Resolved: The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party

In order to give each contention adequate discussion, I have split my case into two parts. I will use Round 2 to defend and extend the first part of my case, Round 3 to defend and extend the second part, and Round 4 to summarize and highlight important points and voting issues in today's debate. I will also add my final contention (C10) in Round 2, thus giving my opponent adequate time to respond. Framework: I accept my opponent's framework. If the Pro can prove that, on even one point, that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party, he thus disproves the Con's argument that both parties are "equally bad", and wins the round. C1: Economy My opponent's claim about the Federal Reserve is entirely false. The very purpose of the Federal Reserve is to correct the imbalances created by government policy [3]. The Democratic Party believes in empowering the middle class with more tax breaks while taking that money from the upper class. Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, explains: "There were several important consequences [of the negotiations between business and labor]: first, large economies of scale, generating high productivity and hence significant profits; second, tens of millions of steady jobs; third, a wide distribution of the profits (downward to blue-collar workers and outward to smaller communities, farmers, and other constituents) The result was a large and growing middle class across the country that stabilized the political system. " This is a formula for economic growth. It's clear that party policy has great influence on the economy. C2: Environment According to CNN, "Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U. S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. " There is an immense amount of evidence proving that man-made global exists. Almost every government around the world is racing to reduce their carbon footprint. Simply and logically put: you can't spew tons and tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen. While the effects of global warming might not be apparent on a day-to-day basis, but it's existence is near undeniable. Listing arguments to prove that global warming exists would use up much more than my 8,000 characters, so I will provide the following links that my opponent may read and refute if he should choose to do so. National Geographic: . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... CNN: . http://articles.cnn.com... NASA: . http://climate.nasa.gov... Back to my original point: the fact that the Democratic Party embraces such problems and strives to find solutions proves that as a political party, they are far more forward-minded than the Republican Party, which for the most part still denies climate change. This is an example of how Republicans prioritize short-term benefits over long-term safety. Next: My opponent sees dependence on foreign oil as a "so what? " issue. However, I ask, has he forgotten the 1973 oil crisis? OPEC, "in response to the U. S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military" [1], quadrupled the price of a barrel of oil and caused inflation in the US to rise by 10% in one year alone [1][2]. In addition to dismissing foreign oil as a minor issue, my opponent completely overlooks the roots of where such dependence began. Republican-supported oil companies are the same ones that have lobbied policies to favor the production of oil, thus increasing our dependence on unstable countries for oil. By lobbying for tax breaks for oil corporations, Republicans have added to the US's trillion dollar deficit while making alternative energy development unprofitable (compared to oil drilling) and hindering economic recovery that could use the alternative energy sector as a stimulant [10]. My opponent refers to Democratic policies that would increase the price of oil, but does not provide any specifics. Thus, his claims cannot be considered in this round. C3: Regulation The CFMA passed unanimously because "CFMA was lumped in with other acts, and since it was the last vote of the year, before holidays, there was no further discussion, committees, hearings, nothing. They all said "all right just pass the junk" and went home to Christmas vacation. " [60 Minutes]. Unanimous consent was a result of lack of research. "The Senate vote was unanimous consent, and I have yet to find anywhere where this act was even discussed in the Senate except just a few hours before the vote. " [60 Minutes]. Republicans support deregulation both their words and their actions; the CFMA, FSMA, Enron Loophole (which also created the London Loophole and bilked Californians out of $40 billion), the collapse of Wall Street and the recession speak for themselves. C4: Healthcare My opponent responds to this argument as though it were an economics contention; however, it isn't. "Obamacare" extends healthcare to millions of Americans and helps both the doctor and the patient. I agree with my opponent that healthcare will increase the deficit after the first ten years, but I have three responses. 1) This is no surprise. When you create such a large program, such an effect is obvious. The point of this contention is that millions of Americans who once did not have healthcare are now being given healthcare; something Republicans have failed to do. 2) The initial deficit reduction is a huge aid to our economy as we recover from the recession. Lack of universal health insurance is what causes people to fall into bankruptcy and costs taxpayers millions every year. If tax cuts are supposed to keep taxes in people's pockets as the Republican party contends, they must figure out a way to keep it there given that half of all bankruptcies declared are because of healthcare costs due to lack of insurance. [9] My opponent also states that Republicans "don't really oppose Obamacare reforms. " I have two observations. 1) My opponent, in his introduction, states that the differences between the parties are "in rhetoric, not reality". His own statement on C4 is contradictory to this point: whilst the "rhetoric" of the GOP is same as that of Democrats when it comes to their visions for America's healthcare, the "reality" of their actions is that the GOP had opposed the bill. "Actions speak louder than words". Even if Republicans agree with the tenets of Obamacare, they still opposed a bill that would give healthcare to millions of Americans who had been denied it in the past. 2) The fact that my opponent contends that Republicans opposed Obamacare simply because it had Obama's name on it shows that he has conceded to my 7th contention regarding "The Party of No", which explains how Republican obstructionist policies undermines meaningful, moderate legislation from passing in Congress. My opponent's own example shows how obstructionist practices almost prevented moderate legislation (on which Republicans agreed with Democrats) from passing. C10: Tax Cuts The Bush Tax Cuts are tauted by Republicans as having spurred economic growth. David Leonhart of the New York Times states "Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7. The competition for slowest growth is not even close. " [8] On the contrary, by granting tax cuts to the lower and middle class but taxing the rich (a progessive tax), the Democratic Party sticks to their formula for economic growth, explained by Professor Robert Reich (quoted in C1) which spurred the numerous economic benefits as stated in Round 1 C1.