America's Two Party System.

ImplementationI have already proved why implementation is definitely a part of this debate, and furthermore, how regardless of how my opponent's model is implemented, my points stand, proving that my points have nothing to do with implementation. Regardless of how it is done, for instance, abandoning political parties means the death of freedom of association, which is bad. Civil RightsAfter I made my case on this in round one, my opponent answered that "I agree with you on this issue" but declared it a "different debate" because civil rights would be "Abandoned - not abolished". I thus revised my original argument to state that abandoning civil rights is just as bad as abolishing civil rights. Either way you don't have civil rights, which is fundamentally a bad thing. Now my opponent has asserted two short attacks. First he asserts that he isn't proposing abandoning civil rights. If you look back to round two, you'll see him admit that's exactly what he's proposing. If you look back to round one, you'll see my proof that his model is exactly this. He says that dropping party affiliations doesn't affect people's ability to convene and talk, but in round one I proved that it did. Second he asserts that he doesn't care about whether his alternative is effective, and tells me to stay focused. Ironically, the only person who doesn't have any focus is the one who accused me of saying his proposal was ineffective, when I blatantly didn't. Effectiveness has been mentioned twice in this debate - both times it was by my opponent. Political parties are essential if we want freedom of association. The point stands. Independent thoughtMy opponent tells us that this point isn't about who to blame. In that case, he accepts that it is wrong to blame the party system. It follows from this that changing the party system won't make it any more or less easy to allow independent thought. They'll get negative press and become puppets without parties also, but puppets of a new master - puppets of the press themselves. I also gave clear analysis that this wasn't a significant problem due to the number of happy independents. DivisivenessMy opponent thinks I am running a strawman because he distinguishes parties controlling media to media bias being enabled by clear divisions, such as "conservatives" and "liberals". Ironically, since there is no "conservative" or "liberal" party in the USA, my opponent is arguing against ideologies not parties, and is thus running a strawman himself. I interpreted the argument in the only way that is consistent with the resolution, and I don't think it's valid to say I'm running a strawman on that basis. Media has just as much power over people when there are no political parties. As even my opponent admitted, the power of the media comes from their ability to distinguish ideology, not political association. Next my opponent proves that under the status quo there is "intellectual freedom despite opinionated reporting". I agree entirely. That's why there's no problem - people KNOW that the bias is there and account for it. Finally, he thinks that it is the existence of parties that allows us to say "Romney is evil". Actually I could say that with or without parties. DiscourseMy opponent never really engaged with my analysis from round one, but I'm happy just to rebut what my opponent has to say. What my opponent instead does is two things. First he answers a small portion of my analysis by saying that he doesn't know what to say, except to reread what he wrote on divisiveness. I guess that's his way of saying "conceded". Then, strangely, he attacks me for not addressing his argument on this, which he labels "Oppression of Thought". Yes I did, I said my opponent was missing a significant causal link. ConclusionMy opponent does not control the bounds of the debate, yet still I have followed them where he has not. Still my points stand.