Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

In this speech I will be providing my views on this debate as well as refuting what my opponent has said in their speeches. THOUGHTS ON THE DEBATE SO FARSo. .. This debate is honestly ridiculous at this point. I have provided a well thought out argument and my opponent just makes claims backed by no evidence without responding to anything in my speeches. Basically, since none of what I have done has been responded to, I am going to go in to even more depth and detail in my opponent's speech to make it 100% proven that I should win this debate. REFUTATIONS TO THE PRO ARGUMENTSIn this section I'm going to nit-pick at everything Pro has said in this debate and prove it wrong. This section is categorized by Pro speeches. Pro First Speech:I have already responded to this in my first speech, if you don't want to go there, I am going to paste it here as well. In the Pro speech, all my opponent does is list things that he believes are beneficial on the democrat side, and then he continues to list one thing he personally believes to be detrimental to the U. S. .. He backs these claims up with not a single source while also including a huge amount of personal bias as to what he believes is good. He states that "democrats are for Women's Rights, LGBT Rights, Animal Rights, Student's Rights, Senior Rights, Minority Rights, Healthcare Rights, Environmental Rights," yet what he doesn't state is why all of this is good. .. Why does it matter? Well, we don't actually know, because he never says it. He continues by asking "what are Republicans for? Tax cuts for THE RICH. " Again, he fail to point out why tax cuts for the rich are bad. .. All Pro says in round 1 is biased remarks that rely heavily on the voter's personal beliefs and are backed by no sources. Pro Second Speech:Again, I have already responded to this in my second speech, but I am just going to paraphrase what I have already said. Basically, I concede partially. Some Republicans may be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. but not all are. Generalizing a group like that is completely unfair to said group, and that is exactly what Pro is doing. Pro Third Speech:For most of the third Pro speech, he says some sort of propoganda, remarking that "if you are a ____ you should vote democrat" repeatedly. .. However, he does not provide any sort of reason why - this is a recurring theme in his speeches: making ridiculous claims not backed by any sort of evidence. .. and before Pro says that he doesn't need to provide evidence because it's "not his job" (as he has said in his other debates), it completely is his job as the Pro side - there's something called the burden of proof, when you put forward a claim, you need to have evidence backing it up, it's one of the most commonly known rules of debate as well as other subjects such as science. On the other hand, Pro finishes his third speech by basically saying that Republicans are all rich, straight, old religious white men. I will be refuting this with some demographics about Trump provided by Real Clear Politics. I chose Trump because he is the Republican nominee this election and is the most relevant and recent Republican political candidate. (. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...)As you can see in the demographics, quite the opposite of what Pro says is true. In terms of wealth, these Republicans are less wealthy and educated than others. Also, slightly over half are women, and many are races other than white. The claims my opponent has made in round 3 are simply ludicrous. CONCLUSIONSo as I pointed out in my first speech, all I needed to do to win this debate was prove one way Republicans are better than Democrats, and I have done so. Pro has not refuted this, meaning it still is valid and stands. What I have done after this is refuting the Pro speech, even though it is unneeded I just want to make sure that the voters know who won this debate. The win is clearly going to the Con side at this point.