America's Two Party System.

Oh my... again. I do believe that my opponent means to forfeit-Once again, he has ailed to debate within the bounds and keeps grinding away at this entire idea of Implementation, which I have already established we agree on!There is nothing to debate. I'll say it once more: Debate= Political parties good or bad. Pro has one last round, please, either forfeit or proceed to debate within the bounds. We agree on implementation! Pro has no argument!""different debate" because civil rights would be "Abandoned - not abolished". I thus revised my original argument to state that abandoning civil rights is just as bad as abolishing civil rights. Either way you don't have civil rights, which is fundamentally a bad thing"Sigh... does my opponent even read my argument? He's said this twice, so, I wil counter in the same way I countered last time: "As previously stated, there is no "abandoning of civil rights" being proposed! The debate is simple! Two party system good or bad. I do believe that Pro is attempting to debate the debate… possibly because he has nothing else to go off of" Once again, this is looking more ad more like a FF "Political parties are essential if we want freedom of association" Alright. Something that is not (yet) forfeit. I disagree on this point: had the parties never been formed, people would be able to convene and discuss freely. There is no ban on association, just no rigid divisions that are crippling America. "he accepts that it is wrong to blame the party system." Please, this is getting to be a waste of time. I said that though the party system is not to blame, we would not have this problem if the parties did not exist. To simplify, it's like saying that we cannot blame alcohol brewers for drunk driving, but without them, drunk driving would not be a factor. Now, I see that Pro is going to Straw Man here, so let me attempt to preempt him: I'm not arguing against alcohol. It's an analogy. "Ironically, since there is no "conservative" or "liberal" party in the USA, my opponent is arguing against ideologies not parties" This is painful. Everybody knows that Republican's are overwhelmingly conservative and Dems are equally liberal. I was only employing syntactical diversity. "distinguish ideology, not political association." At this point, I will reference my ENTIRE argument thus far, where I explain the connection. Did my opponent not read past half way? The entire Catholic Church argument? "Next my opponent proves that under the status quo there is "intellectual freedom despite opinionated reporting". I agree entirely. That's why there's no problem - people KNOW that the bias is there and account for it." Thank you. I argue the opposite; people are blinded by the media and because they do not want to see bias, they do not. "parties that allows us to say "Romney is evil". Actually I could say that with or without parties." Please! Read what I said! It's blatantly obvious! I don't have the characters to re post every bit Pro has omitted (most of the argument), but I encourage readers to look over my argument carefully to decipher for their intelligent selves all the holes Pro has left. Voters, please. This is as simple of a decision as one can hope to find. Look over my arguments, and find one, just one point that he has logically addressed that is not countered by something I said earlier. Conclusion: Read my argument. I could leave my second round alone against all the others. Pro's only point is one that we agree upon. Good Vs. Bad. Who has provided reasons, logic, and evidence, and who has "straw manned" his entire way through this debate, and will, to my best guess, continue to do so in his last round. There is nothing here to add, my opponent has defeated himself. Read carefully, vote wisely.