The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
edudffossip
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The US should not have political parties.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
edudffossip
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,233 times Debate No: 11377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Resolved that the US should not have political parties.
I'll let my opponent go first so he/she can be the affirmative.
Hope for a good debate!
edudffossip

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for satiating my appetite for a new debate, and giving me a chance to possibly redeem myself from the Sarah Palin Would Be A Good President (2012 election) debate. I will start off by giving 4 major points of why the United States should have Political parties.
I will explain the points of having a political party and tell you why not having them wouldn't be very good.

1.The CHAOS! My first point I'm going to make is that having defined political parties makes it less likely for politics to be a one man army sort of deal. Having no parties, doesn't allow for teamwork. Politicians would then start to play dirtier. The country would also be set back if these parties were just made obsolete no one would be collaborating, this wouldn't allow for great ideas to be shared. When it's everyone against everyone people are more worried about trying to one up on their opponents. Plus politicians come and go with time. It's a lot less hectic changing from one politician to another. Our voting process would also need to be changed to. Electoral colleges would be gone, because they vote on one party. There are currently a whole slew of parties, but there are two major parties. These two parties are Democrats and Republicans. These two parties dictate most of what the government decisions like passing bills electing politicians etc. These two parties have subtle dualism. This would create an unbalance.

2. Well what about the funding?!? My 2nd point will talk about how potential politicians that could have some revolutionary ideas would have a hard chance to get their name publicized because they wouldn't have sufficient funding because organizations like to fund one party. Then everyone in the party benefits. It takes millions of dollars to just try and make it as a politician this just wouldn't make things fair, and it would set the United States back even more because potential great politicians would just be thrown aside. You would have to be an aristocrat to be able to run as a candidate. This isn't what the United States is about either. This is the land of opportunity.

3.The voting percentage would surely decrease. Currently less than 40% of the population actually decides to vote when it comes to politics. When you have a bunch of different candidates trying to run people won't want to take the time to be educated on every politicians views and ideas. People wouldn't vote or they might vote on someone they think hadn't been slandered as much by the other politicians. This would set the United States back even more, because someone that doesn't deserve to win and could come into a whole lot of power. This wouldn't be good.

4.My 4th and final point should have been obvious. Trying to abolish political parties…. Well this wouldn't work. This defeats the whole purpose of trying to state that The United States shouldn't have political parties. Having political parties makes things easier less chaos, more well distributed funding so everyone has a chance to be heard and more organized government. The thought of this would cross someone's head inevitably and politicians with similar ideas would form parties and unite. Not to mention the fact that the Constitution did not account for any parties, but they formed, and slowly evolved to what we have now two major parties that create a subtle dualism.

Vote Con is a vote for your number one mawn (Caribbean accent for man)
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

1) \\\Having no parties, doesn't allow for teamwork. Politicians would then start to play dirtier. ///

If what you call teamwork is a grand argument where people have to obey the parties policies or they get dumped, then yes, people use teamwork

2) \\\These two parties dictate most of what the government decisions like passing bills electing politicians etc. These two parties have subtle dualism. This would create an unbalance///

No, what It would create is a government that is not run by bias people but rather representatives who have their own ideas and don't mirror their party's policies. Here's an example, one of the earliest presidents (one of the first 10 I believe) actually STOPPED supporting the party's polices. (I think the party name was the democratic republicans) He was expelled from the party for trying to have some new policies. Since he had no party, he had no chance to be elected next year (someone please enlighten me on is name I'm blanking out). If we had not had political parties this man could have had some groundbreaking policies! But we will never know, because of political parties!

3) \\\Well what about the funding?!? My 2nd point will talk about how potential politicians that could have some revolutionary ideas would have a hard chance to get their name publicized because they wouldn't have sufficient funding because organizations like to fund one party.///

This is simply not true, even if you were an aristocrat you still wouldn't be able to buy yourself the presidency. On the other hand, the candidate with the most support from organizations will win, so it's still the richest man wins either way! If there were no political parties, we wouldn't bombard the media with commercials, create billboards, and sell ourselves to the public! The elections would be based on reason, and the candidates actual policies, not his party. For example, lets say Candidate A is democrat and Candidate B is republican. Most people would go with the candidate of the party they support, so most democrats will support A and most republicans will support B! Either because of "party pride" or because the democrat or republican policies have not changed!

4) \\\When you have a bunch of different candidates trying to run people won't want to take the time to be educated on every politicians views and ideas.///

Actually, when candidates aren't framed by their parties, the people will have too look more closely at the candidates policies before they vote. Instead of saying "Oh that's a republican, he's going to be against the public" or "That's a democrat, he's going to be unpatriotic" NO! They would say "hmmm this guy's for health care, against the war, but for a border fence!" This would make it so the candidates would practically be tailored to the voter's needs!

5) In his farewell address, George Washington warned against the negatives of political parties with these words:

"The common and continual mischief's of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public counsels and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions."

Yet, we have this "Team Edward vs. Team Jacob" approach to political parties, they are like rivals "Yankees and RedSox" if you are a Yankees fan, and you find out one day that all the Yankee players are using steroids (I don't mean this) you would still root for the Yankees! It's like the sectionalism that occurred before the civil war: if your from the south, you support the south, even if you don't agree with them, same for the north.

Thank you for this debate and I urge a pro vot
edudffossip

Con

edudffossip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Arguments Extended
edudffossip

Con

edudffossip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
ARE U KIDDING ME??? I LOSE BECAUSE OF VoTEBOMBING!??!?!!
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Why do people organize under any circumstances? The benefits derive from consensus discussion, division of labor, and focus. Con should have won, but forfeited, and that's not a winning strategy.
Posted by edudffossip 6 years ago
edudffossip
Really? I hope so. My response might be by tonight but don't count on it, my school work is piled up.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
DiS GONNA BE GOOOD!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by edudffossip 6 years ago
edudffossip
RockylightningedudffossipTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
RockylightningedudffossipTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningedudffossipTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
RockylightningedudffossipTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33