesn't approve of, they will not lose their supporters. There is no necessity for credibility. If there were ten parties, or no parties, they could just do whatever their ideology and rhetoric says. They would be more honest and straightforward with their base because if they don't be honest and straightforward, their base would leave them for a different option. Also, because of ballet access laws (3), the Democrats and Republicans can work together to make sure they are the only two parties that have a chance. Not only are the DNC and GOP similar, but they have the same goal; they want to concentrate power between themselves.


3. Our founding fathers said so

Our founding fathers were against the ideas of political parties in general. It doesn't matter if the system creates order. Parties restrict ideas. People can't think for themselves in a party system because if they go too far outside their party lines, they get abandoned and disowned by their own peers. Our second President John Adams said this:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.(4)

Exactly what he feared occurred, and the problems come with it. When we don't listen to our founding fathers, we always have run into issues. Many of the original founding fathers were against interventions in the other hemisphere. We started intervening in the other hemisphere, and now we are in inescapable debt. Our founding fathers warned us about government that harms our civil liberties, and now the NSA is able to collect our records without our permission or knowledge. There are so many bad things that our government does that if we only had listened to our founding fathers, we would be in a better situation.

I'm not going to rebuttal in this round, and therefore, can you please copy and paste your opening argument into round two. I will place my rebuttal in round three once you do that.

Also, if my links aren't working, I'll place them in the comments.

(1) http://www.republicanviews.org...
(2) http://zfacts.com...
(3) http://hammeroftruth.com...
(4) http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
Jacorionrandle98

Pro

I apologize for my misunderstanding of the rules. I shall restate my argument.

First, I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate on such a topic. I also thank the viewers for taking their time out to review the debate and I would appreciate their votes, no matter which side they choose. To begin, I would like to define a political party. A political party is a group of individuals who share the same ideologies, meaning that they agree on the issue of Abortion or Gay Marriage, vice versa. Now, we have implemented that into the American Government.

The Two Party System shows a sense of organization in the American Politics, and we all know that American Politics can be very complexed. With the two political parties, American citizens have a better sense of the different issues that the two candidates differ on. They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. Recently in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party was for less Regulations in the EPA because it confuses the consumers, it slows down the refining process, etc. The Democrats, however, says otherwise. You see, there is a sense of organization in politics. There is a sense of who's who and what's what.

Organization is the key to success! America survived great times because of the two party system. In reference, American Politics has been organized and stayed organized since the Two Party System was founded. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Boesball

Con

You have several misconceptions in your argument. I will address these.

"There is a sense of who's who and what's what."

This is a bad thing. Politicians might vote with their own party instead of what they said in their campaign just because of pressures from their fellow party members. Efforts to get politicians from supposedly opposite viewpoints to think alike creates more prejudices and disagreements. People have more conflict with each other because of these labels. A libertarian who votes Republican might not be able to find common ground with a Democrat who shares a non-interventionist view on foreign policy because this libertarian (with a lower case "L" due to him voting for a Republican) is a Republican voter. Placing people into certain categories and labeling people is a problem in Washington.

"They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. "

I can tell from experience that this is not true. I don't like the Republicans or the Democrats. I want someone from the Libertarian Party. This is very unlikely because of the system that is set up, and therefore, I have to choose between the better of two evils. I don't want to choose from the better of two evils. I want a candidate for President and a candidate for the Senator and House member of my area that represents me. I don't want a pro-war Republican versus a socialist-leaning Democrat.

"Organization is the key to success!"

This is very false. Having a government that properly represents the will of its people is the key to success. It's called "Representative Government" for a reason. The American revolution was fought because the colonials did not feel properly represented by the English government and king. Now we are improperly represented with a major disconnect with what the people want and what Washington is doing. It all is because of the two party system. If there were no parties, and if it took longer to get stuff done, I'd be fine with it. At least the more accurate decisions would be made. Under this current two party system with the "organization" you speak of hasn't gotten anything substantial done in years. They have such a low amount of pride and necessity for credibility that they often don't read their own laws (1). That's a result of two party politics. They just vote with their party.

(1) http://ivn.us...
Jacorionrandle98

Pro

There are some things that I will need to correct for the young lad here. He says that "There are many different ideologies that are possible that are not the ideologies of the GOP and DNC." Well, you are wrong. You see, the GOP and the DNC were built on different principles and ideologies. In order to know which party you have the same ideologies as, you must first look at the Basic issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, the Economy, Education, etc. In the House, the Senate, even the White House, the party allows you to differentiate in a bill. Example, the Democrats and the Republicans supported the Keystone Pipeline XL, but President Obama, who is a Democrat, vetoed the bill. The Political Party does not pursue you because of issues that aren't major, but the ones that the party is built upon.

