America would benefit from a new political party in power.

1. I apologize, but I do not see an error in my quotation. Can you please point out the difference between my wording and the correct wording for clarification or what you mean by "not worded correctly"? I honestly do not see an error. 2. I'm assuming, judging from your previous arguments, Pro, that you are imagining the "voice as the people" as the voice of the people who specifically share your ideals and views of what the right "solutions" are that solve the problems you are talking about. There have been countless debates on this site (and on many others, I am sure) that have raged about illegal immigration in some form, and to argue the topic with you would be a complete waste of time. The reason I highlight your second point in this manner is that, while the debate generalizes the term "party", the "party" that I believe you are talking about would be one that shares the same ideals as you. The example you provided in response to my question is also a perfect example as to why such a party would not be beneficial if they miraculously came to power. Here is why: firstly, there are issues that would stem from such a radical action such as building a wall like you talk about, at least in Texas [1]. Secondly, there's that huge national debt thing [2] that would probably skyrocket thanks to the cost of building such a behemoth structure ANYWHERE [3]. Third, what you are talking about as far as job creation would only be a temporary fix for the construction workers. To follow your logic, why doesn't the United States just build a bridge, a HUGE bridge for no apparent reason whatsoever (it would do as much good as that border wall you brought up, considering the fact so many illegals are already in our country) other than for it to just exist so that a bunch of unemployed people with no background in the construction industry could get up off their couches and do something? I mean, that would get people employed, right? I hate to be sarcastic, but the fact of the matter is that if the new party in question would share the same ideals as the ones you seem to be presenting, I can guarantee that it would NOT benefit America. Rather, it would be exponentially more detrimental to the common well being of the country than you consider the two current parties to be at the current time. To back this up, I will now quote my opponent: "This solution to my first example is easily solves the main problem, while also helping some of Americas other important problems at he same time. " No it didn't. There is no proof of this easily solving anything, except any worries the Chinese may have had of us paying off our debt. "This nor any other efficient solution to this problem has been accomplished by either party. " I really, really want to hear what statistics categorize THAT as an efficient solution. "Neither of these parties solve our Nation's leading problems efficiently. " According to whom? "It seems seems that my opponent would like to justify this fact by stating that these problems are here regardless of who is in power, when the truth is that the people that have been in power are the ones that put us in these situations in the first place. " Even if it is true that those who are in power now put us in this situation, whoever is leading the country in our hypothesized fantasy-future would still have to deal with them. You may have misunderstood me, but I cannot be sure due to your wording. "So it is time for a new party to step in the ring and throw on the gloves. " That's an opinion, not a fact. To someone who doesn't believe in the ability of two political institutions that have guided this country for the past hundred-or-so years to be the leading economy on the face of the Earth to fix the problems that you ADMITTED they have the tools to fix, then yes, it is time for a new party to step in the ring. But what if it's the gloves and not the fighter? This debate, as we know, was not over a change of ideals - it was over a change of party power in the politics of the nation. I would be presenting a whole different argument if this debate was about ideals - it appears to me that, instead, it is the discussion of a lack of patience and faith in leaders whom you may not agree with in your own ideals. We can't all be President. That's why there are two parties in the first place - because people disagree. 3. "This party would be filled with intelligent men and woman, men and women of all ages with fresh new ideas and also learned old wisdoms. " The only problem is that this is not a certainty. Assumption can lead to trouble if applied in high risk situations, such as the direction of a nation. Whose saying these new ideas would work? Who is saying they "learned" anything? I never said the eighteen year OLDS, plural, would be inexperienced - I was referencing the party as a whole. The "argument" my opponent saw through was non-existent - I was talking about the party itself, which my opponent has admitted to be "newly formed". In my mind, newly formed = inexperienced in the political spectrum as a party. "Neither party has demonstrated prowess in efficiently solving the majority of our nations problems. If my opponent disagrees with my opinion or statement, then I kindly request evidence that supports these two parties have demonstrated such prowess. " Evidence: (see source [4]) "The parents should be replaced not by an 18 year old teenager, but by a parent or parents that have always wanted to parent children and have always wanted to solve those children's problems. .. But were never given the opportunity. " If the "parents" have never parented, can you still call them parents? If they are completely new to the game, can you call them experienced? If they show no signs of bettering the child's life, should they be given an opportunity? "Why would my opponent assume such a thing? How would a a party that does not know what they are doing, overthrow a party that has been in power for over 100 years? " Two things: 1. This party would have little to no idea as to how to run a country, considering the fact they have never done it before as a whole. 2. There is no evidence showing a party like this taking power, and I believe I may have mentioned earlier that there is absolutely no way the scenario in which said party would overthrow other said party is supported by any evidence, especially since you have provided none. "The fact is that when a party does overthrow one of the two parties in power in America, they will have proven themselves and won the heart of America. " . .. .What facts do you have as to how said party would even dream of overthrowing one of the two parties in question? You haven't provided any! "This party will do this through painting a new vision of America for the people to see. " A new vision doesn't necessarily constitute a new party. You're right, Pro - visions change all the time. Parties do not. And the vision you have presented, as I have already touched on, would definitely not be beneficial to any America I know! "This is the party that will fix America. " I'm sorry . .. how would this fix America again? You have spent four rounds arguing as to how America is broken, but haven't delved into how this new party would be beneficial to America or "fix" it. I have yet to see burden of proof presented by Pro. I await my opponent's response! By the way, who says the parties in power now can't fix what is "broken"? If a party can come to power as my opponent describes, hey - anything is possible, right? It's clear to see they would have a better chance at correction then a party rooted in imagination - which is all this new party seems to be. [1] . http://notexasborderwall.com... [2] . http://www.brillig.com... [3] . http://articles.sfgate.com... [4] . http://www.perkel.com...