Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

I am assuming that I can put arguments in round 1 as there are no rules against it, so here we go. OVERVIEW/RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSISThere are a couple things I have noticed in this resolution that I would like to point out and explain. First of all, the wording of the resolution does not specify to whom democrats are better to. I will go ahead and assume that because this debate is about the two main political parties in the United States, my opponent is trying to say that democrats are better in every way to said country. Second of all, take into consideration the "every" that is in the resolution. This means that all I have to do as the Con side is prove ONE way that Republicans are better than Democrats. With that over with, let's move on to my refutations to the Pro's first speech. REFUTATIONS OF THE PRO SPEECHIn the Pro speech, all my opponent does is list things that he believes are beneficial on the democrat side, and then he continues to list one thing he personally believes to be detrimental to the U. S. .. He backs these claims up with not a single source while also including a huge amount of personal bias as to what he believes is good. He states that "democrats are for Women's Rights, LGBT Rights, Animal Rights, Student's Rights, Senior Rights, Minority Rights, Healthcare Rights, Environmental Rights," yet what he doesn't state is why all of this is good. .. Why does it matter? Well, we don't actually know, because he never says it. He continues by asking "what are Republicans for? Tax cuts for THE RICH. " Again, he fail to point out why tax cuts for the rich are bad. .. To conclude my refutations, all Pro says is biased remarks that rely heavily on the voter's personal beliefs and are backed by no sources. However, these refutations honestly weren't needed, as all I have to do is list just one way in which Republicans are better than Democrats (which I will do next) - look to my resolutional analysis. Now on to my argument. ARGUMENT OF THE CON SIDE The argument of the Con side is that Democrats have less perspectives and diversity than Republicans, making them less democratic as well as less beneficial in total. There are many more different Republican perspectives and standpoints than Democrat ones. Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, journalists, worked with The Washington Post in which they did an analysis on the different types of Republicans and Democrats. The study concluded that there are four types of Democrats:-"The Agnostic Left", -"DIY" Democrats, -"Urban Liberals", -and "God and Government" Democrats. On the other hand, the study said that there were five different types of Republicans:-“Tea Party Movement" Republicans,-“Old-School" Republicans-“Religious Values Voters”,-“Pro-Government" Republicans, -and “Window Shoppers" or self-indentified Republicans. (The Scribe, . http://prairieweather.typepad.com...)Now you may be thinking, what does all of this mean? Well here is where it all comes together. See, one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, wrote a book titled On Liberty. In this book, he argues that when the views of the group or organization differ, the diversity of said group helps it make better educated decisions with more perspectives to see the issue from. Using this logic, we can say that the Republican party is better than the Democrat party in the category of perspectives and views - 5 types instead of 4 means that the Republican party is more democratic because a larger amount of different types of people are getting their voices heard. CONCLUSIONI have refuted everything and introduced a point of my own, showing just one way Republicans are better than Democrats. Keep in mind, I only need to prove one way (see Overview/Resolutional Analysis), and I have done my job.