Politically, the republican party is better.

ContextI'll assume that we're talking about the Republican party of the USA since my opponent is an American. I'll further presume that the context of this debate is the present or the immediate past in terms of Republican party policies. My opponent has the burden of proof to show why this party is better, in general, than competing alternatives. Because I really don't see much difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, if you need me to show a counter-model, I'll make it the American Green Party, who tend to believe in almost everything the Republicans don't.What does utopia look like?"Better" assumes some context of what we're trying to achieve. A person who believes strongly in civil liberties would probably think it is better to support gay marriage, a person who believes in maintaining social hierarchies would probably oppose it. It all therefore depends on the premise you start from, and judging by my opponent's profile, I think we'll see the emergence of a very different set of premises tonight from mine.Inherently there is no absolute "right" and "wrong" in politics, but there are policies that are more effective at meeting certain ends. The answer to the question of "What does utopia look like?" is thus what I or pro have to convince you of today.According to the GOP's own statement of their political issues, they believe in (summarised):1. Free markets2. Peace via strength3. No govt health care4. Great education5. Energy independence6. Judicial constitutionalism(http://www.gop.com...)Free markets?Politically deregulating a market inherently allows corporations to regulate the market, since corporations are large and individuals are small. Before government regulations were put in place, for example, to prevent child labor, corporations of course used children. Why? Because children were cheap, and it cut marginal costs. Although child labor makes a lot of short term economic sense, it's not a very good policy for any country as a whole (outside of a company's self-centered myopia).That might not be a huge political issue, but the principle is the same for things like environmental controls on business , unions, or certain aspects of tax policy. For sure, markets can be more free from government, but only at the cost of being less free from corporate power, be that corporate control of the environment, worker rights, or money itself. There's a phrase that gets used a lot - deregulation. It's never happened. It has always only been re-regulation.Outside of regulation there's also direct economic control via fiscal and monetary policy. This usually comes back to some absurd idea that we should not pick winners and losers in the market and let the people decide. In a "non-free" market, the people do decide, via a government whom they choose. In a "free" market, the biggest corporation generally wins in accordance of the economic theories of competition and economies of scale. As a matter of fact, winners and losers are picked all the time. Wouldn't it be good if the best companies were also those that performed the best? Government is there to ensure that profit isn't the only measure of what makes a company the "best" in a world where things other than money matter too.Peace via strengthThis is quite ironic given that the USA has neither any need for additional strength, being absurdly powerful (and unable to afford it), nor a good track record of peace. History proves that arms keep not peace but insurgency. Just ask the British Empire whom you guys rebelled against exactly in this way, or the Afghanis who drove out the Soviets in this way and tried to drive you out, only to be labelled terrorists for defending their land. The principle is clear - if you hold a gun to somebody's throat, they might not immediately attack you, but they're not exactly going to like you very much - and if possible, try to get that gun away from their throat. If you don't go pointing guns at everybody, that's one LESS reason for them to not hate you, not one more reason.At best, "peace via strength" is an almost exact definition of a cold war - something that the republicans usually brag about ending (although anyone with a passing knowledge of history will in fact know that it was the Soviets, not the Americans, who ended it).No govt health careFunny because nobody actually takes this seriously except the big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that bankroll everything the Republicans do. Why? Because health care is a human need. If individuals cannot fulfill it, governments are the only ones who would have that power, given that it's contrary to capitalist principles. The fact of the matter is that government intervention has saved hundreds of lives and helped hundreds of people that would otherwise die or not be helped. And the cost? Imposing on others a small fee to pay for it. It's not like there's really competition anyway for healthcare because drug companies monopolise their own products with patents. See here for more examples of healthcare via govt working in the USA: http://www.occasionalplanet.org...Great educationThere's no point to having a super education system if only the wealthy can afford it. That's why universal education is more important than free education. It's also why learning - including tertiary study - must be considered a right. I'm so glad we don't have to worry about college funds in my country, and it's mostly government subsidies that make it possible. There just doesn't seem to be an incentive to make the trade-off.Energy independenceThe problem with this policy is that it's almost entirely oil-based, as the only large energy import the USA has. Any stated advantages of reduced impacts due to global oil price fluctuations would be much better achieved by simply reducing dependence on oil, as the energy independence model still leaves the country vulnerable to secondary global price fluctuation impacts like relative costs of hiring oil engineers. Furthermore, according to the economic theory of comparative advantage, the USA will always produce their oil at a higher marginal cost of production, forcing either their quality to go down or their prices to be higher.Judicial constitutionalismIt's no surprise they support this because judges need to uphold the constitution by a law that cannot be changed. The problem is that nobody can entirely agree on what the constitution actually means. Case in point: the affordable care act. Republicans said one thing, supreme court said another - both are bound by the same constitution. That's not activism, that's a legitimate difference in interpretation. You can't expect everybody to interpret something the exact same way, especially on such complex matters. And if they did, that would be tyranny.I look forward to my opponent's case.