My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

My opponent claims that his "proposed US political system is better than the status quo". He has 4 main proposals. "For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that (Pro"s) proposal(s) (are) the only available alternative to the status quo." I will address each and demonstrate why the status quo is preferred. All four of my opponent"s proposals connect to the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. His first two proposals address the organization of this branch and the second two the function. The first article of the U.S. Constitution presents both the organization and function of the legislative branch. (1) 1: Organization Status Quo Article 1 Section 1 reads "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."(1) The House of Representatives (AKA the Lower House): Representatives of this House are elected every two years. The number of representatives each State receives is connected to the population of that State. The frequency of these elections and connection to population allows this House to be the House of the people that represents public opinion. The Senate (AKA the Upper House): Members of this House are elected every six years. Each State has two Senators. This allows each State equal representation. Less frequent elections allow this House to be more deliberative and less influenced by popular opinion. Pro"s proposal My opponent"s first two proposals go hand in hand. First, he wants "Voters (to) elect representatives in the House of Representatives once every four years (or when the government collapses)." This is in contrast to the status quo of two year terms. Second and much worse my opponent wants to "abolish the senate." My opponent claims that his "proposed US political system is better than the status quo". He has 4 main proposals. "For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that (Pro"s) proposal(s) (are) the only available alternative to the status quo." I will address each and demonstrate why the status quo is preferred. All four of my opponent"s proposals connect to the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. His first two proposals address the organization of this branch and the second two the function. The first article of the U.S. Constitution presents both the organization and function of the legislative branch. (1) 1: Organization Status Quo Article 1 Section 1 reads "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."(1) The House of Representatives (AKA the Lower House): Representatives of this House are elected every two years. The number of representatives each State receives is connected to the population of that State. The frequency of these elections and connection to population allows this House to be the House of the people that represents public opinion. The Senate (AKA the Upper House): Members of this House are elected every six years. Each State has two Senators. This allows each State equal representation. Less frequent elections allow this House to be more deliberative and less influenced by popular opinion. Pro"s proposal My opponent"s first two proposals go hand in hand. First, he wants "Voters (to) elect representatives in the House of Representatives once every four years (or when the government collapses)." This is in contrast to the status quo of two year terms. Second and much worse my opponent wants to "abolish the senate." Why the status quo is preferred. The bicameral organization is effective as it promotes principles of Democracy or rule of the people while mitigating tyranny of the majority. Both Houses are necessary for this to be the case. The lower House promotes Democracy while the Upper mitigating tyranny. Both work together to fill the function of the legislative branch of government. It also allows for equal representation to the States while also representing by population. Pro"s proposal to lengthen terms for members of the House undermines the very function of the House of Representatives. Frequent elections are necessary in order for this House to adequately represent and be the "House of the people." By abolishing the Senate pro would destroy our bicameral legislature and with it our balance of democracy and stability. 2: Function Status Quo The Legislative Branch is "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;" For a full list of duties and function of this branch see Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. (1) There are three branches in our government. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. While we are primarily focused on the Legislative it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the branching of government to see why Pro"s next proposal is foolish. A very simplistic understanding is a) Legislative writes the law b) Executive enforces the law c) Judicial interprets the law. We have these three branches as a way to separate the powers of government. Each branch has power to check and balance the others. For a list of these checks and balances follow this link. (2) The concept being that our government separates these powers and provides these checks to prevent the government from overstepping its bounds. With this understanding we see that the two houses of the legislative branch check and balance each other as well. Pro"s proposals: My opponent has suggested that the House of Representatives elect the US President. He has also suggested that filibustering be limited. Why the status quo is preferred: Connecting the executive branch to the legislative branch as pro has suggested is to undermine the concept of Checks and balances. To have the Legislative branch elect the Executive while simultaneously holding the power to impeach and remove a president from office is to give the executive branch an unbalanced portion of power over the Executive Branch. It would effectively ruin the "balance." Limiting filibustering is to limit a check that members of congress can have on the hold body of legislation. Conclusion: Pro"s proposals would remove the "balance" our government has. It would give the legislative branch such a large check on the executive branch as to undermine the separation of powers. The Status Quo provides democracy and stability in ways that pro"s proposals would mitigate. Thus the status quo should be preferred. Overview: Pro mentioned in round one that he would "have to show that my entire proposed system is better. Even if one of my changes is better than the status quo, I must demonstrate that the system as a whole is better." I have not only demonstrated one part of his plan to be inferior but every single proposal. Sources: (1) http://www.archives.gov... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...