America's Two Party System.

Implementation vs TheoryIn the last round I presented two arguments. First, I argued that if you abolish political association you end civil rights. I went on to prove why this is a bad thing. My opponent responds by saying he wants to abandon, not abolish, civil rights. Cool. Now you need to prove why that's a good thing. It isn't - not having civil rights is bad no matter what way you come at it. My second argument was a whole paragraph of analysis on why discourse would be hindered. My opponent does not respond other than to assert the opposite. Until my opponent backs this up with an argument, my point stands. I don't care if my opponent didn't want to argue for the implementation of the alternative. Not only has he done so (even talking about implementation with respect to balance of powers! ) himself, a theory with bad implementation is a bad theory. It is impossible to argue a political theory without some grounding in reality, and arguing that my arguments are too "real" and thus invalid is not a good counter-argument. RebuttalLike myself, my opponent has given you two points. First he argued that conforming to the party shuts down independant thought. This is false because representatives are free to leave a party at any time and become independant. My opponent said they won't do that due to negative press. If independant thought gives you negative press, then the press is at fault, not the party system! However, the sheer number of independant candidates confirms that this is not the case. The rhetoric my opponent gives you of poor candidates being bullied into voting this way or that is nothing more than rhetoric - it's not bullying if they agree it's right already. People join a party because they AGREE with them. Secondly, my opponent argues that the people are made devisive through TV programming, which is somehow being controlled by the political parties. You don't stop bias in the media by banning political association. In fact, as has happened every other time this has been tried, the media simply stops reporting alternative views if political association is no longer free, and simply reports on what the government does. This, in turn, creates a dangerous mixture of apathy and deferance. Being involved with politics does not instantly translate into apathy, however. Lots of voters switch sides. This implies that the media is more balanced than many would give it credit for, or maybe Americans are smart enough to know that it isn't balanced. This generally points to the fact that this isn't actually a problem. Besides that, you can't stop media bias. All journalists have opinions, and even the most valient attempts at reporting a story fairly usually betray them if you listen carefully to their wording. Media bias is not because there are convenient parties attached to the ideologies, but just a natural by-product of diversity of opinion. As consumers of media we too have a responsibility to detect this bias. If we cannot, we shouldn't blame the system but ourselves. Finally my opponent asserts (although this is not a complete argument in a formal sense) that legislators cannot negotiate with the other party as their ideologies are different. My opponent never shows the causal link to the party system - why does the party system make legislators unable to engage in meaningful discourse? The fact is that without political parties, people would still be closed-minded and, on the basis that there would be no system for negotiation, very little progress indeed. Think of it like banning free religious association - banning all churches to solve the problem of religious hatred will not end hatred in the world. ConclusionMy opponent has failed to respond adequitely to either of my two contentions. Political parties are not the cause of division in America, but rather form the foundation for discourse and freedom that will be essential for her future. The motion stands.