Politically, the republican party is better.

My opponent has clearly not checked out the democrats' website recently, because on principle they agree with the republicans on every single one of these points. I'm trying to convince you that there are superior political alternatives. If pro thinks the republicans are better than anything, he needs to advance an argument to that effect. I'm simply explaining why the republicans are terrible without reference to any particular counter-model since none was specified previously, except perhaps opposing the republicans. Free marketsIf the government were to give my company $1000, that makes me $1000 better off. It's not an expense for me, it's income. Income makes it easier for my business to buy stuff, which in turn makes the operation of my business easier, not harder. With my state income I might be able to hire more people, not have to lay them off. It might appear that me having more money means I can bid prices higher. In practice this depends on where the money comes from - if it's just redistribution then somebody else (usually the wealthy since America has a slightly progressive tax system) loses money, so they bid prices down as I bid them up, creating stability. If it's money that's printed or on credit, the money supply increases causing inflation. Point is that monetary and fiscal policy can fail, but that doesn't mean it must fail. With sound economic thinking, it can actually improve the cost structure of the economy.You can't just quit a job if conditions are bad, because you'll starve without food, and don't get food without money. The industrial revolution is history's most famous example of a time when regulation was lax so people were forced to work in terrible factories, but examples are everywhere - in America Frederic Taylor is probably the most prominent example in management studies of a man getting away with treating workers like cattle.Peace via StrengthNorth Korea - the country who's new leader's first decree was to legalise pizza - or Syria, who can't even win a war with themselves - or Iran, who can't build a nuclear power plant even after 30 years of intensive research AND lots of help from Russia. These are the kinds of nations that might possibly attack the United States. Even if they did attack, the United States wouldn't require a thousandth of its military power to deal with those threats. The real defence problem the USA faces is with insurgency - homegrown terrorists, terrorists from abroad - those kinds of people are a much greater threat.America did not win the cold war - the cold war ended without a result. Russia deciding to not continue fighting is not the same as America winning. As a matter of fact, four years ago Putin casually reminded you guys that officially, the cold war wasn't over at all, causing a stupidly out-of-proportion media response (at least in my part of the world). I also don't think the cold war is a great model for world peace. It was actually pretty scary during much of it, including the wars in SE Asia and the Cuban missile crisis. While it didn't turn into a full-scale conflict, there was plenty of smaller-scale conflict around the world, such as the baader meinhof group in Germany and almost all of South America being in turmoil at the time. Sure, America was safe, but now with the war over, just consider the huge challenge of controlling in whose hands the weapons fall today. Wouldn't it be better to not have a cold war in the first place? Particularly since none of your enemies right now are big states like Russia, but smaller insurgent groups whom you can't fight with tanks and battleships. Bin Laden once taunted Bush by saying he was among the Muslim masses. In a sense, the same spirit that drove Bin Laden to commit great evil rages on wherever people and their soverignty are threatened. Ireland, Tibet, Chechnya - there is zero shortage of historical examples of how great force of arms does not broker world peace.The only thing that will bring about world peace is not force of arms, but force of will.Health careGovernment health care is more socialist than user-pays models, but as I've tried to tell you, the way to solve a social problem (sickness) is with social intervention (socialism). Going to a nightclub, going to school, marching on the streets to get the law changed - these are all common socialist phenomena - everyone goes together, everyone contributes, everyone gets results. When you put money into that equation, the human mindset changes. Suddenly they don't want to contribute for others - we become selfish.But healthcare doesn't operate like the rest of the economy. It's basically a small series of exclusive sub-market monopolies, the most imperfect competition you can imagine. But for government control, companies can freely charge any price and demand will remain inelastic, because healthcare is a human need. Capitalism is only more efficient through competition, but that simply does not happen in the healthcare sector. Moreover, even if capitalism was more efficient, would that be ideal? I mean, would you prefer to be rushed through intensive care in five minutes with a quick'n'dirty patch job to cover up that knife wound to your heart, or would you prefer doctors and surgeons that actually took the time to care for you with the best equipment and medicine available - regardless of who you are or your social standing, just as a fellow human being in need? It's not really the same as a candy bar. I'm a pretty compassionate person, but I don't buy people candy bars - not least because it will probably rot their teeth. That's quite different from everybody chipping in an affordable fraction of their wealth to ensure society as a whole is able to prosper.SchoolWhen you cut school funding, one of two things happens. Either, parents pay more, or, kids get less. Parents who are able to afford more probably will. The other kids will be disadvantaged. That's not fair, because the kids can't help it if their parents are poor. Moreover, it doesn't build much of a great education system. Access to great education is the goal, and this is a super way to undermine it.The problems with applicable learning would take a whole other debate for me to fully describe. You simply can't prepare kids for their future jobs in any economy with no job security, and where new jobs are invented every month.Energy independenceAmerica cannot set its own price for oil. It will always depend on the cost of running refineries, of building oil wells, of avoiding Greenpeace boats etc. At best, America can avoid dependence on OPEC, such as caused the supply shocks of the 70s. In this way America can increase supply of oil reducing the price, but increasing dependance (who wouldn't be dependant if it's cheaper to be so) and allowing OPEC to increase supply to everywhere else in the world (since they're not selling it to you), so marginally your oil will still be expensive. The problem is oil dependance, the cure is not more oil. It's not even a short-term solution to the problem, any more than injecting a meth addict with a ton of meth will solve their meth addiction.JudiciaryGun control is a good example actually. The wording says you have a right to bear arms. So - all arms? Should Americans be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction while strolling about Times Square? Probably not what the intention was. So you have to draw the line somewhere, and the constitution does not say where. Obama says semi-automatic isn't OK, loads of people disagree. That's no surprise since when the Bill of Rights was written, semi-automatic weapons did not exist. So whether they are allowed or not is a legitimate difference of opinion, not something that should be forced on anyone.