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

I. Introduction"The only wasted vote is one for a candidate you don't believe in."Not voting for the candidate you believe in, and instead supporting the"lesser of two evils" is flawed logic. "[Insert third party candidate] has not chance, so I'll vote for [insert D/R candidate]" this causes the third party to not get enough support, so they don't have a chance. This starts the cycle over again. The reason Gary Johnson and Jill Stein do not get the support they need has nothing to do with their views, or, in Johnson's case, his experience. (He and running mate Bill Weld are the only two in the race with any executive experience, but I digress.) It is instead people are afraid of "wasting" their votes. If all these people dissatisfied with the electorate were to band together, they'd most likely be able to support one or even both of the main third party candidates get to 15% and participate in the debates. From there the potential is endless.II. BoP AnalysisMy opponent's BoP is to prove that third party candidates are harmful to the 2016 presidential race. Mine is to prove that they are not. I do not have to prove that they are beneficial for me to win this debate. Only that they are not harmful.An additional BoP Pro has apparently decided to take on is that Trump is the reason to fear third-party candidates. If Trump is unlikely to be elected, third party candidates are not harmful, and in turn, I win this debate.III. TrumpI concede everything in my opponent's constructive about Trump being dangerous for America. However, we are a democratic republic, and the voters (on this debate, not in the election) should keep that in mind. If Trump is the candidate chosen by the people, he should be elected.I will attack the flaws in my opponent's constructive in Round 3.IV. Democratic PrinciplesThis brings me to my first point in the round. We should always embrace third party candidates. They provide diversity of ideas, creating a more democratic process. They also challenge a tired system, forcing the Democrats and Republicans to change ideals which are outdated or unpopular. "When someone tells you you're wasting your vote, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are saying your beliefs aren't worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder. Vote your conscience, not someone else's politics." This is a problem with the anti-third party movement. Differences in opinions should be valued rather than silenced. This works to create a system in which people are free to choose candidates who more accurately represent their own ideals and will continue to do so in office, rather than electing officials who are consistent with just traditional Democrat or Republican values.V. ConclusionThose who vote third party do not want Trump or Hillary to win any more than someone who is voting Hillary just to vote against Trump or Trump just to vote against Hillary. They just don't think selling out on their vote is worth it. They refuse to buy into the flawed "lesser of two evils" ideology. They are voting their conscience. That being said, those who genuinely support Clinton or Trump should continue to do so, they have that freedom. But in the end, it isn't third party voters who are going to harm this election, but those who buy into the "lesser of two evils" ideology.Thank you, back to Pro.