Challenge Match: intrepid vs. MemoryShock: Political Partisanship Is Healthy

The topic for this debate is “Political Partisanship Is Actually Healthy For The United States Political System"

intrepid will be arguing the "Pro" position and will open the debate.
MemoryShock will argue the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Videos are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

I would like to thank semperfortis for setting up this debate. Also to my esteemed opponent. This one has been coming for a while. I would also like to thank the readers, without you this would be a pointless endeavor. Hopefully MS and I will not only do the topic justice but make it interesting for all.

“Political Partisanship Is Actually Healthy For The United States Political System"

"Political partisanship(PP)" has take a bad rap lately but in this debate I will show that it is not only "healthy" but an essential part of the US political system. I will show why it's necessary. I will show that it is part of the very fabric that IS the US system.

Secondly I will show that the problems that the US is having now do NOT have to do with PP as such. It is being used and maligned. Those problems will be laid out and show that what some think is PP is actually not.

That is the premise of my position. Over to you MS. Let's get it on.

Partisanship
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Partisanship] [1]

Emphasis on the term bias. How can a system that is essentially designed to instill personal bias in regards to societal decisions be healthy?

Partisanship is in effect a side effect of the class system...differing opinions from those that have money and those who don't; opinions on how the social construct of our society should be constructed with regards to whom has the capacity to exert financial influence and not.

While I am one of the first to say that a 'static opinion base' breeds stagnation I will also say that Partisanship in it of itself is imperfect as it encourages people to reject alternative perspectives based on affiliation.

The encouragement is a perpetuation of fallacious logical reasoning.

I will heretofore omit my usual in depth opening post in favor of the concerns I have raised here.

Divide and Conquer. That is all that Partisanship accomplishes. Society is ill defined in our current application partially because of partisanship...because society denotes"We".

Where is the "We" in partisanship?

TRhroughout this debate I will show that partisanship merely perpetuates divisive social interaction...by encouraging basic and ill founded assumptions. The implications are upon our educational system and on our traditional methods of social interaction.

What we need is the loss of labels. We need cognitive interaction with the issues that stand before us, rather than reactive. Partisanship encourages reaction.

My props to intrepid for taking this debate on and I wish him luck. My props to Semperfortis for moderating this debate. But in the end, I will show exactly why Partisanship creates the stagnation I am wary of.

“Political Partisanship Is Actually Healthy For The United States Political System"

I would like to thank MS for pointing out that version of "partisanship".

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Partisanship
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Partisanship] [1]

Emphasis on the term bias. How can a system that is essentially designed to instill personal bias in regards to societal decisions be healthy?

I have another though:

• noun 1 a strong, often uncritical, supporter of a party, cause, or person

www.askoxford.com...

That takes the knee jerk out of it. No "bias" in that definition.



In this post I will show that partisan politics has been around almost since the US's inception.

The "founding fathers" didn't foresee, nor plan for partisan politics(PP) but that didn't stop the evolution of America from developing such in less than 25 years. By 1800 political parties had developed and by 1830 PP was well on it's way.

Despite these provisions, the United States in 1800 became the first nation to develop political parties organized on a national level and to transfer executive power from one party to another via an election. By the 1830s, political parties were an established part of the U.S. political environment.

www.america.gov...

Same source:

Generally, Republicans have tended to support limiting federal powers and protecting the authority of state and local governments, to take a conservative approach to taxation and spending, and to oppose government interference with free enterprise. In contrast, Democrats have tended to take a more expansive view of the powers of the federal government, to support raising and spending money to address social ills on a national basis, and to favor federal regulation as a tool to improve business practices. But these are broad generalizations: In U.S. politics, “conservative” Democrats and “moderate” or even “liberal” Republicans are not unusual.

The major focus for both political parties is winning elections and controlling the personnel of government. Given their broad sources of support in the electorate and their need to operate within an ideologically moderate society, American parties tend to adopt centrist policy positions and demonstrate a high level of policy flexibility. This enables the Republicans and the Democrats to tolerate great diversity within their ranks.

As can be seen there are stark difference in the policies of the 2 parties. This is inherently so. This not only necessary but it is the strength of the political process. If things remained the same there would be no need for differing policies. That said, everything changes, only change is changeless.

One has to keep in mind that the bottom line is the voter. They KNOW what the parties stand for. As times change so does the need for a different policy. A good example is the 1980 election.

In 1979/1980 Jimmy Carter had a terrible record on the international stage. The hostages in Tehran had been held for over a year. The USSR was ramping up their military machine and the voters we scared of these international threats. What was the result of the following election?

Ronald Reagan George Bush Republican 43,903,230 50.75%(Pop. vote) 489 90.9%(elect. col.)

www.uselectionatlas.org...

