The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

Cool, so let's start with a line-by-line and then just end off >>He says that it blocked because of partisanship. Does he provide evidence? No. That's like me saying the sun rises in the morning because I eat waffles. Just because I provide a pretty link of the sun rising doesn't mean I get the freedom to put any explanation of said event on it that I want. He provides no evidence of WHY the party lines cause the blocks and not the validity of the block. Argument dropped. -Alright, he obviously didn't read any of my sources, then he would know that the specific bills were rejected because of partisanship. Vote pro, because he drops this argument entirely >>>Bias doesn't mean you can't make a good decision. The reason debate. org allows the voter to provide a before and after opinion is to see if you can change minds even with bias. But again he MAKES HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS that "people reject others because of their party. " So judge, he's basically saying if you vote for me, than it's because you have strong party ties to the neg and you don't have a conscious mind of your own that can make rational decisions. His point is offensive and irrational. Second, of course regular people are willing to change their mind, but let me offer you an option. Change yur opinion and lose your job, or keep your bias and keep your job. You probably chose "keep my job". This is the option congressmen have. He never provides warrants to say that my argument is illogical. We're talking about congress. This links because it is for congress. Since he drops it, you must vote pro >>>Third, A senator can be heard without partisanship. If the name Ralph Nader rings a bell to you, than that's enough proof that a third party candidate can make a difference. - First off, Nader isn't in congress. This argument has no link to my contention. This point goes unanswered in the last speech, therefore you vote pro on it too. >>You can go and vote for a third party candidate right now. Constitutional rights ftw. Unless you live in some highly unconstitutional state, I hope you are free to vote for who you want. Regardless, he misses the whole purpose and impact of my point that intellectual discourse and discussion is the only means of progress. That's why we're having this debate now is it not? -ok, you can vote for a third party canidate. but they aren't going to win, because of the repression of the democrats and republicans. Since he did it I'll do it Voting issues I will literally write your ballot Most convincing arguements- pro- RFD? because Con doesn't answer any of pros points. his only rebuttal is that- "they don't make sense to me" Most reliable sources- pro- RFD- con didn't even have any sources Conduct- Pro- RFD- con refuses to recognize Burdon of proof and consistantly uses ad hominems and attacks the person instead of the argument examples include "You vote Neg because my opponent pretty much insults anyone who makes a rational decision" The debate was won by me, even if you don't buy that congress is a game, you still vote for me, because I have proven with all the evidence from round 1 that partisanship has deterred bills frrom passing. It has skewed the timelines for legislation. Oh and I never said that you are stupid if you're rational, I just said that congress is a game, and it is different from real life, this is never brought up by the pro. In conclusion because of a two-party system, congress has rejected bills, stepped on third party canidates, and made congress into an irrational mess.