America's Two Party System.

My opponent is trying to show that these parties should be abolished. My opponent has given this clarification in the comments. I will not argue that the Democratic and Republican parties are beneficial, but rather that the existance of parties is beneficial. One more clarification about the American political process. While the parties exist, they are niether mandated nor required. People can, and do, stand as independants (ie not attached to any political party) and still win elections. The person advocating a change to the status-quo accepted system has the burden of proof. Since I am defending the status quo of American politics and my opponent is advocating a change, it follows that my opponent has 100% of the burden of proof in this debate. Freedom of associationIf you ban political parties, you end people's right to political association. Simple as that. That's because a "party" is really nothing more than a political association, a big standard-bearer for an ideology. Politicians are supposed to worry about policies - and let's face it, the parties do not really represent any particular policies at all, just vague ideologies. That allows politicians under the status quo considerable freedom, as the parties are not constraining, and members are free to leave at any time anyway. What will happen under my opponent's model is that politicians will advocate not what they truely believe is best for America, but what will make them appear to not be in a political association with somebody else. If they vote the same way as another member in the senate a couple of times, they'll want to vote the other way next time to avoid jail. Holding any sort of uniform ideology would be impossible so long as at least one other politician holds that ideology. Voting the same way is the best way to detect political association, after all. Why is that bad? Because it means more divisive politics, less constructive policy, and ultimately, a worse America. That's not fair to the people, but most of all it's not fair to the politicians, many of whom would have entered politics to make a real difference. That's another disincentive my opponent's model will create. Furthermore, every association has the right to be political, thanks to freedom of speech. Therefore, any association could be instantly abolished on the quite legitimate claim that they might advocate something political. Ultimately it is not only the politician's freedom you take away. It is the people's freedom. America is supposed to be the land of the free - anything that takes away a right so fundamental as free association (which essentially means you can't associate with anybody for fear a court may rule that you could well have been discussing politics) would undermine all of America's strength and heritage. Besides that, freedom is an inherant good. It's no secret that free people are happy. Freedom of association is also guarenteed under international law as a human right we must all protect. DiscourseBeing able to work through issues, talk them over, and debate them, in the context of a particular ideology, is super-important. If this kind of political discourse does not happen, then agreement and consensus is unlikely to be reached. The problem is that reaching consensus - negotiating on the basis of voter support - has ALWAYS been at the heart of democracy. Take that away and just imagine what politics would be like. Remember that democracy itself is a political association and ideology, advocated by many political parties around the world. How ironic for a political association to ban political association. That's all I have the characters for now. Next round I'll expand on the discourse point and rebut my opponent.