Politically, the republican party is better.

In this debate, I would have expected pro to give at least one argument for why republicans are better. I gave you five reasons why they are worse. Proving that they're not worse does not prove that they're better. However, I believe pro has even failed to do this. While he accuses me of doing nothing but attack republicans (which is no surprise since my position in this debate, as given by pro's resolution, is that republicans are inferior), pro seems to have done nothing but attack a small number of specific democrat measures, despite my analysis in round one that the two big parties are not political opposites. In those ways in which democrats are different from the republicans they are superior, but to show a more reliable picture of what policies fail and why, I used the far more reliable counter-model of simply the opposite of the republicans, which is essentially the Greens. I did not explicitly have to prove the superiority of the greens, only the inferiority of the republicans.Five issues arose in this debate, corresponding to my five arguments since pro had none.On free markets, I wonder what pro thinks the auto worker's bailout was if not handing out money? In fact the government hands out money all the time - for example, social security. And if they compete in a market, that's a special form of handout too. My opponent sees some instant connection between regulation and lost jobs / inflation, but he never explains what this connection actually is. As I said in the first round, "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." Corporations can lay people off - in fact they do so much more than government already. Corporations can bring about inflation. But corporations can also ruin you and your life. There is no link between any of this and regulation - the law making murder illegal, for example, does not cause unemployment.On achieving peace, the fact that terrorists pulled off 9/11 despite the fact you have the world's strongest army and they had only a few machine guns from the 80s proves they are not intimidated. My opponent's argument is a medieval fantasy of war where both sides line up their troops and march at one another. We live in an age where strength at arms no longer determines who attacks whom. Likewise, North Korea is not intimidated against you despite the fact that every single one of their nuclear tests has gone well below expectations, and you guys have thousands of nuclear warheads pointed right at them. The world is not a schoolyard. What we need for peace is co-operation, and nobody will co-operate when you hold a gun to their throat. As a matter of fact, like it or not, they'll fight back.My opponent ignored most of my points for healthcare. Competition doesn't work because you need patents for inoovation or else diseases won't be cured, but patents inherently block competition (of course, legalising generics can help, but republicans generally oppose that too). There's a big difference as well between blaming the rich and charging the rich. Sometimes beggers ask me for money, and sometimes I help them out. I don't think they blame me for them falling on hard times. Sometimes only they are to blame, sometimes there was nothing they could do to escape their fate. However, they probably do believe that I can be part of the solution. Nobody "keeps what they earn" - inflation guarentees that, but moreover everybody needs to spend money. Socialism only asks for social spending - giving money to improve society. Finally, pro does not contest that efficiency isn't an ideal in healthcare.On the judiciary, the reason why people should lose their rights when those rights are proven unconstitutional in a court of law is precisely because that's what happens in a constitutional democracy. Don't like it? Throw out the constitution. My opponent's support of state's rights is a tacit admission that the constitution can be legitimately interpreted in multiple ways, and so there's nothing unconstitutional about making certain assault weapons illegal. Multiple times throughout this debate my opponent has affirmed states rights, something which the republican party does not support, and moreover contradicts that very same constitution directly.My opponent has dropped his arguments on energy independance and education, which I extend my rebuttals to.Right at the very end, my opponent argued that he is the harbringer of personal freedom. The same guy who would limit personal freedom in favor of corporate freedom and market freedom. The person who believes in holding all non-Americans at gunpoint, forcing them to be slaves to America's wishes - who doesn't mind Americans living in a cold war style environment of fear. Who believes healthcare should only be a privilege for the upper class, as should school. If that's freedom, then that's tragic.The resolution is negated.