America's Two Party System.

Oh my… I hope Pro's initial statement was a Straw Man… else we're in for a very tiring debate… Rebuttal: 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… But, for the sake of the reader, I'll humor him. If the debate were to be about implementation, which it is not, I simply suggest that people drop party associations. If they want to convene or talk, they can do so freely. There is no infringement upon our rights! Rebuttal to the argument Pro has not yet made: I don't care if that would not be effective: Pro and Voters: Please stay focused! The debate is theoretical! Basically, would America be better off without political parties? Now please, Pro, stop debating the debate and get back on topic. Rebuttal^2 "This is false because representatives are free to leave a party at any time and become independ[e]nt." How often do we see this happen? This has already been addressed in my later argument: The pressure upon them by their party hierarchy and the press is enormous. In all fairness, Pro does address this: "If independ[e]nt thought gives you negative press, then the press is at fault, not the party system!" Unfortunately for this argument, this is not a debate over who is to blame. The fact still stands that they will receive negative press, pressuring them to become puppets. "Secondly, my opponent argues that the people are made d[i]visive through TV programming, which is somehow being controlled by the political parties." Blatant Straw Man: I never claimed that the media was controlled by political parties but rather that the programming is enabled by clear divisions in the political system: Fox supporting only conservatives, NBC supporting only liberals. "You don't stop bias in the media by banning political association." Oh my… again. Lets clear up a few things here, Mr. Straw: You do not stop media bias: you remove it's power over people, because an idea is not as easily promoted. Example: The Catholic Church. Catholicism does not support gay marriage or abortion. It does, however, support welfare and health care. Result? Bias! It's not stopped. But because each of the ideas is formed not by political alliances, you preserve the intellectual freedom of your listeners. Just over half (54%) of Catholics voted for Obama. [1] Conclusion? Intellectual freedom despite opinionated reporting. Without political lines, organizations like Fox would have difficulty maintaining such a clear, firm hand on their voters. It's one thing to say "Romney is Evil!" And another to say "Romney is sometimes good and sometimes bad." Without party lines, it's near impossible to maintain such thought oppressing control. "why does the party system make legislators unable to engage in meaningful discourse?" I'm not even going to say it this time. Read the above perhaps? The can "negotiate," but, as explained above, are forced to vote along party lines most of the time. My opponent has failed entirely to address my "Oppression of Thought" argument. This also stays true for politicians. Because of the power news organizations have garnered from the political system, politicians are often equally confined mentally. My opponent has also failed to formulate any argument on the debate, he still persists to debate the perimeters. To make things painfully conclusive: Rebuttal to Conclusion: Pro's "contentions" are not within the bounds of the debate, and are thus invalid! Pro literally has no argument yet! Any rebuttal to my points have been blatant Straw Man arguments, which, like straw men, have been dismissed with a sweep of the arm. I will resist introducing new points until my opponent presents a preliminary argument within the bounds of the debate. [1] http://elections.nytimes.com...