The Instigator
liljohnny818
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 15846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

liljohnny818

Con

Hi I would like to debate this topic. When I mean by progress is that when our forefathers intended for the US to handle issues in congress, they wanted the best result for the people. Has the two party system undermined this?

This is a three round debate. Since the resolution explicitly states "historically" the more the examples throughout history, the better. Please only accept if you are going to have knowledgeable intelligent arguments. Thank you.
Since I am CON I will let my opponent speak first, and I expect my opponent to not speak his third round so we can have a equal number of speeches. Alright let's begin!
boredinclass

Pro

ok, I will be taking the last speech, as you are the instigator and even if you are con, you still have the burdon of proof. You had the chance to have an equal amout of speeches, so I will take the last speech, I just won't provide new evidence.

I affirm the resolution:The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress. In fact not only has it historically, but it is hurting it even as we debate this topic.

My main contention will be historical examples. The main way I point this out is if legislation or action has been deterred off-put by time or dropped.
The teach for America bill was hindered in ohio, because of GOP leaders demanding an unfair rider to combat a democratic bill
http://www.cleveland.com...
A senator used his republican connections to make school board elections partisan
http://www.utahpolicy.com...
A state soverignty bill blocked by democrats
http://www.rlc.org...
And renewable energy bills fought hard by the republicans
http://www.cleanenergyforhome.com...
Democrats stopping unemployment insurance from rebuplican leaders
http://www.associatedcontent.com...
And of course, republicans hurting the progress of healthcare
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...
These examples are recent, but are a very clear window on our political system.

My second contention is more of an analytic, Congress has become a board game, where the measure of one's ability to take action is measured by the support of the party, now political capital is the name of the game, and you run out of it fairly easily. Now, people are refusing Obama, because he is too democrat, so he is forced to move to the middle.

My third contention is that this severly limits wiggle room for senators. Let's say that a senator is for gay marriage, but for a border fence, there is little that they can do, because they will be limited to either gay marriage, or a border fence. If congress had more than two parties, then his legislation could effectively go through.

I reserve the right to extend on all points as needed.

I await my opponents rebuttal
Debate Round No. 1
liljohnny818

Con

I'll be starting with my opponent's case then referring back to my own. Remember this is a historical debate. Showing examples from just like this year ain't good enough. But even if you don't believe that, his examples don't hold water. Historical examples. From like 1776-1900's

His first point is "historical" examples, but he never shows you that the bills that are "blocked" shouldn't be blocked, and that the only reason they are blocked is because of party ties. Just because one party shoots down another's idea doesn't mean a good outcome wasn't achieved. Think of this debate. What my opponent is basically saying is that if only one of our sides "wins," then the whole debate was undermined. This is completely foolish. Drop this point unless he can prove more and provide analysis rather than links.

His second point is a "congressional board game." This is nothing more than a hypothetical point crafted in my opponent's brain. With no evidence, impact, or real sense coming from this point, I see no need or capability to attack it. It really has no substance to refute.

His third point says that a senator in favor of gay marriage wouldn't be able to pass his agenda, but if a third party or more parties were present he would be able to. He provides a hypothetical situation of why it wouldn't go through. It really holds no weight. It would go through if it was a good bill, and it wouldn't if it's a bad bill. That's the whole point of arguing the weight of your side. That's like saying if my opponent legitimately loses this round in the judge's mind, and proceeds to say that the only reason the judge voted that way is because of his own personal political agenda. Again a foolish point. Also, he gives no reason why more than two parties would make his legislation "effectively go through." Drop this point.

My contentions:
My opponent has burden of proof. He's aff. That's how debate works, but I'll still provide points anyway.

Point 1: Promotes healthy discourse
If everyone had the same political ideology how would we arrive at the best conclusion for how we should help society? If everyone had the same view and opinion, how would anything get done? Think about it. If one party simply controlled congress without any "checks and balances" that our forefathers created our government upon how would there be any restraint on the other party? The two party system allows discourse to go on between parties to arrive at the best result. Simple as that.

Vote NEG.
boredinclass

Pro

Ok, historical means in the past, so I can refrence from yesterday and still be valid. Seocndly this is the best example, because how fast the world works, we can best show examples fromt today.

The debate isn't about the validity of the block. The bills may have sucked afterwards, but the main reason they were blocked is because of partisanship. We aren't debating whether it was justifed. The bills blocked were blocked because of partisanship, this offput congress and therefore undermined their progress.

Ok on my second point, my opponent thinks that congressmen really have your interest in mind. Secondly it's common sense that people reject others because of their party. Nobody is Tabula rosa. we all have bias. Congress has become a buisness, where it is all about dealings and being re-elected. And since he cannot refute it, it is dropped.

Onto my third point
Extend my second contention which he drops, because the senator won't be heard because of partisanship. he wouldn't even have a chance. A third party canidate can no longer get his opinion across, and if he cannot what is the point of congress?

I don't know how long my opponent has been on ddo, but ask danielle or roylatham or kelptin or theskeptic or brian. look at almost all debates, if you started it, you have the burdon of proof.

Ok, on his contention,
1. I support different opinion, I should support third party canidates, but with only two parties, you don't have that many options. you can pick a side and everything on that side comes with it. The two parties are oppressing all third-party canidates.

