America would benefit from a new political party in power.

---Preface--- Before I begin my argument, I fully accept and understand my opponent's re-structuring of his argument and thank him for being so polite in stating a change to his overall position before initializing this debate. The way I will organize this round and all rounds is the future is by starting with a preface or clarification (if necessary), then continuing with my own arguments by the refutation of my opponent's claims while supplying additional information to support said refutations and the furthering of my positions. That being said, let me now begin my argument. ----Arguments---- Firstly, my opponent and I took opposite sides of the notion that a new political party is a necessity in America at the current time and that it would be beneficial to the American people to come into existence. My opponent starts off his whole argument by saying, "Overall, the two-party system . .. to solve the nation's problems. " The first thing he does in reference to the previously mentioned topic that is currently one half of the debate is grant the fact that the two party system has served us well overall, and this would be true. Since around 1850, America has operated under the two party system of Democrats and Republicans [1]. This means that, for the most part, every decision that has been concluded and enacted through the legislature of the United States has been enacted by one of these two parties, at least after the conclusion of the Civil War and the country's subsequent reformation. The only exception to this rule as far as the American Presidency is concerned was the bid for election by former United States President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 when Roosevelt campaigned as a member of his Bull Moose Party. The point proven by this is that the two parties, at least in the past, have definitely been able to supply and uphold the most ample needs of the American people. In this same opening sentence, my opponent stated that there have been "great times in American history . .. nation's problems. " I view this somewhat as a point that needs to be clarified further by my opponent. Yes, there have been times of political discord and other strained operations between the two parties, but this occurs frequently in the history of nations - the two party system, specifically consisting of Democrats and Republicans, was able to resolve those problems then (or at least reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating) and I see now as just another occurrence of an extremely similar, if not identical, political situation. Same game, different players. The next paragraph in my opponent's argument begins with the statement that it is once again time for a political realignment. He proposes that it would be best for a brand new party to replace either the Democrats or the Republicans as one of the two major political parties in power in America. He offers opinions on why this would be necessary, referencing the economy and the supposed political inability of the two parties currently in power to solve the problems presented to us. He says, "Neither party can afford to take the steps . .. politically volatile problems. " My understanding of that particular argument is that my opponent is trying to say that both parties are inept at solving problems, whatever these problems may be. My counter to this, and my opponent's entire supporting argument for his first point, is that: even with all of these supposed flaws, how would a new party that replaced either the Democrats or Republicans fare any better than the party they replaced? If there is, as you say, a core, fundamental, unavoidable disability at being able to solve problems in our 'political climate', how would a party that was just formed, and whose experience in infantile in nature compared to the history and legacy of the party it just (miraculously) replaced, be able to change a climate a party with a hundred-odd years of attempts could not? Idealism, attitude, and policy is only half the battle - the main point that would have to be change between the new party and the party it replaced would be the new party's ability to co-exist and communicate with the party of opposition, and I frankly see no evidence supporting nor confirming how that would have even the slightest bit of happening. How would America benefit from a brand new party in power, inferior to its predecessor in terms of experience on a political stage and activeness in the politics of the United States, when the same problems that existed with the previous two parties continue to be roadblocks? The answer is, quite frankly, it wouldn't. All of what I just argued is, of course, based on the fact that the two parties we have right now fit my opponent's claims - the reasons for why they do not will now be presented in the next stage of my argument that refutes my opponent's Point 2 claim. The first thing that is necessary when considering the 'most important needs' of the population majority is to define what these most important needs actually are. So, what are the 'needs' of the population majority at this time in our country? Besides the needs provided by the U. S. constitution, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what do the American people 'need'? The definition and specifics of what the American people have needed, need now, and will need in the future vary, depending on the time period in which the topic is being discussed. For the time period in which we live in currently (and the time period in which this debate focuses entirely on), my opponent seems to consider the economy chief among the needs of the people. He starts off this argument by making more grand statements, such as his entire opening paragraph of his Point 2 contention. He mentions how the parties are "failing the American people" and how "neither Republicans or Democrats have any "wins" on their resume". I really would like to know: what constitutes a "win"? What does my opponent mean by "so far"? He goes on to mention how the two parties in power focus on "winning the 24-hour media cycle", among other things. This should all be treated as sheer speculation, considering the fact most of these statements are generalizations to why the country is broken and why we need someone, or someones, new to fix it - all without specifying past generalities what is broken in the first place. Little changes from my opponent's first paragraph to his second. One of the things I would like to point out, however, is the part where my opponent states, "The low point, for now . .. or their policies. " This is simply fallacious. Data shows that the public/electorate did indeed like one of the 'leaders'. An 'ungovernable hung parliament" said last federal election certainly was not [2]. The rest of my opponent's argument contains more broad generalizations of opinionated viewpoints on the state of politics in our country without the basis of much fact, such as "None of this is being managed well" or "Unfortunately, it seems that . .. America what it needs right now. ". He concludes by saying that America is in need of a new political party . .. without exactly specifying why. The facts are that a new party: I. Would still have to deal with the remaining 'old ' party in place. II. Would face the same challenges the party it replaced faced, with tons less experience and political history. III. Would be operating with an idealism new to a landscape not exactly too favorable to the success of new ideals [3]. With no proof supporting his claims, the burden of proof still remains for my opponent to show as to how a new party would even begin to help America, when it most obviously would not. [1] . http://www.gop.com... [2] . http://www.cnn.com... [3] . http://www.edgate.com...