Republicans don't deserve to be elected

According to Plagiarism.org My opponent has committed: "The Resourceful Citer" The writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-researched document."(1) Although I could win on the plagiarism argument, let me tell you why Republicans still deserve a chance. Might seem like nonsense but totally factual. Most sites cited by my opponent is blatant propaganda, which is unfortunate, but if I were to look up similar propaganda type sources then I would win. However such a victory would be a bitter one as I would have to compromise my neutral attitudes of the Republican party, Democratic party, and the fringe Libertarian party. In addition It has been time consuming reading my opponent's sources most of which are false, read his friend's works which is inappropriate for debate considering that the entire piece is riddled with propaganda, and rhetorical fallacies, but I digress. On the other hand the poem is entertaining as a fringe political satire. Oh and since I'm pressed for time the argument might seem incoherent but bear with me. Well my opponent's main argument condemning the economic policies of Republicans bashing them as fascists, total hypocrites, fight welfare healthcare and lowest wage, let corporations strip away workers rights. Well the mantra of deregulation started with Reagonomics, which was a heavily criticized policy by many moderates before it was implemented. Some of the moderates such as George H.W. Bush even went to calling it voodoo economics. However when it worked, it became the economic mantra of the Republicans although slightly changed with each Republican politician like the deregulation portion. (2) Now you think republicans don't deserve to be elected, but that's just your opinion. I'm not debating propaganda just the facts. Since there are little facts presented by my opponent for his case I might as well just cite history as an example of why its fair to say that they still deserve to be elected. Now look at history the Republican party has produced 18 American presidents out of 44 beginning with Abraham Lincoln. Democrats on the other hand produced 14 presidents starting with Andrew Jackson. 4 presidents were Democratic-republicans starting with Thomas Jefferson. Another 4 presidents were Whigs beginning with William Harrison. 1 was a Federalist (John Adams). 1 also had no party affiliation (George Washington).(3) Historically these Republican Presidents literally derail my opponents argument(4): Abraham ("Honest" Abe) Lincoln [Note Honest]; Abolished Slavery in the US with the 13th amendment. Vindicated Democracy, held the union together, refuted the Social contract principle as well as nullification, and is considered one of the greatest Presidents of the US. Ulysses S. Grant; US General who beat Gen. Lee ending the Civil War. As president he fought against and destroyed the first Ku Klux Klan even though his administration was riddled with corruption. Reshaped the Republican party in the south, and presided over Reconstruction providing suffrage for Colored folks. However, His reconstruction policies were systematically dismantled by the Democrats who came back to power and removed suffrage for colored folks with the Jim Crow Laws. Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt; Brought progressive reforms to the Nation trying to pass his Square deal. He aggressively attacked bad trusts improved the middle class and encouraged the conservationist movement. Dwight D. Eisenhower; Created the Departments of health, education, and welfare. Expanded Social Security and authorized the Interstate Highway system. Ronald Reagan Fixed the economy from a worse recession than the current recession, through his trickle down policies. He is also credited with negotiating an end to the Cold War with Mikhail Gorbachev. It was noted that his economic policies contributed heavily to the Clinton Surplus. Now each president refutes my opponent's argument through their accomplishments and policies. Abraham Lincoln and Grant refute the argument of Republicans being fascists as no fascist would defend democracy. Also why would they free the colored folks or grant them suffrage if they were fascists? Ever thought of that considering that most fascists exterminated those they considered a lesser race? Dwight D. Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt refutes, /they fight the funds for Welfare, Health Care, and the Lowest Wage not matching Mouths with Money ranks below the fairness gauge!/ Eisenhower practically created the departments of Welfare, Health, and education. Roosevelt destroyed many corporate monopolies instituting economic reform. Roosevelt also refutes /They also say resources are so vast they won't run out, yet oil's at peak and copper is a growing point of doubt. The proof the Earth is limited is not so hard to spot; just see the picture Sagan took -- the world's a pale blue dot! How stupid are the claims that global warming's not our fault? When ozone levels fell did chlorocarbon making halt; half-million times as much of cee-oh-two we've dumped to sky; to say it can't affect a thing is telling big-as* lie!/ Now Roosevelt was a prominent conservationist creating many national parks and prevented many forests from being exploited by man. Ronald Reagan, refutes, /"Deregulate!" is just a plot to things monopolize. Despite how History reveals they caused enormous strife, again they would show how they fail to value human life!/ His economic policies helped the US economy's expansion and helped the Clinton surplus. Abortion that's a simple issue that should have been resolved with Roe v. Wade unless the fringe wants evangelical support. (1) http://www.plagiarism.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.mademan.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...