Political Parties are Counterentuitive to the progress of the United States

My opponent offers no real points of contention other than the Resolution is true. He refutes my objections to the resolution specifically however we have yet to see an actual case formed. To prove a resolution one must provide reasons for believing the resolution is true not simply postulate on the basic assumptions the resolution represents. He is very repetitive using the same points (basically) in his counter objections. Now onto my defense of my objections: 1-3. Political parties don't force anyone to vote any specific way. Notice how my opponent views moderate situations favorable when arguing in his case but leaves no compromise possible in my case and view priority setting as negative. Two basic ways to respond to this objection one is point out that (as alluded to before) absolution of the minorities values represented isn't realistic in a democratic society, the reason why parties are composed the way they are is because the majority of the people in the party feel that way. Your personal cherry picking example can be shown to help me by knowing the reason why the traditional family is an issue for the RNC. If you feel the traditional family isn't part of your values your welcome to stay independent or allow compromise when voting for your senators, or join the Libertarian party. However simply because all of your values not represented by your party isn't a reason to say "This is most obviously counter-intuitive". The second way to respond is even if political parties do effectively force people to vote a certain way it is non-sequtiur to say that it's counter intuitive to American progress. Refer to Point 4. "Every measure the Republican Party supports will get passed if they hold majority" Ok if this is extreme than any democratic process is extreme. The majority of people will vote for the values that the majority of people in their party represent. My opponent is essentially arguing that democracy is extreme. (Note: Mitt Romney is pretty moderate in my opinion) The people who compose parties are the people who (IN THE LONG RUN) run parties or at least appear to have the same values as the people in the parties or there would be no purpose of uniting in the first place. He doesn't address the resolution specific mention of counterintuitive to progress in a human/civil rights perspective. 4. The fact is if someone is uncomfortable with compromise they join a third party, so my opponent may be right but relatively nothing of importance follows as the way I framed this contention itï¿½€™s if all others fail. He doesn't address Pathos. Further attacks: My opponent seems to think the rational voters are in the minority and that because of this the party system is unjust and that because of this (as I will refer to them)"Rational minority" we must abolish or fundamentally change the party system in the United States. In a democracy the majority of people vote to determine their government and that government tries to go forth and represent these values the party system in any country helps people unite in order to accomplish higher goals therefore naturally the party should represent a majority of peoples values in it. If a two-party system doesn't work in the United States more powerful parties are free to overtake them once in the majority. If the majority doesn't rule than it's not a democracy.