The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Two Party system is, in general a detriment the the progress of a democratic nation.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Geographia has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 354 times Debate No: 112690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Politics in a two party system are innately detrimental to societal progress for three main reasons.

REASON 1: Two Party politics are innately polarizing, if there are only two parties with a chance to win(be it "de facto" or "de jure") leads to the general opinion becoming increasingly partisan, with partisan politics comes disagreements, with disagreements comes stubbornness, with stubbornness comes gridlock, with gridlock comes a lack of progress.

REASON 2: Two Party politics tend to resist change, the one thing they will ever agree on, is that third parties shouldn't have a voice. Without a voice third parties have two routes, be absorbed or revolt and get crushed. As JFK said, "Those who don't make peaceful revolution possible, make violent revolution inevitable" which leads me to...

REASON 3: Two Party politics inevitably lead to a dictatorship, whether it be oligarchic(with America and cronyism), communistic(with Post-Tsarist Russia), fascistic(with Weimar Germany) when the two party system fails to answer all of the voices from which the populace speak, this leads to a a coup when a populist gets power, creating a "dictatorship" of the establishment where all of the rights intended to keep the republic afloat fall, creating the "Paltoesque" collapse of the republic.


I thank BrayBray for this debate. BrayBray had already posted his arguments. I went to a wedding this weekend, so I request he waive his R2 (though I personally don't mind) and I'll formally start.

My position is that while two party politics isn't ideal, but that it still has a net benefit to America. I will assume Bray is American.

The Two Party system is where there are two dominate the government [1]. "Detriment" means that it does not have a net benefit, and should be done away with with a more democratic option.

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent had failed to bring up the "Net Benefit" of our Two Party system, whilst saying there is one. For this I believe his entire argument falls, if he would give me an example I would have something to rebut, but at this point there is nothing.


I sense some miscommunication, as I intended to Accept R1 and start R2. But no matter. I intend to prove that the two party system is not a net detriment to America.

Pro's Reason 1:
Bray says that the two party system leads to partisan politics and that this will lead to gridlock and lack of progress. I don't believe Bray had provided proof of this, or that even if the Two Party System does lead to "disagreements comes stubbornness, with stubbornness comes gridlock, with gridlock comes a lack of progress," that it alone causes more gridlock then other systems.

Pro's Reason 2:
Pro says that the Two Party system resists change. I would disagree to this, as there are multiple examples of the two parties realigning and I would argue that the Republican party "changed" when Trump utterly swept Ted Cruz and other Establishment Republicans aside, such as Marco Rubio. Eventually, the Republicans would support Trump. Realignment is a well established concept in politics.

Ross Perot had saw some success, but ultimately failed to get long term results. It's easy to paint

Reason 3: Pro says that the Two Party System leads to dictatorship, but doesn't say why this is, or why. Pro says that because the Weimar Republic, Russia and other such nations had Two Party Systems, that since America has a Two Party System, that will lead us to a dictatorship. This is false, as for example America is a farcry from the Weimar Republic and other conditions lead to Hitler's rise in power.

With the Two Party System, the two parties can and have realign with their party base.
Debate Round No. 2


Realignment is something that happens, yes. But the resistance to change still stands, because it took an outsider, whether it be from within (With Donald Trump) or without (with Ross Perot) to change it.
Also, your attack on my first reason I will admit was good by not good enough. I figured I wouldn't need evidence (seeing society as it is today as evidence enough) but since you asked I will offer examples, first the Civil Rights Movement the main disagreement came from a century before (I'm assuming you live in america so I don't need to explain further) this led to stubbornness, although not immediately with compromise after compromise, patience thinning each time the gridlock, leading to an "earthquake" (the ACW), back to CRM the "Democrats" tried to block the civil rights acts, time and time again, to the point that the party scismed not once but twice. Every time leading to a power vacuum that someone had to fill this leads me to..
Weimar, the republic used to have a two party system (with SPD and Zentrum), when the SPD went into freefall the power vacuum couldn't be filled by Zentrum. I think we both know what happens next.
Not to mention, my opponent has still failed to mention a "Benefit" of the two party system.
For this I can only see a pro vote in this debate.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.