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

Why republicans should never hold ANY govt. position

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  
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: 3/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 100777
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Republicans are the party of Trump. Their rampant disregard for working class America, minorities, and more should NEVER be represented on government.


My opponent didn't really offer much argument in round 1, so I won't do much either to keep things fair. I would like to ask my opponent to offer good arguments in the next round so that there is more to discuss.

Now, I will state some generalities as well, since my opponent did. Due to that both parties, democrats and republicans, are pretty terrible, I don't want either to have complete control of all branches of government, thus republicans would be necessary to stop the democratic agenda, perhaps we should have congress be republican controlled and the presidency democratic controlled, and democrats are necessary to stop the republican agenda. I believe both are detrimental to the United States, and we need a divided government in order for nothing to get done that is harmful for the US.

So, while we have a two-party system, I believe republicans in the government are necessary.

It should be noted that I am not a republican, nor do I exactly support republicans. I'm actually a socialist myself, so I don't have a bias in favor of republicans.
Debate Round No. 1


Saying there needs to be a balance of power is downright stupid.

As I said, Republican ideology is fundamentally hateful and bad for America. It deserves no representation in ANY form.


I don't dispute that the republicans are awful. Democrats are awful too though. Democrats and republicans both support the wealthy, for the most part. Both have been shown to bail out the wealthy corporations, both tend to do what their donors want, etc. As this study shows, rich elites have the most influence over our government[1], and this is regardless if there are republicans or democrats in power.

So until we get a viable third party that isn't bought and sold by the wealthy, we need a divided government. A divided government means we would have 1 or more branches of the government of a different party. As I suggested, I think congress should be republican-controlled, the presidency should be democratic controlled, and the supreme court should be a tie in my opinion. So, 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate.

This is the best combination because it prevents terrible policies from being advanced, and it means the federal government gets less done which is a good thing. We should leave things up to the states anyways.

Debate Round No. 2


You're still missing the point.
I dont need this


Well, I did argue why republican ideas, even though they are terrible, should be represented in government.

You seem to have given up on the debate. Why not argue more for why they should not have representation? Why not try arguing against what I brought up?
Debate Round No. 3


blah blah blah its like im talking to a f*cking brick wall.
forget it


What, were you expecting me to concede this easily? You offered no good argument so far. You haven't even proved your claims that they disregard the working class and minorities. I would agree with you, but you have offered weak points so far.

I'm not just a brick wall, I do change my opinion from time to time. The most revent change in opinion had to do with the minimum wage. I used to be a supporter of the minimum wage, but now I'm not. Then years ago I used to be a right-wing libertarian, now I'm a libertarian socialist. I do change my view if I realize I am wrong and have insufficient facts to back things up.

You just haven't offered any evidence or facts, but merely opinion. Opinion doesn't persuade me.
Debate Round No. 4


Whatever, c*nt


My opponent has resorted to name calling now. I believe I should be voted for with arguments, because I actually offered something besides just opinion, as well as awarded conduct.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rsz42 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although it will be 113 days before my vote means anything, I'll still vote because this topic had caught my eye. Being a Conservative myself, I had my own beliefs before reading the arguments, but I think any voter could agree that Con takes this debate by a longshot. Con had better conduct, mostly because he wasn't name calling (brick wall, c*nt, etc.) or openly (but censored) cursing in the debate rounds. Con had more convincing arguments, mostly because Con actually gave more information than insults, unlike Pro. Neither side had used sources, so therefore I did leave that spot tied.

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