The use of identity politics is immoral

++Rebuttal++ Let's quickly deal with the mistakes my opponent makes in their argument and then move on to substantative. Before we do that, let's just set down some definitions, because we might as well be tilting at windmills without them. Identity politics: politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group Immoral: not moral Let's also critique the use of "the left" by my opponent - the sweeping statements they made haven't been backed up by much empirics other than praxeology and reading from Shapiro's book. Onto rebuttal. Let's start with the article my opponent posted - let's first off notice that the washington times has a strong conservative bias [1], given that it was created (in the words of sun myung moon, the founder to "conservatively fight communism" [2] and as an alternative to the Washington Post (which was seen as having an excessive liberal bias) [3]) This already weakens the claims made within it given their incentive is strong to put forth misleading claims that show Democrats and the left in general in a bad light in order to "conservatively fight communism" or attempt to get GOP actors into the USFG. It seems my opponent has googled "race to the bottom democrats" and found the first article that seems to support his point. Even if this article were reliable in any way in terms of establishing his claim to the motion, it still doesn't even support it - it's actually criticising the rather chaotic nomination and election process in the DNC. We can agree on that and it still has no impact whatever on the motion. The link between this and identity politics is tenuous at best, especially when my opponent still can't agree what identity politics even is. My opponent has failed to show that identity politics leads to a race to the bottom, or even what a "race to the bottom" is! Next, my opponent doesn't offer much in the way of actual evidence other than his source being "good" on the topic - he doesn't present any actual empirics here on the occurence of what he terms "bullying". More on this later. Regardless, this leads to what's going to be Pro's actual biggest issue in this debate, which is rather than attempting to prove that identity politics are a bad, he's going to try to prove that it's immoral. That's a completely different beast altogether and I'd ask any judge to consider that even if Pro somehow manages to exceed his first round effort and prove that identity politics is bad, if he hasn't proven that it's specifically immoral you must vote Con. ++Substantative++ Identity politics leads to greater group representation P1: we live in a representative democracy P2: the role of representatives is to represent a large amount of individuals as is possible, not only the ones that vote for them P3: identity politics provides a way for groups to air their concerns and have their complaints heard P4: therefore enabling them to achieve greater representation C1: so there is greater representation for all groups, specifically for minority groups (which is a good) C2: the system also represents more peoples, which is also a good Identity politics leads to more representation in democratic bodies like the Senate/House or the UK House of Parliament, not only for the minority group (which is obviously good for them) but also for the whole, and democratic representation is a good given that the role of a democracy is to represent as many people within the country as is possible Con wins on any outcome case my opponent may make given that the better representation outweighs the rather filmsy case we've heard for identity politics as some sort of a nebulous bad emanating from the spectre/strawman of "the left". 1.)https://www.allsides.com... 2.) ibid 3.) ibid