Why did the Republicans have such a complete win? The electorate KNEW what this party would do. It is part and parcel with their PP. Did it work? History tell us that the Tehran hostages were release minutes after Reagan was sworn in:

en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, the Soviet Union fell under his watch. The voters were right.

You can't win an election without PP. It is essential for the voter to know where the party stands. It's the swing vote, the moderates and centrist that will determine what party rules BUT there has to be a clear, stated policy that they can determine from.

Where would we be without PP? No choice? Imagine what the world had been like if Carter had won that election? Would the PP of the left have solved the problems with the USSR? The Iran crisis? The former is up for discussion but the latter shows that it wouldn't have been successful. They had 444 days to solve this and didn't. It was time for a different type of partisan policy.

My opponent I see has mentioned "stagnation" in his opening post:

Originally posted by MemoryShock
While I am one of the first to say that a 'static opinion base' breeds stagnation I will also say that Partisanship in it of itself is imperfect as it encourages people to reject alternative perspectives based on affiliation.

I have to disagree. PP allows for greater flexibility for the vote as shown above. It's the lack of choice that leads to stagnation. See China and it's one party government. That would be a prime example of stagnation.

As I previously said, PP has gotten a bad rap lately. In further posts I will show what the REAL problem in and it isn't PP.

Socratic question #1: Since PP has been injected into the US political system in 1800, do you not think that America has been successful internally and on the international stage in that time?

I will close this post with that question. Back to you MS.

I will be taking my 24 hour extension..

“Political Partisanship Is Actually Not Healthy For The United States Political System"

I can appreciate intrepid's use of an alternative defintion for Partisanship
:

Originally posted by intrepid

• noun 1 a strong, often uncritical,supporter of a party, cause, or person

That takes the knee jerk out of it. No "bias" in that definition.

And he correctly points out that there is no use of the term bias in the oxford definition.

However, idealistic application of definitions don't and haven't worked in
application. There is a bias that people will take upon given their affiliation. And this bias will be influenced and reinforced through popular media.

Case in point -

Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday inked an eight-year contract for around $400 million, underscoring how radio is spending big sums on bankable talent to compete in the crowded entertainment field.
[1]

Limbaugh is well known throughout American politics, as is Anne Coulter, for their very slanted political commentary, making fallacious logical claims as to the charcter traits of liberals. Indeed, the two examples provided are from the "conservative" side of the spectrum but it underscores the very nature of American politics - that of shock appeal to the persons and not the issues.

And this divisive nature has ramifications in application. The people whom listen to these high profile pundits are incredibly sensitive to the conservative/liberal slants of our mainstream media. So sensitive that the content is either discarded or argued vehemently based on 'whose' agenda it serves.

Divide and Conquer.

Socratic Question #1 - Do you see that Partisanship has been a way to dissuade actual focus and consideration of the laws and Bills being passed through the Legislative System?

Socratic Question #2 - How is it healthy for an American populace to be more focused on political affiliation then the content of the legislation being passed through the Legislative System?

Originally posted by intrepid
The "founding fathers" didn't foresee, nor plan for partisan politics(PP) but that didn't stop the evolution of America from developing such in less than 25 years. By 1800 political parties had developed and by 1830 PP was well on it's way.

I would argue this. The road for partisan politics was paved in the founding fathers desire to get away from Monarchy rule. And while partisan politics was intended to provide a forum for differing viewpoints,
the political aspect of the partisanship has long since been discarded in favor of capitalistic influence. This type of government provides an illusion to the Western Societies. What this does is allow for people to think that they have a voice when many times legislation and societal decisions are predicated upon a percieved need and a subsequent
manipulation of the opinions/thoughts of the voting public. This point is
highlighted well with an excerpt from intrepids own link -

The major focus for both political parties is winning elections and controlling the personnel of government. [2]

What this motivation illustrates is that the political partisanship has instilled a side effect that differs greatly from any idealistic application of intrepid's
provided definition.

The need for victory and divisive strategy has over powered the need for critical thought of the issues and concerns of an ever evolving society - especially in today's ever globalized world.

And what about a classic reference to partisanship maneuverings?

The scandal began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. The men were connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President by a slush fund[1] and investigations conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the news media. [3]

Originally posted by intrepid
One has to keep in mind that the bottom line is the voter. They KNOW what the parties stand for.

I emphatically disagree with this statement.

The voters are and have been manipulated by the very expressions that supposedly are intended for their elucidation.

An example -

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

-Snip-

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task
forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.
[4]

The voters don't know in many cases why they are agreeing to a certain expression as there are ways to identify with an uneducated crowd by use of persuasive rhetoric. As well, the speeches given by our political leaders are specifically kept general in nature and idealistic. There is no critical thought encouraged. Indeed, the implicit encouragement within political expressions is that of agreement.