I reserve the right to clarify and vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
liljohnny818

Con

Historical: Yes but we're trying to examine a historical scope

"The debate isn't about the validity of the block. The bills may have sucked afterwards, but the main reason they were blocked is because of partisanship. We aren't debating whether it was justifed. The bills blocked were blocked because of partisanship, this offput congress and therefore undermined their progress."
No. Just no. He says that it blocked because of partisanship. Does he provide evidence? No. That's like me saying the sun rises in the morning because I eat waffles. Just because I provide a pretty link of the sun rising doesn't mean I get the freedom to put any explanation of said event on it that I want. He provides no evidence of WHY the party lines cause the blocks and not the validity of the block. Argument dropped.

Second point: Of course everyone has bias. I have bias. You have bias. Bias doesn't mean you can't make a good decision. The reason debate.org allows the voter to provide a before and after opinion is to see if you can change minds even with bias. But again he MAKES HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS that "people reject others because of their party." So judge, he's basically saying if you vote for me, than it's because you have strong party ties to the neg and you don't have a conscious mind of your own that can make rational decisions. His point is offensive and irrational.

Third point: A senator can be heard without partisanship. If the name Ralph Nader rings a bell to you, than that's enough proof that a third party candidate can make a difference.

Also, I'm sorry I wasn't clear with "DDO" guidelines, in any other debate environment the affirmative has the burden of proof just like the prosecution does in a courtroom. Excuse my little experience on DDO. Regardless I still win because his rebuttal to my point fails.

His rebuttal: You don't have many options.
You can go and vote for a third party candidate right now. Constitutional rights ftw. Unless you live in some highly unconstitutional state, I hope you are free to vote for who you want. Regardless, he misses the whole purpose and impact of my point that intellectual discourse and discussion is the only means of progress. That's why we're having this debate now is it not?

Voters:
You vote Neg because my opponent pretty much insults anyone who makes a rational decision. My opponent's logic, without evidence, is that if one votes for something than they are stubborn and tied to party lines. This really have no evidential or rational basis. I will concede that obviously party members have a bias to their own party. If they didn't there wouldn't be much reason for them to be in that party. But simply being in a party doesn't cloud your judgment. It's insulting to really anyone to say that if they vote one way they are stubborn and stuck to party lines. Judge, remember this: According to my opponent's logic, if you vote for me than you will be stubborn and not listening to the other side and oppressing him. If you don't think this is the case than vote AFF. Obviously a two-sided debate is a great way to arrive at a conclusion. Why does debate.org exist if that's not the case? He has not addressed THESE arguments and do not let my opponent bring up new arguments and evidence in his next speech as I will not have a speech to counter. Since I have proved all these things, vote AFF.
boredinclass

Pro

Cool, so let's start with a line-by-line and then just end off

>>He says that it blocked because of partisanship. Does he provide evidence? No. That's like me saying the sun rises in the morning because I eat waffles. Just because I provide a pretty link of the sun rising doesn't mean I get the freedom to put any explanation of said event on it that I want. He provides no evidence of WHY the party lines cause the blocks and not the validity of the block. Argument dropped.

-Alright, he obviously didn't read any of my sources, then he would know that the specific bills were rejected because of partisanship. Vote pro, because he drops this argument entirely

>>>Bias doesn't mean you can't make a good decision. The reason debate.org allows the voter to provide a before and after opinion is to see if you can change minds even with bias. But again he MAKES HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS that "people reject others because of their party." So judge, he's basically saying if you vote for me, than it's because you have strong party ties to the neg and you don't have a conscious mind of your own that can make rational decisions. His point is offensive and irrational.

Second, of course regular people are willing to change their mind, but let me offer you an option. Change yur opinion and lose your job, or keep your bias and keep your job. You probably chose "keep my job". This is the option congressmen have. He never provides warrants to say that my argument is illogical. We're talking about congress. This links because it is for congress. Since he drops it, you must vote pro

>>>Third, A senator can be heard without partisanship. If the name Ralph Nader rings a bell to you, than that's enough proof that a third party candidate can make a difference.

- First off, Nader isn't in congress. This argument has no link to my contention. This point goes unanswered in the last speech, therefore you vote pro on it too.

>>You can go and vote for a third party candidate right now. Constitutional rights ftw. Unless you live in some highly unconstitutional state, I hope you are free to vote for who you want. Regardless, he misses the whole purpose and impact of my point that intellectual discourse and discussion is the only means of progress. That's why we're having this debate now is it not?

-ok, you can vote for a third party canidate. but they aren't going to win, because of the repression of the democrats and republicans.

Since he did it I'll do it

Voting issues
I will literally write your ballot
Most convincing arguements- pro- RFD? because Con doesn't answer any of pros points. his only rebuttal is that- "they don't make sense to me"
Most reliable sources- pro- RFD- con didn't even have any sources
Conduct- Pro- RFD- con refuses to recognize Burdon of proof and consistantly uses ad hominems and attacks the person instead of the argument examples include "You vote Neg because my opponent pretty much insults anyone who makes a rational decision"

The debate was won by me, even if you don't buy that congress is a game, you still vote for me, because I have proven with all the evidence from round 1 that partisanship has deterred bills frrom passing. It has skewed the timelines for legislation. Oh and I never said that you are stupid if you're rational, I just said that congress is a game, and it is different from real life, this is never brought up by the pro.

In conclusion because of a two-party system, congress has rejected bills, stepped on third party canidates, and made congress into an irrational mess. Vote pro
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
liljohnny818boredinclassTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate boredinclass had far more sources though
Vote Placed by eib10202 6 years ago
eib10202
liljohnny818boredinclassTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con just has horrible conduct
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
liljohnny818boredinclassTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
liljohnny818boredinclassTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not have good conduct at all. Probably because he hasn't been on the site for very long. Pro had real sources which Con chose to ignore. Also, even when Pro explained that Con had the BOP, Con did not respond to or refute Pro's arguments.