"The GOP and the DNC are too similar"
It's very funny that you would say that. Yes, every party is the same in some way, but like I said earlier, what makes a political party differ is the principles that they were built upon.

"Our founding fathers said so"
You are right, the founding fathers warned us, but they did not do anything to prevent it. Is it in the Consitution? No. Did they make a law or Amendment to prevent us from doing so? No. The founding fathers would have done something to prevent this if they thought of it to be a bad thing, but they didn't. Why? Because they know for a fact that they wanted this, but couldn't support it because of the times they were in. Abraham Lincoln found the Republican Party. His time and President Adams times changed. Now, Lincoln can actually support and create a political party in which Adams couldn't.
Debate Round No. 3
Boesball

Con

Pro makes this statement, and it is far from the truth:

"There are some things that I will need to correct for the young lad here. He says that 'There are many different ideologies that are possible that are not the ideologies of the GOP and DNC.' Well, you are wrong. "

There has to be people with ideologies that aren't GOP conservatism or DNC liberalism. What about libertarians? They often vote GOP even though that isn't their ideology. What about people who are socially conservative and economically liberal? What do they do? Because the GOP and DNC control the system, these voters do not get the chance to have a politician that represents them best. Let me simplify the situation with an easy to understand analogy. Let's say McDonald's and Burger King worked together to make sure that no other fast food restaurant became popular. People would still have to buy from McDonald's and Burger King, and Burger King and McDonald's would still be rivals, but the situation wouldn't be fair to those who like Wendy's. There needs to be fair and good competition for the citizens of the United States of America to be properly represented.

A third party needs at least 15% in certain national polls in order to even get in the main presidential debates (1). How's that fair? The reason they do not get 15% is because they never have been in the debates in previous years.

My opponent also said something that startled me:

"Because they know for a fact that they wanted this, but couldn't support it because of the times they were in."

If this is true, then what else did our founding fathers lie about? My opponent appears to be saying that our founding fathers were frauds that had created America as a scheme. If that's the case, then it's another reason we should oppose the two party system. I do not believe that is the case, though. I believe our founding fathers were great men who would be opposed to many of the practices of government that we currently have. America was founded on the ideology of classical liberalism. It's the philosophy of small government and government that is controlled by the people. (Modern liberalism is the philosophy of the DNC, but that's not what I am talking about) Great philosophers like John Locke talked about the importance of a government that only does the will of its people. I believe these were smart men and I trust our founders. George Washing, our first President, was a great man as well. In fact, George Washington talked about the party system in his farewell address:

"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration".agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one".against another".it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption"thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another." (2)

Eliminating the two party system would eliminate some of the corruption in politics. We were warned about this, and we didn't listen. We chose simplicity over good government, and now it is biting us. I'm not talking just about the presidential election. I'm talking about congressional elections as well. It's a problem that will not be addressed because almost everyone in congress is a Republican or a Democrat. They aren't going to change anything unless it helps their parties. It's a struggle for power instead of a pursuit to govern the most fair and effective way. The two party system is corrupt, and we the people may need to start another revolution if it doesn't go away. Unfortunately, people are apathetic. They do not care because they do not want to take the effort to see what's making their lives bad. They just blindly vote for one of the two major parties, and they think nothing of it. If there were more options and no party labels, people would actually have to see what their representatives stand for. This is the republic I want. This is the republic our founders stood for. This is the republic that is best.

Thank you for a nice debate! I encourage the voters to vote con.

(1) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(2) http://www.earlyamerica.com...
Jacorionrandle98

Pro

Before I yield the remainder of my time, I would first like to point out a few key things that was said during the debate. My opponent only took what he could from what I said, and leave out the importance before and after the sentence. When I said that the Founding Fathers knew for a fact that wanted this, but couldn't support it because of the times they were in. He excluded the fact that I said that the Fathers would have done something more than just speak to avoid this, so hypothetically speaking, they wanted this like we have.