Originally posted by intrepid
See China and it's one party government. That would be a prime example of stagnation.

While I am not here to argue the validity of China and their one party system...I would disagree with their society stagnating at this time...

China as an emerging Super Power; [5]

Socratic Question #3 - Do the current economic trappings of the United States undermine the political partisanship of its' government?

Socratic Question #4 - Is there more corporate influence in the United States Legislative process than there is Political Influence?

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #1: Since PP has been injected into the US political system in 1800, do you not think that America has been successful internally and on the international stage in that time?

Direct Answer - Yes, America has been successful.

Socratic Question #5 - Can America's success be directly attributed to partisanship?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
There is a bias that people will take upon given their affiliation. And this bias will be influenced and reinforced through popular media.

Case in point -

Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday inked an eight-year contract for around $400 million, underscoring how radio is spending big sums on bankable talent to compete in the crowded entertainment field.
[1]

Limbaugh is well known throughout American politics, as is Anne Coulter, for their very slanted political commentary, making fallacious logical claims as to the charcter traits of liberals. Indeed, the two examples provided are from the "conservative" side of the spectrum but it underscores the very nature of American politics - that of shock appeal to the persons and not the issues.

I'm glad you brought this up as this is where I was going to go on this post anyways. Check out the bold in your post. The "entertainment field". This is not the political field. He's the same "shock jock" as Howard Stern, only with less talent.

He's hardly a case for political partisanship(PP). He makes NO policy. He just caters to a very few people AND only for monetary value. According to Wiki he has only 13.5 million weekly listeners. That's less that 5% of the American populous:

en.wikipedia.org...

He couldn't even keep himself in check while being an NFL analyst:

espn.go.com...

He's in the entertainment industry, not the political venue.

And this divisive nature has ramifications in application. The people whom listen to these high profile pundits are incredibly sensitive to the conservative/liberal slants of our mainstream media. So sensitive that the content is either discarded or argued vehemently based on 'whose' agenda it serves.

He may be vocal but he's of little influence, as I've already shown. In fact there are heavy weight Republicans that do not share his rhetoric:

Romney and McCain diss Rush.

He is NOT part of the conservatives PP. He's just a mouth piece for himself. THIS is why PP has gotten a bad rep. People think that these talking heads are part of the process, they aren't. They serve their own purpose and nothing more.

Socratic Question #1 - Do you see that Partisanship has been a way to dissuade actual focus and consideration of the laws and Bills being passed through the Legislative System?

No. PP is in place for the voters to put people into place that will do what is needed at the time. It's no surprise that Obama is focusing on health care. That's a HUGE part of the Democrats PP.

Socratic Question #2 - How is it healthy for an American populace to be more focused on political affiliation then the content of the legislation being passed through the Legislative System?

It's healthy because the informed voter KNOWS what a party will do. Like I said of the Reagan election of 1980. PP was in place. The voters KNEW what the score was at the time. 90% electoral vote? That doesn't happen without a reason.

Socratic Question #3 - Do the current economic trappings of the United States undermine the political partisanship of its' government?

No. The basic premise of both parties remain the same. They are diametrically opposed and that IS healthy.

Socratic Question #4 - Is there more corporate influence in the United States Legislative process than there is Political Influence?

Tough question. I would have to say no. In elections you have corporations that contribute to campaigns. In Washington you have lucrative lobbyists. Probably the same. They aren't concerned with politics though, they are concerned with making money.

Socratic Question #5 - Can America's success be directly attributed to partisanship?

Yes and no. America has shifted back and forth through the years from one party to the next as the times required. As I have shown, this is because the people KNEW what they were going to get. That said, you can't discount the ingenuity and creativity of the American people.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #1: Since PP has been injected into the US political system in 1800, do you not think that America has been successful internally and on the international stage in that time?

Direct Answer - Yes, America has been successful.

So then, if it isn't broke, why fix it?

Socratic question #1- If America has been successful while using PP, as you've attested to, why do you see it as "unhealthy"?

Back to you.

Originally posted by intrepid
He's hardly a case for political partisanship(PP). He makes NO policy.

He's in the entertainment industry, not the political venue.

Aww...but the entertainment industry does have an effect on the population. The thought here is that just because people discuss politics outside of the political arena does not mean that people aren't basing there opinions on what they hear in the "entertainment industry". Indeed, the entertainment industry is inflected with social issues throughout and competes for the attention of the populace.

To say that the these pundits don't have an influence (and Rush isn't the only one out there; the amount of money he makes does suggest the value placed on his divisive rhetoric) is missing the point that we as a society are influenced by every piece of information out there. And the dismissive attitude purveyed to those with differing affiliations is the problem.

Partisanship is a societal effort and effects everyone in the political arena...especially the voter. And while my opinion on the education of the voting population isn't necessarily flattering, it is based on exactly the amount of attention that is placed on affiliation rather than the issues.

Originally posted by intrepid
He may be vocal but he's of little influence, as I've already shown.

Again, he is but one voice amongst many. As well, the amount of money he makes does go a long way in showing how much importance is placed on partisan rhetoric.

Originally posted by intrepid
It's healthy because the informed voter KNOWS what a party will do. Like I said of the Reagan election of 1980. PP was in place. The voters KNEW what the score was at the time. 90% electoral vote? That doesn't happen without a reason.

And I contend that campaigns are won by focusing on the uneducated voter. Reagan won when there was a limited amount of mediums for information to travel and the issues at the time were focused more on pulling the emotions of the American people. I seriously doubt that we'll see another 90% electoral vote - and one instance does not a trend or proof make...

Socratic Question #1 - What premise are campaign strategies often built upon?

Socratic Question #2 - How would you describe as an "informed voter?

Socratic Question #3 - What percentage of the voting population would you consider "informed"?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Socratic Question #4 - Is there more corporate influence in the United States Legislative process than there is Political Influence?

Originally posted by intrepid
Tough question. I would have to say no. In elections you have corporations that contribute to campaigns. In Washington you have lucrative lobbyists. Probably the same. They aren't concerned with politics though, they are concerned with making money.

Precisely my point. There are many people in Washington who are more concerned with maing money rather than the issue(s) that the money is associated with. Corporate interests consume a huge amount of the cash flow in Washington and political arenas all over the nation. This is what partisanship has unfortunatly allowed for - the appealing of voter and political support based on money and control rather than critical thought. There are many ways to influence the voter and enhancing critical thought is very low on that list.

Originally posted by intrepid
Yes and no. America has shifted back and forth through the years from one party to the next as the times required. As I have shown, this is because the people KNEW what they were going to get.

The people 'knew what they were getting? How many people are aware of corporate armies? Did the people know that throughout the past several decades that there has been a move to privatize war? Blackwater is a great example of this and the reason for it is that International laws are not designed to force corporate transparency. Pretty convenient...

The history of American foreign and military policy abounds with deception and scandal, with shadowy actors, monied interests and efforts to keep the public out of what are properly public decisions. Now those efforts have taken an unprecedented turn in scale and degree. Privatization, the process by which the responsibilities of government are transferred to unaccountable corporate hands, now occupies the halls of warmaking. [1]

What about the many political scandals throughout our history? Did the American know that the ideaolgy used to gain their sympathies and votes would result in the long list provided in the next link?

Politcal Scandals of the United States. [2]

My point is that partisanship is used to divide the voting public rather than inform them allowing for the flow of money between politics and corpoarte interest.

I would hardly call this healthy.

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #1- If America has been successful while using PP, as you've attested to, why do you see it as "unhealthy"?

It is unhealthy because partisanship encourages knee jerk reactions and affiliations rather than much critical thought regarding our political process. Indeed, I would sooner attribute America's success to it's Industrial Era boon then partisanship. America is successful because of money and bnot because of partisanship. While opinions will invariably differ across the spectrum, it is certainly not accurate to state that political partisanship in America breeds an informed and just voter. I contend that it encourages the opposite.

Back to you intrepid.

I'm going to have to invoke my 24 hr extension.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by intrepid
He's hardly a case for political partisanship(PP). He makes NO policy.

He's in the entertainment industry, not the political venue.

Aww...but the entertainment industry does have an effect on the population. The thought here is that just because people discuss politics outside of the political arena does not mean that people aren't basing there opinions on what they hear in the "entertainment industry". Indeed, the entertainment industry is inflected with social issues throughout and competes for the attention of the populace.

To say that the these pundits don't have an influence (and Rush isn't the only one out there; the amount of money he makes does suggest the value placed on his divisive rhetoric) is missing the point that we as a society are influenced by every piece of information out there. And the dismissive attitude purveyed to those with differing affiliations is the problem.

PLEASE NOTE THE BOLD

Secondly, American Dad is entertainment. It's been renewed:

tvbythenumbers.com...

Are you saying that people vote Republican because of Stan? Rhetorical question.

Partisanship is a societal effort and effects everyone in the political arena...especially the voter.

I believe I already pointed out that PP is important to the individual. Their times. Their needs. They change and you need a "basis", a "platform" to know what you are voting for.

Originally posted by intrepid
He may be vocal but he's of little influence, as I've already shown.

Again, he is but one voice amongst many. As well, the amount of money he makes does go a long way in showing how much importance is placed on partisan rhetoric.

And I contend that campaigns are won by focusing on the uneducated voter.

IRRELEVANT! Are you contending that uninformed people are the only voters? The informed are irrelevant? Another rhetorical question.

Socratic Question #1 - What premise are campaign strategies often built upon?

They are always built on winning elections and putting their policies in place. Like I said. PP.

Socratic Question #2 - How would you describe as an "informed voter?

A person that listens to the issues as it pertains to their needs of the time and ideology. Then vote.

Socratic Question #3 - What percentage of the voting population would you consider "informed"?

I know that I have to answer this question out right but I don't know how I can without inaccuracy. I could Google it.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Socratic Question #4 - Is there more corporate influence in the United States Legislative process than there is Political Influence?

Originally posted by intrepid
Tough question. I would have to say no. In elections you have corporations that contribute to campaigns. In Washington you have lucrative lobbyists. Probably the same. They aren't concerned with politics though, they are concerned with making money.

Precisely my point. There are many people in Washington who are more concerned with maing money rather than the issue(s) that the money is associated with. Corporate interests consume a huge amount of the cash flow in Washington and political arenas all over the nation. This is what partisanship has unfortunatly allowed for - the appealing of voter and political support based on money and control rather than critical thought. There are many ways to influence the voter and enhancing critical thought is very low on that list.

What critical thought are you talking about? It's been pointed out that people vote for, basically, personal interests. The 2 parties have their set agendas(PP) and the people make the decision of what works for them. Reagan in '80. Obama in 2008. Why? The voter knew what he would do. HEALTH CARE.

Socratic question #1- Are you surprised that health care is such an issue now?

Socratic question #2- Do you think that health care would be such an issue if McCain had won the election?

Sorry, had to snip a large part because of stroke count but what do scandals have to do with PP? All parties have miscreants. Nothing new.

I would sooner attribute America's success to it's Industrial Era boon then partisanship. America is successful because of money and bnot because of partisanship. While opinions will invariably differ across the spectrum, it is certainly not accurate to state that political partisanship in America breeds an informed and just voter. I contend that it encourages the opposite.

Has everyone been following the BOLD. Seems like my opponent is confused. Go back and read the bold. He says that the problem is money and then says, "America is successful because of money and bnot because of partisanship." Can't have it both ways.

I digress though as I don't see it that way. Presidents, Rep or Dem are figureheads. What is important is the policies(PP) that the voter needs at that time. The parties provide the venue(PP).

Originally posted by intrepid
Are you saying that people vote Republican because of Stan? Rhetorical question.

I don't think it is a rhetorical question...

I am saying that those who vote Republican are being reinforced by the show. That is my point. People agree to external stimulii based on the similarity it holds to previous experience. So the success of a show like "American Dad", while somewhat influenced by the success of The Simpsons and the Sunday night time slot, is predicated upon the slant that the show has.

This reference could actually segue us into a fabulous debate on the use of satire as a means to reinforce belief using a physiological mechanism (satire/laughter as a means to assuage psychological stress) but it would get us off the topic of partisanship.

Originally posted by intrepid
I believe I already pointed out that PP is important to the individual. Their times. Their needs.

You said it.

Partisanship is a societal issue though.

Political concerns are a societal issue though.

Partisanship implicitly divides the individual into their predisposed inclinations. The inherent discouragement of critical thought is incredibly relevant to this debate.

The majority of people spend their lives entrenched within the 9-5 mentality. Routines are based upon the family unit and the mental/physical interaction with physical routine that is not necessarily
affiliated with those concerns (other than they are tasks that provide the capital for sustainment) and as well leaves very little time for the analysis of the issues. It is easier to accept a pundits view (especially if one was taught such a predisposition in the formative years) then to interact with the actual details of society. Indeed, there are many intricacies to society that most of us either don't have the time to mentally
attend to or would rather not.

Socratic Question #1 - Is it easier to express an opinion than it is to
proactively discuss a situation?

Originally posted by intrepid
IRRELEVANT! Are you contending that uninformed people are the only voters? The informed are irrelevant? Another rhetorical question.

How is it irrelevant? Are you suggesting that an uninformed voter is irrelevant?

But...

Originally posted by intrepid; 1st argument
It is essential for the voter to know where the party stands.

So why is it essential if it is irrelevant?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Socratic Question #1 - What premise are campaign strategies often built upon?

Originally posted by intrepid
They are always built on winning elections and putting their policies in place. Like I said. PP.

And while I would agree that winning is important for health I would like to point out that "winning for the sake of winning" is unhealthy. It's an egocentric mentality that ignores the very real plight of people
whom were not born into an oppurtunity to contribute their thoughts in the political realm; it ignores the very real social "polyctimy" (my word to expand on dichotomy) that is inherent in our society.

If "winning" is more important within the class that is directly involved, then how is it that the concerns of the average Joe are realized?

We see from term to term people whom are dissatisfied with the current policies. It is reactionary.

Politics in America is a much more complex animal then people give credit. Abortion is a hot topic. But why does anyone care so vehemently about such a topic when they do not have direct social access to the
individual(s) having the abortion?

Especially when our government is busy allocating money for "corporate armies" to help circumvent International Laws/Treaties/etc. Partisanship, in application, is a divide and conquer strategy. Focus the population
on divisive social issues that really have no application towards the monetary gain/loss of individual explicitly and then deal with corporate influence on the actual legislation.

The one problem I have with Partisanship is that in application it denotes "either/or".

But the reality is much more complex. And if people realized how much more complex (and I think we are beginning to see that) then there would be less party affiliation. It should be about the betterment of society rather than winning.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
How would you describe as an "informed voter?

Originally posted by intrepid
A person that listens to the issues as it pertains to their needs of the time and ideology. Then vote.

So if a campaign incorporates the use of uninformed voters, do we have a
justification for Partisanship?

If so, then perhaps we should focus on the term "healthy" in our debate.

Healthy for whom?

Originally posted by intrepid
I know that I have to answer this question out right but I don't know how I can without inaccuracy. I could Google it.

The answer is direct in my opinion and will suffice because it is a subjective question...and as such the data regarding it is indeed subjective.

As I stated earlier, the majority of the population is okay with perpetuating previously learned opinion to satisfy their voting requirement. The Campaigns are based on idealogical rhetoric and forgo the very real polyticomy of our social and economic class system. There is very little interaction with these topics and the implications of such. Very little because the very interaction with these topics, directly, would implicate our system as it is set up.

I contend that the informed voter is very close to nil...as there is no true objective interaction with the theory of society as opposed to persoanl bias.

And for society, that isn't healthy. Why should we as a sentient species accept "reactive crimes" when they are likely a by product of ignorance and lack of education?

This lack of education is exactly what campaigns are predicated upon...despite the "issues".

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Socratic Question #4 - Is there more corporate influence in the United States Legislative process than there is Political Influence?

Originally posted by intrepid
Tough question. I would have to say no. In elections you have corporations that contribute to campaigns. In Washington you
have lucrative lobbyists. Probably the same. They aren't concerned with politics though, they are concerned with making money.

Precisely my point. There are many people in Washington who are more concerned with making money rather than the issue(s) that the money is associated with.

Corporate interests consume a huge amount of the cash flow in Washington and political arenas all over the nation. This is what partisanship has unfortunatly allowed for - the appealing of voter and
political support based on money and control rather than critical thought.

There are many ways to influence the voter and enhancing critical thought is very low on that list.

I would say that this is my point.

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #1- Are you surprised that health care is such an issue now?

Nope. After almost a decade of war and a republican presidential power it was necessary to reframe the social awareness to domestic concerns. Am I surprised that war and international concerns have yet to be solved? No again. It's distraction to cultivate partisan identification in an egocentric society.

Not healthy.

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #2- Do you think that health care would be such an issue if McCain had won the election?

Yes, but not necessarily. I would reframe the expectation to be that of a political segue towards domestic concerns. I would also say that McCain necessarily lost the election precisely because there was a need to reframe current social attentions. Bush was losing big time in the internet communications Presidency. Major change needed to happen to prevent further focus on what and why everything happened. That is my opinion.

Originally posted by intrepid
Has everyone been following the BOLD. Seems like my opponent is confused. Go back and read the bold. He says that the problem is money and then says, "America is successful because of money and bnot
because of partisanship.

Were it that simple. I am saying that the mentality that is encouraged by Partisanship is such that emphasis is placed on money and personal gain. Which is unhealthy for the populace as it promotes a lack of cognitive thought.

“Political Partisanship Is Actually Healthy For The United States Political System"

Rebuttal and Closing

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by intrepid
I believe I already pointed out that PP is important to the individual. Their times. Their needs.

You said it.

Partisanship is a societal issue though.

Political concerns are a societal issue though.

Partisanship implicitly divides the individual into their predisposed inclinations. The inherent discouragement of critical thought is incredibly relevant to this debate.

That is a very narrow view compared to mine. As I pointed out the policies are in place and the voter chooses their choice for the times and their needs. If that isn't the case we wouldn't have a 2 party system, there would be no need.

The majority of people spend their lives entrenched within the 9-5 mentality. Routines are based upon the family unit and the mental/physical interaction with physical routine that is not necessarily
affiliated with those concerns (other than they are tasks that provide the capital for sustainment) and as well leaves very little time for the analysis of the issues. It is easier to accept a pundits view (especially if one was taught such a predisposition in the formative years) then to interact with the actual details of society. Indeed, there are many intricacies to society that most of us either don't have the time to mentally
attend to or would rather not.

