America's Two Party System.

In this debate, my opponent has done nothing but insult me throughout, calling me names ("Mr. Straw"), accusing me of being nonresponsive and illogical, and saying that I'm so incompetant that I want to forfeit. What's awefully funny about this is the irony. In round three, for instance, he ran a clear strawman under the civil rights point about effectiveness, which he has since dropped. Another example is how he continues to be non-responsive to my round one argument about WHY civil rights are diminished under his model (aside from the odd unjustified assertion). It's one thing to say rude things about me. It's another to say rude things about me while doing those same things yourself.Furthermore, my opponent has been constantly trying to limit the scope of the debate to only the arguments he wants to see run. All three of his arguments are to do with implementation (as I've pointed out before), I rebutted all three of them, and then he says we agree on the implementation! Well, I don't agree.What my opponent wants to do:ABANDON CIVIL RIGHTS: Admitted in round two. Analysis from round one remains undisputed except by assertion. Putting that assertion into bold doesn't make it more true. STIFLE POLITICAL DISCOURSE: Dropped by my opponent this round.UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY: Function of the previous two.Why he thinks that's justified:PARTIES SHUT DOWN INDEPENDANT THOUGHT: This was a lie all along and con knew it - he accepted that people could happily be independants. He just thought that media scapegoating of independants was so strong that something needed to be done. Rather than actually fix this problem, however, he wanted to let the media scapegoat arbritrarily by making everyone into an independant. I showed why that's no better - politicians will just suck up to whatever media channels they can latch on to. More dangerously, it doesn't fix the problem of scapegoating in the media. It's the media that needs fixing, not the political system! My opponent can lecture me on analogies all he likes (despite it being patronising and silly) - nothing in his argument gives any convincing reason to "eradicate free political association" over "fixing biased media". I, for one, strongly believe in the latter option. In round two I also talked about how media bias is required if diversity of opinion is legal, so really my opponent wants to ban free thought as well. I wonder why he never responded to that point?Furthermore, my opponent admitted in round three that media bias comes from ideology, not political association. He keeps thinking they're the same thing, and accuses me of strawmanning when I point out they're not. That's why they're not called the conservatives or liberals as the case may be - many of them aren't. Honestly I'm starting to wonder if my opponent knows what a strawman is. A strawman is when you run an irrelevant argument, not a false argument. Disagreeing on a definition is semantics, not strawmanning. And it wasn't even me that started the semantics - this was my opponent's argument!To top it all off, I argued that people know bias exists. My opponent asserts that people are blinded, but he himself is living proof they are not. If all people were blinded by the media, he could not have instigated this debate.These were the major issues in the debate. Remember that my opponent has the BOP. They have failed to present any good justification for their model. Instead they have ignored my arguments, insulted me, and ran their own case that kept going all over the place with complex analogies, without engaging with my material except for the odd assertion. That's not enough to meet BOP. I've been proud to affirm.