America would benefit from a new political party in power.

Now, my rebuttals and continuation of my points. .. I would like to start with an overall note for clarification: when I am quoting a particular statement made by my opponent, I quote it in an abridged format. I do this to save space in my argument for other points of contention. For example, if I were to quote my last sentence for reference in an argument, I would quote it as "I do this to save . .. points of contention. " My intention is not to misquote my opponent - only to save space. In response to my opponent's first point, I am not necessarily saying that there are not times in history that the voice of the people was partially ignored - I am asking for my opponent to clarify his statement by backing it up with an example of when this has occurred. The question that my opponent asks me in this first point differs from my point of contention - my issue with his statement, and the reason why I asked for clarification from him, is that I really would like to know when the two political parties were not able to solve the nation's problems. Of course, this depends on what it means to "solve". The question he asks me is "Are you saying you don't . .. to form a third party? ” That's not what I was getting at in my request for clarification, but I will answer his question with a question: are you saying that a third party would be able to hear the "peoples voices" properly, or any better than its predecessor? The answer is it most certainly would not. A new party would not benefit the country if it ran into and was impeded by the same challenges of its predecessor(s), and the one fact that party's do not always please the majority would apply to this new party as well. Just because a new party comes into power doesn't mean it is immune to all the challenges facing the political system, and to think so would be fallacious in its concept. My opponent then, in his second point, makes a rather brutally unrelated analogy to a point I was trying to make, but I believe some can still be accomplished by examining it. The 'two parents' in question here would be the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans and the Democrats have known these 'children', as in the country, all of their lives, and have been a part of their development and responsible for their protection for as long as anyone can remember. Now, let's kick one of these parents completely out of the lives of the children in favor for an 18 year old in the hopes the 18 year old can break the horrible addiction habits of the kids AND get them to work. It doesn't matter that the parent that was kicked out was in the middle of a parenting course teaching them how to take better care of their children - we believe the 18 year old with no parental experience can do it better. The 18 year old in this analogy is the new party my opponent is talking about - as if the 'children' in question here, a. k. a. the country, would somehow benefit more from an in-experienced parent (that has no idea what they are doing) as opposed to a more experienced parent who is in the middle of trying to get things back on track using hundreds of years of pre-acquired knowledge and understanding of the situation due to their longevity. I believe the country would be better off sticking with the parent that would have an idea of what they are doing and knowledge of what needs to be done to fix the situation(s) at hand. In his third point, my opponent lists a plethora of reasons as to why he believes our country is not being realized 'to its fullest potential'. He says that these "Bones" would "support [his] points of course. " I do not see how these points support his side. If he is trying to argue that there are indeed problems with the nation, I do not disagree. If he is trying to say, however, that, due to the presence of these problems, a new party in power would be able to fix them or have a better chance of fixing them than the Democrats or Republicans. .. I disagree. The number one reason why America indeed would NOT benefit from a new political party in power is that a new political party would be facing the same problems that the Republicans and Democrats are right now, but without hundreds of years of experience, detailed knowledge of these problems (due to the fact that they were not in power when these problems germinated), and the fact that there is still one of those two parties that would have previously been in power still in power at the same time the new party would be. If the 'bones' that my opponent presents in his third point are all completely true (I'm assuming they are, since no sources were cited when these points were presented by my opponent) then a new party just has that many more problems to overcome with one very large handicap to fix them in comparison to the party they just usurped. What my opponent illustrated is how completely politically challenged a new party would be if they were to assume power due to a number of issues they have no idea how to deal with. Next, in his fourth point, my opponent clearly illustrates how he completely missed the point I was trying to make. My opponent keeps claiming that a new party 'would' be able to do all sorts of grand gestures and make all sorts of sweeping change in America, without illustrating how. I can tell you how they would not be able to make any of these changes: A new political party would be left with tons of problems (a shattered economy, two wars, and years of hate) that would have been gestated by their predecessors. They would face one of the two parties that had been involved in the creation of said problems. They would be operating in the same political climate of partisanship and a split country divided along the lines of political issues [1]. They would be newbies - an entity that would be thrown into a nearly uninhabitable political situation with no prior experience. They may have ideas, but what evidence is there that they would not face all the challenges that killed all the ideas of the party they replaced in the past? Pro has not illustrated HOW America would benefit, nor the means as to which the benefits would either come to form OR be implemented, and when you take a look at the climate the new party would be entering, who's to say anything would change from the one set of parties to the new one? I'm arguing that it would not change at all, and we would be even worse off due to the fact the new party would barely have any idea of what it would be doing or of how to proceed. Finally, let's examine my opponent's fifth point of contention: "With a new party in power, the whole game changes. .. " No it doesn't. You still have the same set of problems and a country divided along lines of political ideals. Same voting, same electoral college, same game. "everything will have to be thrown . . measure up in comparison. " Haven't the voters already seen how they measure up in comparison when the new party was put in power? "Good leadership can find an . .. solving any of our nations problems" Don't you think a more experienced party has a better chance of finding "good leadership" than a fledgling party in power? Or that a more experienced party has a better chance at solving the nation’s problems with their better understanding? Problems does not equate the need for a new political party - they equate the need for someone who knows these problmes from experience to come up with good solutions to solve them. Its not time to take anything out of power - it should be time to fix what already is. I await my opponent's response! [1] . http://blogs.forbes.com...