Third Party Candidates are harmful towards the progression of America in this election.

My opponent's whole case was a compilation of points elaborating on the idealistic nature of our country. My opponent argues that our system requires more democratic input, and third parties satisfy this need. I would have my opponent be aware that the resolution specifies this election as the election we are talking about. The pro side will not be making any claims about shutting out third party candidates. Pro will simply be making the claim that this election requires a candidate that can defeat the other candidate that has flirted with putting Muslims in internment camps.Rebuttal:I. IntroductionMy opponent makes the claim that if people are dissatisfied with the current candidates, than the people should choose an alternative. This is a logical claim if one looks through it with a purely democratic perspective. This debate does not require a democratic perspective. My opponent will have to prove that the democratic perspective is not harmful in this election. A democratic perspective allowed Trump to dominate the Republican primary. A democratic perspective would have allowed the whole south to deem gay marriage illegal, and still allows religious liberty laws to allow the capability of business owners to discriminate against gay people. Also, my opponent must accept realism, and prove that people would rise up in significant numbers to defeat Trump and Clinton. The claims that people will rise up to vote for third party candidates must be proven using evidence. My opponent must also prove that the democratic perspective will not benefit Trump's chances.II. BoP AnalysisMy opponent claims that it is unlikely for Trump to get elected. I would have you be aware of the fact that the party that is the alternative to the party that was in power has a strong likelihood of winning. Polls indicate that Trump is behind Hilary by 2 points. Other polls indicate that Trump is ahead of Hilary. Regardless, polls might ask which candidate is more appealing. But, there are also a significant amount of polls that have asked voters whether they will take time out of their lives to vote for the "two evils". The results found that 55% of the respondents will not show up due to the unfavorable values both candidates possess. Low voter turnout always on a consistent basis leads to a Republican victory.III. TrumpMy opponent concedes to all of the negative qualities that Trump possesses. Well, than my opponent should be well-aware of how dire our situation really is. The most powerful position in the world could be filled by Donald Trump. We could easily suffer another 4 years of Bush in the 2000s. Neo-conservatism has the likelihood of being implemented which would allow for an administration to practice trickle-down economics which would allow Wall Street to run wild, corporations to avoid taxes, and a degradation of all the progress in social and economic issues under the Obama administration. He is a significant disadvantage. IV. Democratic PrinciplesMy opponent claims that third party candidates are challenging a tired system. A third party candidate that is at 10% in the latest polls is a libertarian which is everything the Republicans want economically. Social Security, Healthcare, and Education will all suffer significant cuts under a libertarian system which will give us access to an abundancy of disadvantages. The Libertarian Party has proclaimed their stance on eliminating the EPA which will allow us to access amplified natural disasters in the future. My opponent proclaims to vote your conscience, but voting your conscience lead to Trump dominating the Republican primaries. Voting your conscience would have allowed southern states to deem gay marriage illegal. Voting your conscious has allowed the state of Mississippi to implement religious liberty laws. My opponent must prove that there are more advantages to embracing democratic principles. V. ConclusionSimple. Hilary Clinton is not that evil. The whole claim that Hilary Clinton is a terrible person is an amplification of the rhetoric that came out of Sanders's campaign. Note that Sanders is in support of the lesser of the two evils candidate which seems extremely unusual for a man who fought the establishment for his whole life, and has fought with third parties. Hilary Clinton is socially liberal, and on some economic issues right. But, she still has fought for the EPA. Hilary has still fought for raising the minimum wage. Hilary has still fought for gay marriage rights. Hilary has still fought for background checks. Hilary has still fought for Dodd Frank. Hilary has still fought for Obamacare. Hilary now will still fight for relieving the student loan debt. Hilary now will still fight for universal college. My opponent still needs to elaborate on why Hilary is the lesser of two evils. Overview of attacks:1. My opponent's views on democracy require realism and evidence for why the democratic perspective will degrade Trump's chances.2. In Con's world, Trump has a better chance of winning.3. The Democratic perspective does not remain consistent logically speaking. Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective in Germany when the Nazi Party(3rd party) was the favorite? Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective on Gay marriage in the south? Would my opponent have supported the democratic perspective on the views of slavery in the south? Democratic values remain inconsistent due to its dependence on people who possess average intelligence. 4. The Libertarian Party has significant advantages if third parties were to be embraced. The Libertarian views on how the economy should be managed are dangerous, and makes our world even more vulnerable to global warming which above 90% of the global scientific community agrees upon it being a problem. 5. My opponent fails to elaborate on how Hilary is the lesser of two evil. The lesser of two evils require her to be an evil which she is not. My opponent will have to represent policy substance in order for this to be a legitimate consideration by a judge.Works Cited:http://www.cnn.com...