Washington D.C. is broken.

Hello beem0r, and thank you for your arguments. Without any ado, I will begin debating. Your first answer to my first contention is that there is no way to fix the apathy of today's citizens when it comes to voting. I have two answers for you. My first is this, that even if there are no ways to fix it, that doesn't mean it isn't broken. Let's take the example of an old car. If it breaks down and there are no parts to fix it, that doesn't mean it isn't broken. The lack of a solution does not stop something from being broken. Since the resolution is that Washington D.C. is broken, you must prove it isn't. I do not have to give the way to fix it, just the proof that it is broken. My second argument is that there are actually ways to fix this apathy of voters. There are currently people doing things to get more interaction of voters. People will call homes asking hem if they have voted, and if they haven' t, then they will encourage hem to do so. If they have voted, then they are encouraged to tell others to vote. People are offered rides to the voting places if they aren't able to get transportation to their voting places. People realize the need for people to vote, and are actually doing things to fix it. This is working, but not enough. More needs to be done in order to fix this problem. Now for your analogy. You say that a four ounce cup isn't broken even though you drink eight ounces. I say that you are correct. The cup is not broken, in that it does not need repair. But the process is broken. If the process of drinking four ounces then refilling the cup and drinking another four ounces isn't the best way, then the process needs repair. So your analogy is flawed. Yes, Washington D.C. may be working a bit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't mean it doesn't need repair. That is what I am advocating, that Washington D.C. is broken and needs repair. You then say that there is no better type of government, but how do you know? You speak of other types of governments that trade off efficiency for fairness and vice versa, but what about a government that can do both? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. No, not everyone is perfect, in fact no one is. This includes public officials. You say that their mistakes are not the mistakes of the system, but I say you are wrong. They are the system. If they make mistakes tat affect our country, then something should be done to stop those problems from happening. Our system of checks and balances is supposed to stop these problems. When they don't, something needs to be fixed. Obviously there was a lack of stopping problems recently, so it needs to be fixed. Your next argument brings up the point that something needs to be repairable in order to ned repair, but that is not true. Just because something can't be repaired does NOT mean it isn't broken. Imagine that you total your car. I mean completely demolish it. It looks like a piece of modern art. You can't tell which door is which, and one of the tires is still connected but it has found it's way into the car. Your car is broken. No doubt bout it. Can it be fixed? No. It is beyond repair. It still is broken. The lack of a solution does not stop the problem from being there. Now for your last argument. You say that political parties are not legislated, and that it is a group of like-minded people. The first part of that statement is correct. They are not legislated. The second part is somewhat correct. It is a group of like minded people, but those in power have stopped looking out for those people, and have started looking out for just it's party. Last I checked there are different parties like republican, democrat, and libertarian. So why then does a republican president only look out for the republicans? The same goes for the other parties. They should be partnering in order to find the best good for EVERYONE not competing and helping only their supporters. Here you talk about how there is no solution again. Again, there does not need to be a solution in order to need fixed, and also, I don't have t present a solution, just show how it is broken. As far as the UN goes, it is not our job to do their job. Our government was set up to help us. That doesn't mean we should never help others, but we have started to be the world's police officer. That is not what our government is for. So once again, it is broken. Your next paragraph says that just because I think it should be different does not constitute it being broken. You are correct. But as of now, I am the only one that has shown you how it is broken. My opponent has not proven to you that it is not broken. In your next statement is where you first make a claim as to Washington D.C. not being broken. You say it is a robust system, but then don't back it up. You haven't shown how the government is working. Thank you again for debating me. I look forward to your response.