Political Parties In The Goverment

Thank you for making this an intellectually stimulating and competative round. I will start on the line-by-line, directly adressing statements you have made, then I will move on to extend arguments i've made.1. Responding to your first few claims, the rhetoric you're using relies on the truth of common conception. You claim "a blind person can see parties tear apart the nation", however, in the 1800's, such a claim could have read "even a blind man can see the malicious intentions of athiests". Fundamentally, the argument you're making is self fulfilling. Because people believe it is true, it is true. My whole advocacy differs from the perception that has become somewhat common that parties are the cause of evil(a) I certainly believe I can understand where you are coming from. However to the judges, I would like to point out that there isnt much interaction on your part with my case. Rather you make your initial claim but do not warrent it well enough to be interactive. Judge, you should prefer my warrants because they provide direct links and explinations as to why my end claim is true. The data used by the negation relies on unreliable sourcing based in common belief.2. In response to the claim "Have you noticed that the map of votes for either a Democratic or Republican President rarely ever change?" I would first respond by pointing out that this is absolutely not true. In the 1980's, only 30 years ago, almost every state voted Republican. In 2008, Virginia swayed democrat for the first time in a very long time. Many states are unpredictable in their outcomes. Otherwise presidential elections would literally not be competative.(a) Additionally, I fail to see how your advocacy changes this. It doesnt do good just to make a claim that there is a problem without offering solvency. Ultimately, your solution doesnt solve this problem. Creating a plurality of parties that eventually conceeds to two candidates through the congregation of votes doesnt seem like it's conducive. Judges, in the absense of warranted analysis in terms of solvency, I must ask that you disregard this.(b) There is an additional link turn here: By allowing for parties with varying degrees of support, parties will likely find they do not have money to run campaigns all through the nation. The multiplicity of political parties means that money is not congregated in 2, rather it is spread out. As result, parties will find regional support. This makes the very problem you've talked about worse. The two parties today have to appeal to a national audiance. In a world of the alternative vote, politicians only need to be regionally distinct, while holding ideologies similar to a winning candidate (so as to be preferred high enough on the ballot) to win. This means that elections will ignore national issues, and parties will not be competative, instead they will simply remain in regions.3. You claim people don't turn out to vote because they feel that their vote doesnt matter. I would contend this is a misconception. A brief done by the University of Montreal found that "Other things being equal, more politically knowledgeable citizens are more likely to vote. Whenever it is tested, researchers find a positive relationship with voting and other forms of political participation for virtually every indicator of political knowledge. For example, a simple test conducted on the author’s behalf us ing data from the huge Roper Social Capital Benchmark Surveys , controlling for education, sex, race, marital status, religion and group membership , 1 showed a stronger relationship between voting and political knowledge than with other characteristics such as political trust, efficacy and eve n interest." (http://www.cses.org...). This means that political awareness is the most important link to voter turnout, moreso than belief in responsiveness. Extend my arguments that parties increase political awareness, as this goes conceeded. Therefore, because you have given me the link, that political parties increase awareness, and I have provided evidence that awareness is the most important factor, judge, you must prefer neg.4. Responding to the claim that tyrranny wont come from the absense of parties.(a) This is not a sufficient warrant analysis. You don't explain why this wouldnt be true outside of "well think about it", which isnt a good paradigm for discussion(b) governments lacking opposition lack the inherent ability for dissenters to express voice. This in it of itself is repressive.5. Your arguments about corruption are not solved by your advocacy.(a) The video you presented claimed that it also defaulted to the two party system(b) Corruption is linked to power far more easily than it is linked to the two party system specifically(c) In order to win this point you must provide analysis as to why this corruption is not an inherency of the political system, and why it is uniquely caused by the two parties.On CaseAdvantage 21. The negative fundamentally misses the warrent of this argument. This is not a claim that suddenly, tyrants will rise and democracy as a whole will be replaced by despotism. This claim shows that i. Dehumanization and marginalization already exist and ii. Removing the access to information and participation decreases the voice of the marginalized, further entrenching them(a) My opponent makes claims casting doubt on the probability of this impact, but this impact can be seen in the US today and throughout history. Slaves barred from political participation where marginalized. Women didnt have the right to vote until the early 20th century, and temperance movements in the past repeatedly failed, but succeeded when they were given the vote. This shows that the rejection of such was solely based in the lack of voice women had. Lastly, look to the LGBTQ community today. Many politicians are blatantly offensive in their understanding of such populations. These people are highlighted because they are LGBTQ, they are seen as statistics, their life is viewed as holding that identity. Rather than being multifaceted humans, they are just defined by sexual orientation.(b) My impact analysis goes conceeded. Value to life is more important than any other impact. Judges evaluating debate from a tabula rosa mindset must vote affirmative on this alone, as only the aff solves for value to life, and the claims go conceeded.2. Extend accross the warrants made in my second advantage, which go largely unresponded to (although counterwarrants are made), and extend the internal links, which go conceed, giving the affirmative access to the impacts.Advantage 11. My opponent accepted my framework, which asks us to look at democracy throughout the world as a whole rather than just in the US. However, my opponent's responses to this argument completely disregard other countries. This makes the affirmative warrants ultimately the most preferable.2. The links go conceeded. Look to the evidence provided above. Because both a. Political parties increase voter awareness and education and b. voter awarness is the most important factor in voter turnout, you must prefer my impact claims as the two party sytem is the internal link to voter responsiveness.(a) No counterwarrant is provided as to how the alternative increases awarness, while a warrant against such a claim is made. Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent. You are definitely very educated and this has so far been extremely stimulating. Keep up the passion!