The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

should parties be allowed?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 66893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




American is in a divide. The two major parties the democrats and Republicans have created a gridlock and made our legislature nonfunctional. These parties have created teams almost that will vote against things just to piss off the other parties. Also some of the participants in these parties no longer serve the people who voted for them but rather appeal to the higher ups on the political ladder. Lastly many people join these parties purely for money and support and i would be better if the federal government provided money for elections so people like independents would have an equal chance when competing against democrats and republicans.


I stand in favor of allowing parties to exist for three major points of contention:

1. Parties allow for unity.

2. Parties, by nature, are not bad.

3. America is moving away from the two-party system

Back to my first contention, parties allow for unity. By definition, a political party is "an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members." As we can see, political parties are a means of many individuals to gather together and unite with other individuals who share similar ideals on government, the economy, social issues, foreign policy, etc. Parties are the main way in which individuals can identify their belief system as similar to that of a candidate. People united in their beliefs have a strong voice, and political parties help ensure that these voices be heard.

As shown in my previous contention, parties have multiple benefits, the source of unity being the most prominent among these benefits. This is why the parties were designed, to help better the interests of their members, rather than to cause gridlock. The parties themselves are not bad; it is the two-party system which is flawed. For example, Germany uses a five-party system, which has proven efficient and successful [Source 1]. It forces compromises and cooperation among parties in order to get a majority. This system has proven successful because when the parties are forced to work together, they work for the common interest of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party. If they work solely for the interest of the party, they will be outvoted on legislation and lose votes during elections. The fault is in our system rather than in our parties.

Finally the third contention, America is moving away from a two-party system. America has, throughout our history, had many different parties in power. Initially it was the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists. Eventually the Anti-Federalists split into the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs. Later Theodore Roosevelt led the Progressive Party. It should come as no surprise then, to find that a new party is rearing its head in American politics. A new poll shows that 22% of American voters lean Libertarian [Source 2]. I’ll generalize the Libertarian Party’s views with an oversimplification, but they more or less are a party that holds conservative ideals of government, economics, and foreign policy, while holding liberal ideals on most social issues. This party has already made its way into DC. Although Ron and Rand Paul are both technically Republicans, both are considered Libertarian by themselves, voters, and their congressional colleagues. On top of this, the Libertarians have seen some success in gaining political influence in local and state levels [Source 3] and are projected to continue on this path toward growth [Source 4].

For these reasons, I urge the voters to vote Pro. Thank you.

Source 1:

Source 2:

Source 3:

Source 4:

Debate Round No. 1


jackthesnack forfeited this round.


Pull through my arguments, and I continue to urge PRO voting! Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2


jackthesnack forfeited this round.


Again please pull through all of my points of contention. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
The problem isn't the parties themselves, every world view needs some upper representation, the problem is that we only have two to pick from. Democratic and Republican views don't universally cover the potential views of the people, and many are forced to pick a side even though they disagree with both. What we need is a parliament type system where multiple groups vie for say and represent different views. Most people would say that the more voices there are, the slower the system moves, but if the two parties can't ever agree, the system stops. Like any good system, when a debate reaches a standstill, a third party can always jump in and sway the conclusion to one side or the other. We have independents, but it's unlikely they will ever have as much say as the two major parties.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture