The Values of the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party

As I am reading my opponent comments I am starting to realize that our topic is almost unlimited, because every other statement can be a debate on its own. I suppose we must continue" "Yet the results of the presidential election seem to paint a different picture of what the people want." Mostly Wrong! The System failed the people, the people did show what they wanted" Clinton had more than 3 million votes than Trump. The system is more than 200 years old, just to put it in perspective... It was created during times when the general population couldn't get access easily to mail and newspapers as they were just getting established, forget about radio and television. It has built in distortion where one person doesn't equal to one actual vote. For example it takes hundreds of individuals from California to even out with the voting power of one person from Arizona. https://wallethub.com... It makes no sense why a free country for equal rights has built-in disproportion of the voting power of individuals based on where they live" Forgive me, the equal rights came in much later" 133 years later" that explains it" https://en.wikipedia.org... Great speech, empty words" My opponent says "It is my view that republican values more closely adhere to the values of the founders of this great country, therefore it is these values that are going to have the most positive impact on our society." Dear readers this is the definition of allegation. A statement offered as a justification with little or no proof. http://www.dictionary.com... Ahhh, Healthcare, what a wonderful topic :) My opponent says "It stripped a person of their right to not have health insurance, forcing them to purchase a plan, which drove costs up on a vast majority of the population." How is this so called "right" any different of the "right" not to save for Social Security, not to purchase Car Insurance, not to purchase house insurance? All of those "rights" have been taken from us, because they are not "rights", they are common sense. A city can't have the "right" not to provide police or fire protection. Because those are events that when not managed they destroy the institution/body. If there is no law enforcement, the city will be destroyed, if there is no fire department, the city will be burned down. The city can't afford to have the "right" to choose if it should pay for it or not, its common sense and it happens in every city. The same exact way, a human can't have the "right" for something that it is a question of "when" not a question of "if" that they will need. If they do not contribute to the system, their total contribution over life will never cover their own expenses when they need that healthcare. This is no different than saying I don't need Social Security, but then at the age of 60 you change your mind and you want it because now you need it. You can't possibly contribute enough for all of your expenses that are about to happen after the age of 60, when you changed your mind and decide that it is time to buy a health insurance. Your health insurance by not buying one previously will be like "all out of pocket", it won't be insurance. It will be more like $20-50k a year on average. This is really simple math and logic that anyone should be able to make sense out of. It is my opponent proposal to have the "right" to not buy health insurance that it is what can destroy an entire nation, when everyone gets in line to be served for something they had the "right" not to pay for the last 40 years. The only reason USA is at its current healthcare mess today is because republicans refuse to make sense out of the above facts. And sadly the problem only becomes worst as the time goes and people do not pay today what one day they WILL take. Not "if" they need healthcare, "when" they need it! And if the arguments goes to "But how did humanity survived without health insurance for thousands of years? The answer is, barely. Just in 1900 the world average life expectancy was 31, at 1950 was 48, today it is 71.5 Can you believe that? Only a hundred years ago, probably the majority of the readers of this debate should be dead. https://en.wikipedia.org.... There are several factors to the contribution of this explosion of life expectancy, but without a doubt the most significant is the Introduction of varies Universal Health Care systems throughout the world in the early 1900. Simple infections could be treated, simple health care was available. https://en.wikipedia.org.... Even today from statistical standpoint, where universal healthcare is not available countries have lower life expectancy. http://researchmaniacs.com.... United States, the leader of the world in just about any field is next to countries like Taiwan, Bahram, Panama, and Costa Rica! This is not a coincidence! Global warming Like I said, every paragraph is a debate on its own" I will try to keep it short with links with proof and how it is measured. There are plenty of statistical facts and evidence of the global warming. There is really no argument there as far as I am concerned, perhaps there maybe argument if it is human caused. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.icr.org... The 10th Amendment" My opponent says: "According to our constitution, the federal government only has a few responsibilities, and the tenth amendment dictates that the rest is "reserved to the States". Yes, I understand the importance of rules and structures. But how could anything from 200 years ago, have the same "weight". Back than USA was 1/5th of today's size with only 13 states. With the industrial and modern ages, many new problems were created that didn't exist 200 years ago and yes of course they couldn't possibly think of them as much as republicans are always trying to fit them in that timeframe. The last 200 years have changed life more than the previous 10000 years combined. Why would anyone in 1779 want to have the rules from the middle ages. They didn't, they understood how na"ve that is and wrote new once. But we don't seem to have the capacity to understand how that works, even two ages later" Low-Income loans didn't cause the financial crisis. National Bureau of Economic Research provides no support for such claims. As many republicans want to point the finger to. The majority of defaulted loans were from the middle and upper class, not from the lower income. http://www.cbsnews.com... "While there was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during this time period, the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence in the paper suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people." The extinct species called - the tolerant, inclusive and optimistic Republican My opponent says: "Republicans are tolerant, inclusive, and optimistic. This one made me burst in laugh" Are we still talking about the same republicans? Those that will threaten you with their gun if you appear to be gay or muslim. That example voids out tolerant and inclusive right off the bet. Optimistic" interesting, am I the only one seeing that republican speeches are always the once with dark clouds over their heads, praying on peoples fear and that the world is about to end, and you are not save. We need nukes and lots of them, big walls, lots of ammo and plenty of emergency food in that personally built bunker. I am sorry but this is the republican base, that's not a few, and that's not tolerant, inclusive or optimistic people. No matter what angle I try to look at it, republicans are exactly the opposite. In fact that brings me to my final words. Summary It is clear that the party is not just a political choice, the party represents ideologies that define the people. Are you pro peace or pro guns/military. Are you pro society or pro individuals? Are you pro workers or pro corporations? Are you pro inclusiveness no matter of your religion, race, believes, or nationality or are you pro walls and barriers. Are you pro deregulation or pro limit of the harm that the most powerful people and corporations can do to anyone? You can't have both, its one or the other! If I could attempt to summarize the entire debate and the republican party vs the democratic party in one question and one word defining the people fallowing the given party. It will have to be: Are you selfish or are you giving? Don't blame me, I didn't come up with the definition" Selfish adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: Thank you for the opportunity to debate and certainly even greater thank you to the readers if they could manage to read through all this :).