Washington D.C. is broken.

Greetings, Cooperman, I expect this will be a stimulating debate. Unlike yourself, I am unfamiliar with the various 'types' of debate. As far as I'm concerned, a debate is a debate is a debate. Each debater should, in my opinion, make their points however they see fit. Perhaps that kind of debate has a name. Either way, that's the type we shall be having. With that out of the way... First my opponent defines Washington D.C. and broken. I have no qualms with the definitions he gave, and so I shall also use them. I'd like everyone to keep in mind his definition, "needing repair," for broken. I'll now respond to each of his contentions: My opponent's first contention is that not enough people participate in voting in the US. First, I would like to bring everyone's attention back to the definition of broken. Broken means that something is in need of repair; however, for something to necessitate repair, there must be a means by which repair might be attained. I am making the claim that there is no way to fix apathy within a democratic system. Any efforts to force people to vote are in and of themselves acting against the democratic process. I'll provide an analogy to perhaps explain what I mean a bit better. Suppose there is a cup, and it holds 4 liquid ounces. Suppose, too, that the owner of said cup drinks 8 liquid ounces of milk at each meal. While this cup is certainly not a very good cup, it is in no way in need of repairs. It's simply a bad cup for that use, and its owner will have to either deal with the trouble of refilling it in the middle of a meal or simply buy a completely new cup. Repairing it is not an option, and therefore claiming that his cup is broken or in need of repairs is entriely false. My opponent's next contention is that our government is the wrong type. Our government has perhaps done some things it would have been better not to do. However, there is no 'better' type of government. As unfortunate as it might be, not everyone is perfect - including elected officials. Their mistakes are not the mistakes of the system. The system is not broken, we just got screwed with bad leaders. More efficient types of government are often not fair enough, fairer governments are often not as efficient. It's a trade-off between efficiency and fairness, and this just happens to be where we are right now. My opponent says "As of now, nobody is doing anything to fix the problems." He also says that rising up against political leaders who have made these mistakes is not what he's advocating. I ask him this: just what ARE you advocating? As I said in response to your first contention, something needs to be repairable in order to need repairs, and it seems you're once again complaining that we're stuck with a 4-oz cup from which drink 8 oz of milk. You're not claiming that it's needing repair, you're claiming that it's just a bad system that doesn't work correctly. The last contention my opponent brings up this round is that the US Government has stopped caring about our well-being. He brings up political parties as a supposed problem, but a party system is not legislated. Political parties simply arise out of people thinking similar to one another and forming a group. Should this be banned? Should we not be able to identify ourselves with a group of ideals we agree with? Is it not ok for me to call myself republican, democrat, libertarian, etc? Once again, my opponent has not said how such a 'problem' would be fixed, and there is no immediately apparent way to fix such a thing, so he's complaining about a 4-oz cup again. He claims that the government is spending too much policing the world. He claims that the UN is supposed to do that, and that they aren't doing it. I ask then: would it be better to take matters that need attention into our own hands or to simply ignore them, claiming that it's someone else's job, knowing that it's not getting done? It probably depends on your value system. Just as a blue cup might be preferred by some to an red cup. Some prefer one, some prefer the other, but neither person can claim the other cup is broken simply because it's not how they like it. Similarly, my opponent has acknowledged that policing of the world should occur, he just doesn't think it should be our government doing it. However, no one else is, so it's a matter of taste whether we should or should not be doing it ourselves. And having distaste for something does not mean it is broken. My opponent claims that the government has lost sight of what it's "supposed" to do. However, it is my opponent doing the supposing here. He supposes the cup would be better off green, and I suppose it's better to keep it red. A difference in taste cannot constitute something being 'broken.' Here's where I'd usually have my offense, making new points, but it seems I've already shown above that the system cannot be considered 'broken.' Ergo, end of the round. I'll just say that I hold that the US Government is a robust system that, while it may not always acheive favorable results, will usually tend towards doing the right thing. Wrong decisions will exist, as perfection does not exist, but any correctible decisions will eventually be self-corrected. Therefore, any negative government decisions are simply a natural phenomenon that exists in every government, and do not constitute a broken system. I hope that was somewhat comprehensible, I often struggle with having arguments the opposite thereof. o.o