A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

"2. Though the US is not a Christian nation, it is made up of predominately Christians, especially in certain regions of the country. 3. I could use the Bible to prove my point about gays, but I am sure that you do not want to hear it. I will simply say that my opinion differs." We're getting off topic here. "1. Republicans do have a set of principles that guide them. This is what makes them republican. Not my opinion." "5. By stating that they agree with most people, I am not saying that everyone will be the same. I am stating that most people would agree on many issues with slight discrepancies. For example, one person may be completely pro life but another may be pro life except for rape cases. Both are pro life, one is just conditional." Not at all true. You're a Republican if you're registered as one, or a Democrat if you're registered as one. A Republican traditional conservative Evangelical, a Republican libertarian Atheist, and a Republican neoconservative Catholic will usually have tremendous differences in ideology that will cause conflict and cannot be handwaved. "4. My issue is not about a war between the two nations, I am simply trying to make this debate about the two nations benefiting politically and socially, particularly socially." By splitting the US in such a way, you would cause such tremendous political disturbances that a violent conflict of some sort would be all but inevitable. The US was not set up to be divided, and cannot be safely. "6. Cutting back on bipartisanship is a good thing. Or at least it is not as bad as keeping it. You are saying that it is better for disagreeing parties to reach a stalemate because none can agree, then to all just agree and get something done." You have continuously asserted this claim without support. My claim is not that bipartisanship was good, but that it whether it is a "good"(however you define that term) thing or not is circumstantial. Sometimes, a lack of opposition means that poorly- written laws can pass Congress without oversight. "7. The final point that you are providing is me saying that instead of continuing on a path of increasing separation, we could the republican nation on a path to better agree(one major strategy of persuasion is agreement with opposition, Republicans can better agree with other republicans who are their opposition. This means that the republican being persuaded is more likely to switch.). The same goes for the democrats." "we could the republican nation on a path to better agree" Is nonsensical. I will assume that you are talking about diplomacy here. If you want to see where a one party nation, where no diplomacy is required for the ruling regime to lead, look at the fantastically successful examples of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. "I will save my remaining points for my closing arguments." ...That was your set of closing arguments. In closing, I would like to argue that while my opponent demonstrated differences between Republicans and Democrats, and asserted that mostly these groups are more similar than they are different, he failed to meet his burden of proof for the assertion "A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two." I would further argue that my opponents argument is way off base; the world has suffered at the hand of way too many one-party countries. We don't need another Nazi Germany [1] or Soviet Russia [2] or Khmer Rouge [3]. [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://1.usa.gov... [3] http://bit.ly...