The US two party system historically has undermined progress in congress.

Historical: Yes but we're trying to examine a historical scope "The debate isn't about the validity of the block. The bills may have sucked afterwards, but the main reason they were blocked is because of partisanship. We aren't debating whether it was justifed. The bills blocked were blocked because of partisanship, this offput congress and therefore undermined their progress." No. Just no. He says that it blocked because of partisanship. Does he provide evidence? No. That's like me saying the sun rises in the morning because I eat waffles. Just because I provide a pretty link of the sun rising doesn't mean I get the freedom to put any explanation of said event on it that I want. He provides no evidence of WHY the party lines cause the blocks and not the validity of the block. Argument dropped. Second point: Of course everyone has bias. I have bias. You have bias. Bias doesn't mean you can't make a good decision. The reason debate.org allows the voter to provide a before and after opinion is to see if you can change minds even with bias. But again he MAKES HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS that "people reject others because of their party." So judge, he's basically saying if you vote for me, than it's because you have strong party ties to the neg and you don't have a conscious mind of your own that can make rational decisions. His point is offensive and irrational. Third point: A senator can be heard without partisanship. If the name Ralph Nader rings a bell to you, than that's enough proof that a third party candidate can make a difference. Also, I'm sorry I wasn't clear with "DDO" guidelines, in any other debate environment the affirmative has the burden of proof just like the prosecution does in a courtroom. Excuse my little experience on DDO. Regardless I still win because his rebuttal to my point fails. His rebuttal: You don't have many options. You can go and vote for a third party candidate right now. Constitutional rights ftw. Unless you live in some highly unconstitutional state, I hope you are free to vote for who you want. Regardless, he misses the whole purpose and impact of my point that intellectual discourse and discussion is the only means of progress. That's why we're having this debate now is it not? Voters: You vote Neg because my opponent pretty much insults anyone who makes a rational decision. My opponent's logic, without evidence, is that if one votes for something than they are stubborn and tied to party lines. This really have no evidential or rational basis. I will concede that obviously party members have a bias to their own party. If they didn't there wouldn't be much reason for them to be in that party. But simply being in a party doesn't cloud your judgment. It's insulting to really anyone to say that if they vote one way they are stubborn and stuck to party lines. Judge, remember this: According to my opponent's logic, if you vote for me than you will be stubborn and not listening to the other side and oppressing him. If you don't think this is the case than vote AFF. Obviously a two-sided debate is a great way to arrive at a conclusion. Why does debate.org exist if that's not the case? He has not addressed THESE arguments and do not let my opponent bring up new arguments and evidence in his next speech as I will not have a speech to counter. Since I have proved all these things, vote AFF.