I can see you have little value for the average voter. I disagree. In this digital age ALL information is available with the click of a button. Little time is needed to find what you are looking for. These pundits that you refer to have little voice in the political process. I've even show that high profile politicians that support one aspect of Political Partisanship(PP) have taken to task a pundit that was NOT doing service to their PP. Entertainment does NOT equal PP.

You have spent a lot of time talking about the "uniformed voter". I don't think that the average voter is uninformed. Pointed out by me about Reagan's massive windfall in 1980. Obama's in 2008. The needs of the voter for the needs of the time.

Politics in America is a much more complex animal then people give credit. Abortion is a hot topic. But why does anyone care so vehemently about such a topic when they do not have direct social access to the
individual(s) having the abortion?

Indeed. You put any hot topic issue out there, be it abortion or any other hot topic issue and I can tell you the stance both parties take on any of them. And I'm a Canadian. I would be as bold as to assume that an American, that has a vested interest in their immediate needs, would be much more informed on these issues as they apply to party and PP.

Especially when our government is busy allocating money for "corporate armies" to help circumvent International Laws/Treaties/etc. Partisanship, in application, is a divide and conquer strategy. Focus the population
on divisive social issues that really have no application towards the monetary gain/loss of individual explicitly and then deal with corporate influence on the actual legislation.

Lobbyists know NO PP. They only want the money. That is not an issue. If PP were implemented by these lobbyist, their money might go a lot farther along but they are only concerned with the aquisition of MORE money, not policy. Again, not an issue as it comes to PP. My opponent has said as much:

Precisely my point. There are many people in Washington who are more concerned with making money rather than the issue(s) that the money is associated with.

The one problem I have with Partisanship is that in application it denotes "either/or".

Is it? Why do the Republicans and Democrats trade off power back and forth then? I'll tell you. Because times change and the voter chooses which PP that they need at the time.

Socratic Question #1 - Is it easier to express an opinion than it is to
proactively discuss a situation?

Another subjective question. I would like to answer these but it depends on the individual. Is it easier? Maybe for some. Maybe not for others.

I DID ask a straight out question and got a convoluted response:

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic question #2- Do you think that health care would be such an issue if McCain had won the election?

Yes, but not necessarily. I would reframe the expectation to be that of a political segue towards domestic concerns. I would also say that McCain necessarily lost the election precisely because there was a need to reframe current social attentions. Bush was losing big time in the internet communications Presidency. Major change needed to happen to prevent further focus on what and why everything happened. That is my opinion.

"Yes but not necessarily"? That really isn't an answer but we all know the Republican's PP and that they wouldn't have focused health care. Then:

I would also say that McCain necessarily lost the election precisely because there was a need to reframe current social attentions.

THAT IS MY POINT! The needs of the voter for their time.



Closing

I have shown that PP has been a part of the American political fabric since damn near the beginning. It has been in place for the voter to choose what is needed for the time. My opponent has stated that America has been successful during those times. I have not obfuscated any issue. My questions have been plain.

I have also shown that not only is it "healthy" that PP is in place but it is intrinsic for the country to have a base in which to gauge the political needs of the time.

We have Obama now. Will we need him in 3 years? No one knows what the world will be in 3 years but one thing is clear. If things changes, as we all know that they do, what ever is in the future we can count on the PP's of the parties. It's like clockwork.

My thanks to MS for this lively debate. I hope the readers had as much fun as we did. Once more, thanks to semper for setting this up.

Originally posted by intrepid
“Political Partisanship Is Not Healthy For The United States Political System"...and is an archaic thought modality

Originally posted by intrepid
That is a very narrow view compared to mine.

Actually...if you had read what I was reading it would suggest that my view is intrinsically more complex. All men are not created equal and they do not live their lives equally.

Assuming that they can all understand what is in the best interests of society when they barely know how possible it is for them to be subconsciously manipulated is ridiculous and irresponsible of us. Further, ssuming that the dumbing down of the critical thought process into a basic "either/or" is so far away from an interactive government process as to be laughable. When Senator from wherever represents social reform based on the contributors to his election campaign instead of an actual interaction with the topic of society is contemptible.

Originally posted by intrepid
As I pointed out the policies are in place and the voter chooses their choice for the times and their needs.

The inherent implication there is that the voting process is designed to be self gratifying. The voter chooses based on their times and their needs rather than what is best for society (personal interest can still be served within the nod towards society).

So what we have are people who go from election to election either satisfied with the result or not. But in the meantime, corporate influence continues to be the consistent. If Partisanship ultimately results in a placated lower classman than I certainly do not think it is a healthy system.

