Resolved: The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party

C1: I've already addressed why Pro's statistics are meaningless in round 1 C1, and he has not disproven my claims. He also failed to address the evidence that the Fed is responsible for many of the changes in the economy, regardless of what the different parties do (round 3 C1). As Pro has not provided a single shred of actual evidence that the Democrats have better economic policies than the Republicans, this point remains tied. C2: Because I don't understand or care about climate science, I will concede that man-made global warming exists for the sake of the argument. However, his burden of proof is not merely to show that it exists, but to show that the Democrats' response to it, the cap and trade bill, benefits the American people overall. Earlier (round 2 C2), I provided evidence that the bill's effect on global warming would be negligible, and that the costs to the American people in terms of higher energy costs and lost jobs would be huge. Pro failed to respond to this evidence (some of the things he said don't even have to do with the US, like the Pacific island in danger of sinking, and are irrelevant), so on the basis of the evidence presented in this debate, we must conclude that the cap and trade bill is a bad policy for the American people. Since the Democrats support this policy and the Republicans oppose it, this point goes to the Republicans. C3: All of the specific deregulations my opponent mentions were voted for by overwhelming majorities in both parties. Pro says, "my opponent has yet to show us how the Democrats have done anything remotely similar that had such a disastrous effect on our nation. "—yes I did, in fact, I showed that they did the exact same thing, since they voted for the bill he blames the Republicans for. Since both parties have the exact same policies regarding the bills Pro mentions, this point remains tied. C4: Again, whether or not I concede parts of my opponent's arguments has no bearing on whether or Pro wins a contention. I admit that Obamacare results in greater coverage, but provided evidence showing that it won't improve actual health outcomes, which my opponent failed to address. I also provided evidence that the cost of Obamcare to businesses, individuals, and the taxpayers far outweighs the costs of bankruptcies that Pro claims it will prevent. As for deficit reduction helping the economy, even the stated figure is ~$150 billion over TEN YEARS. This is nothing compared to the damage increased healthcare costs to businesses and individuals will have on the economy, or the damage caused by the additional red tape (1099 forms mentioned earlier) businesses will have to deal with. Based on the evidence presented in this debate, Obamacare is clearly a bad policy. Since the Democrats supported it and the Republicans opposed it, this point goes to the Republicans. C5: I conceded that the Democrats were more supportive of the DADT issue than the Republicans. Pro's burden of proof remains—he has to show that the repeal of DADT helps the American people overall. Besides vague assertions about benefits that are "greater than the army itself," he has not done this, so this point remains tied. C6: As my opponent has not addressed my arguments here, I will restate them. "His claim that more members means that the Democrats' policies are in the best interests of the American people only holds if one assumes that 1) the American people know which policies are in their best interests and 2) the American people vote for whichever policies are in their best interests, rather than for other reasons. Both are extremely questionable, if not blatantly false, assumptions, so this point remains tied. " C7: Pro claims that the purpose of Congress is to pass "meaningful, moderate legislation. " While I would disagree—the real purpose of Congress is to put on a show for the voters, to trick them into believing that their interests are being served, rather than the interests of Congress' corporate masters—it doesn't matter. His burden of proof is not to show that Republicans are the "Party of No," but to show that the "moderate" legislation they oppose is good for the American people overall. It doesn't matter if a party undermines "the purpose of Congress itself"—what matters is if Pro has shown that the obstructionism of the Republicans is against the interests of the American people. Since he has not, this point remains tied. C8: I did not concede this point; I said it was a tie. Pro has failed to show that the Democrats are better for the American people than the Republicans in this area. Arguments that he has made, about the economy and regulation and such, were already made in other contentions. They don't count twice, so even if they were valid in the other contentions, they aren't here, so this remains a tie. C9: I do not "fail to grasp why we have taxes in the United States," as Pro claims. The reason we have taxes is the same reason we have any other form of theft—some people want money, but don't want to earn it. It is not anything like a country club fee—such fees are voluntary. Even if both governments and country clubs provide services, governments provide them after taking your money by force, while clubs provide them after convincing you to voluntarily give them your money. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether taxes are theft or not—what matters is whether or not Pro has fulfilled his burden of proof here. He claims that the Republicans lie about the death tax and Obamacare—which I addressed—but has not shown that their lies hurt the American people overall. Since I have shown that the policies they oppose are bad policies, it doesn't matter what tactics the Republicans use—if they oppose them, and the Democrats support them, then this point goes to the Republicans. C10: Previously, I explained why raising taxes on the rich would hurt the economy, using evidence from Clinton's tax hike. Pro failed to respond to this evidence, merely asserting that the Fed—which, in round 3 C1, I showed was incompetent about economic matters—opposes tax cuts. Since Pro failed to respond to my evidence that raising the top marginal tax rate would hurt the economy, this point goes to the Republicans. As for Democrats voting for the CFMA because they didn't read the bill—I can't imagine why Pro considers this a point in their favor. In addition, I provided evidence in round 3 C1 that the Fed, not deregulation, caused the recession, which my opponent failed to address. Regardless, the fact of the matter is, support for the bill was unanimous in both parties. So this (which really should be under C3) remains tied. Conclusion: C1-Economy-Tied C2-Environment-Republicans C3-Regulation-Tied C4-Healthcare-Republicans C5-Gay Rights-Tied C6-Party Strength-Tied C7-The Party of No-Tied C8-Republican vs conservative-Tied C9-Framing-Republicans C10-Taxes-Republicans Clearly, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.