My opponent speaks about giving other parties a turn, but we still have homeless people waiting on their turn. America is not the place for giving people a turn. If other parties wants to gain control, they'll have to fight for it like the GOP and DNC had done. Also, we are not in the right mind to change what has been going on for a dozen decades. If the Libertarians want their turn in office, they have to fight. That's why we have a two party system. That's why we are doing well in Washington.

The Two Party System is like a business. You have the General Manager and the Manager. They both fought to get to the General Manager position, but only one had got it. They have the same duties and that is to make a profit. Now, the employees under them are there for the consumers. The consumers are there for the product. That's how the Government is. The Republicans and Democrats fight to gain control of Washigton, but only one wins. The Libertarian Party, Social, etc. are there to help the two parties from falling apart, or it would help the consumer. The citizens are here to feed into our laws and enforce and follow what we put out. That's our government. That's what we need. That's how it needs to be ran. That's our way of living.

We can't change everything like my opponent wants. We can't have a Government Reform after hundreds of years of existence. That will harm our citizens. Let's do the right thing and vote Pro Two Party System.

Thank you for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
RFD:
Spelling/Grammar: Tie. I have not detected any grammar errors.
Conduct: Con. Conduct goes to Con since Pro failed to follow this rule: "First round is acceptance and clarification of the rules and positions."
Arguments: Con. Pro failed to completely interpret and rebut Con's arguments. Some of the major arguments put forth by Con are that the GOP and the DNC are too similar because even though they tell the citizens that they will do certain things, they usually result in resorting to similar behavior, and that we need our voters to have a candidate the represents their ideals. I feel like those arguments are very strong, and Con makes a good point that it's literally unfair to force the voters to choose between two corrupt parties. However, Pro only provides weak rebuttals that mention that the other parties are only around to prevent the Democratic and Republican parties from falling apart. He does not provide evidence for this, and he doesn't make a solid point here. In what way do the other parties prevent the Democratic and Republican parties from falling apart? This rebuttal simply isn't strong enough. Pro also claims that the two parties are not similar because they have different ideologies. Pro's weak claims were absolutely destroyed by Con's rebuttals, and Con didn't even do much to counter Pro's rebuttals. This really wasn't a solid rebuttal, because Con's point was that, even though they may claim that they believe something, they may do otherwise when they actually have a President win the election, thus, making Pro's argument invalid.
Sources: Con. He is the only one who provides sources.

Verdict: Con wins 6-0.
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
My privileges have been removed. I'm trying to retain them.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Please actually vote
Posted by lol101 2 years ago
lol101
RFD:
Spelling/Grammar: Tie. I have not detected any grammar errors.
Conduct: Con. Conduct goes to Con since Pro failed to follow this rule: "First round is acceptance and clarification of the rules and positions."
Arguments: Con. Pro failed to completely interpret and rebut Con's arguments. Some of the major arguments put forth by Con are that the GOP and the DNC are too similar because even though they tell the citizens that they will do certain things, they usually result in resorting to similar behavior, and that we need our voters to have a candidate the represents their ideals. I feel like those arguments are very strong, and Con makes a good point that it's literally unfair to force the voters to choose between two corrupt parties. However, Pro only provides weak rebuttals that mention that the other parties are only around to prevent the Democratic and Republican parties from falling apart. He does not provide evidence for this, and he doesn't make a solid point here. If everyone is going to vote for the GOP or the DNC like Pro mentions, then I don't see how they would fall apart. In fact, they only DISTRACT voters from the two main parties. If there weren't other parties, this wouldn't even be an issue, because nobody would have parties to contrast the two main ones against. This rebuttal simply isn't strong enough. Pro also claims that the two parties are not similar because they have different ideologies. This really wasn't a solid rebuttal, because Con's point was that, even though they may claim that they believe something, they may do otherwise when they actually have a President win the election.
Sources: Con. He is the only one who provides sources.

Verdict: Con wins 6-0.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Yes
Posted by Jacorionrandle98 2 years ago
Jacorionrandle98
Alright. Shall I repost Round 1 into Round 2.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Yes you did. I will have my argument done by 8:30 pm et by the way.
Posted by Jacorionrandle98 2 years ago
Jacorionrandle98
I think I have failed to follow round one rules.
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
I thank Jacorion for accepting this. Let's have a good debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 2 years ago
bballcrook21
BoesballJacorionrandle98Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one that used sources. Con had a much more coherent and detailed argument which was created upon factual evidence, as presented in his sources. Pro had a very limited argument which was all based upon subjectivity such as the two party system being "more organized".