America would benefit from a new political party in power.

As my opponent did, I will not start any further arguments in this round. He is right - we COULD go on for another five rounds, and, who knows, we might at some point in time. My final refutations and conclusions. .. . 1. My opponent missed the meaning of my quote entirely. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of construction workers already employed - it takes a lot of training and expertise to go into that field, as my opponent said. The fallacy I was attempting to illuminate in my opponent's argument was that a border wall could just be constructed by people with little to no training. How many of the unemployed, or the people that this building would seek to employ, are certified construction workers or have background in the field of construction? I made, or at least did not intend to make, any "low blows", and I was most certainly not trying to be smug. I believe my opponent may have simply misunderstood. The "bridge for no reason" part was an attempt to draw a comparison between the border wall and something as likely to work - not to insult. I hope this clarifies any confusion. 2. This is no grand assumption. The fact that, for the entire debate, my opponent has consistently brought up reasons for why a new party is needed in HIS opinion and why the country is failing in HIS opinion leads to the simple fact that he is illustrating why a party would benefit the country as it pertains to the correction of what is wrong in HIS opinion. It may not even be intentional - this debate is largely based on opinion, in general. What defines "benefit"? In whose opinion are we arguing from? There could be someone out there who is very happy with our country's state at the moment and think nothing could possibly be better. While many are not happy and want to see things improve, the purpose of this debate was for my opponent to illustrate how a new party would benefit our country and lead to benefits for said country. He presented this in accordance to his opinion - it doesn't matter if he wanted to or not. Morals, values, and perception come from how we were raised and our life experiences - he thinks one thing, I think another. We were supposed to illustrate these differences in this debate, which I believe we did! The problem was that my opponent did not back his arguments up with facts. There are literally no sources in any of his arguments to support the points demonstrated. As far as I know, all he said could be pure opinion. While this is not probable, what did he do to make me think otherwise? As far as him thinking this means he is a "childish, self centered simpleton" goes, I have no idea how he came to that conclusion, but if he did, I apologize. 3. The reason I used the terminology that I used to describe the scenario being presented by my opponent is due to the fact said terminology describes exactly what we are arguing about: the future is the future in which said party has taken over - the fantasy is that future ever coming to be. The statement quoted by my opponent was brutally taken out of context and used to paint me, his opponent, in a negative light, and I personally do not appreciate such indignation. 4. "I never said that all of my argument consists of facts, nor even the majority. My stance on this subject is one of opinion. " Then how does anyone know anything you are saying has a shred of truth? "An opinion that has been formed through an intelligent observation over the efficiency in leadership that the Republicans and Democrats have given America over the last 100 years. " How does anyone know that your observation is accurate with no proof, facts, sources or reference? I respect you as a speaker and you appear very intelligent, but just because something is presented well doesn't mean it's presented accurately. "This is my opinion not fact" So what you are saying is that we just conducted a five round debate with you basing your entire hypothesis. .. .off of opinion? Prior knowledge is one thing - having a complete example of an end result with no factual backing nor verification of presented information is something quite different. "It can never be blamed on the "gloves" it is always the fighter. " Let me end with a simple scenario: Two fighters are in a boxing ring. One of the fighters is a real heavyweight - a mighty beast of a man who has been raised on the very sport he participates in in this match. His challenger could be one of two people: one of the people is a battle scarred veteran, someone who had fought this champion a hundred times - some fights he had won, some fights he had lost. This, to him, was just another fight in the long history of the two men. However, there is now another man who wants to fight the heavyweight as well. This man is new to boxing, and even though he has been trained by a master of the sport, he is inexperienced and had never been in an official match before. No matter how many matches he has watched, no matter how much he has trained, he has still never physically been inside the boxing ring against a real opponent, let alone such a tough opponent as this particular heavyweight. This second fighter is weak, new, a young fish plucked from the stream of life and thrust into the middle of a pond with a vicious barracuda. He wants to fight against a brutal man that only the other, more experienced fighter, the one this young gun was competing with to partake in this particular fight, has ever beaten. My opponent is saying we choose the second, less experienced boxer against the champion, even though he has near to no chance at beating him. He's saying the second boxer will do better than the other boxer who could face the heavyweight, based off the fact he's "fresh" - something he never proved in this debate past opinion. Forgetting the fact no one would ever choose him over the first boxer in the first place, the second boxer is the one who will fight in this match. My opponent argues that he would win the fight … I'm telling you the second boxer would lose. This has been truly a great debate and I thank my opponent for participating and being as courteous as he was. He made some good points and I feel my spectrum has been widened due to hearing his opinion - even if that is all it was. Thank you for reading and for your interest in this debate.