In this digital age ALL information is available with the click of a button. Little time is needed to find what you are looking for.

But in this day and age do people have the capacity to intrepret information correctly? If they being manipulated subtly by use of idealogy then I would argue that perhaps they are not equipped in such a fashion as to be called "informed".

You have spent a lot of time talking about the "uniformed voter". I don't think that the average voter is uninformed. Pointed out by me about Reagan's massive windfall in 1980. Obama's in 2008. The needs of the voter for the needs of the time.

I certainly don't see how two elections can be pointed to as proof that the American voter is informed. If anything, it suggests that they are "reactive" and will point to a generalized party theme if the news isn't reporting any feel good stories. I certainly have been remiss in this debate as I could have pointed out how many people interact with the political system, which is through our media. An interesting endeavour would indeed be to go through the Associated Press in the months leading up to each major national election to see the types of stories reported for the masses (pre-internet years).

Informed? Reactive is more likely.

Is it? Why do the Republicans and Democrats trade off power back and forth then? I'll tell you.

I would argue that corpoarte interest has the power as it obvious that they are not ousted from office. As such, I really think that Partisanship is more of an appeal to the need for diversity...to essentially provide an outlet for affiliation so the public doesn't feel that they are being forced into an affiliation. The majority vote even has influence regarding social policies (long term).

But partisanship identification does not help the people to see what society is. It helps them see what they want and is in itself a perpetuation of a "glass bubble".

I DID ask a straight out question and got a convoluted response:

"Yes but not necessarily"? That really isn't an answer but we all know the Republican's PP and that they wouldn't have focused health care. Then:

It is an answer, in my opinion. I can reframe my expression though.

"Yes". But not necessarily for the reasons you may have thought. I think that the focus on healthcare was more of a defocus on the international field. The Bush administration took a lot of hits when it came to their ability to handle their own intelligence reports regarding the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, corporate influence et cetera.

Those issues aren't resolved. We're still finding torture sites that are affiliated with the CIA. But the public is now concerned with domestic issues. Why? To keep them distracted.

I really think that we as a species will continue to move forward into the "globalization" of our society. The pace of technology has exceeded the rate of our communal comprehension of the implications of living with one's neighbors. As we get further into a globalized society, it is more imperative to see the issues as they effect us...all of us and without the "us vs them" mentality. The "us vs them" menality breeds bias and dissuasion of critical interaction with subject matter in favor of winning.

That is not a healthy way for anyone to think and is an easy basis for social manipulation.

Thanks to intrepid for this debate, semper for moderating and the rest of the forum for their participation. Be sure to check out the tournament...

[edit on 11/24/2009 by semperfortis]

Off to the Judges...

We have a winner!!!!

Split decision..

This was truly a clash of the Titans. Both debaters started off with strong opening posts that clearly defined their intended premise and at that point it was a tie.

However, in the posts that followed Intrepid stuck to his clear premise that partisan politics is an essential part of American politics. He gave clear examples from both sides if you will how the average American voter uses partisianship to decide what they feel is best.

Both debaters used their opportunties for questions but I did feel that those opportunities could have been used to greater effect by both. However, while Intrepid answered the questions posed to him in a pretty direct fashion I felt that MemoryShock danced around direct answers instead of giving the direct answers required.

Intrepid was able to use MemoryShocks arguments to shore up his own premise where as MemoryShock seemed unable to do the same to Intrepid.

This was an enjoyable debate to read and like all good debates it gets one thinking as they are intended to do.

As hard as it has been to reach a conclusion based on the stronger arguments and better use of question opportnities this debate by a slim margin goes to Intrepid.

Intrepid did an outstanding job making his points, and made a very convincing argument for partisanship, but I'm afraid that MemoryShock made the best argument, as it's not always the "needs of the many" that are needed.

Sometimes, the People simply need lawmakers that know what the people need, based on voter demand, and then make it happen for them, regardless of party affiliation.

A lively debate, for sure.

I give the nod to MemoryShock!!

Judgment:

On reading the debate for the third time, I was still struck by how many times intrepid was able to draw MemoryShock basically off topic. Intrepid managed to remain steadfast with his proposal that Partisan Politics has worked since the founding of the nation and is working still, while MemoryShock seemed intent on drawing entertainers into the issue.

Regardless of the topic, intrepid managed to clearly “out” debate MemoryShock in this debate.

Win to intrepid.

Winner

intrepid...

Whew. MS and I were u2uing about this. We knew it could have gone either way. That wasn't my toughest debate but it's in the top 2. Thanks MS, I really enjoyed this one. Thanks to the judges, not an easy one to judge.

Congrats Intrepid...!

It was a good debate and it gave me time to think about how much our society effects political thought. While I actually agree with your premise, I started wondering how people react to their environment...

Well done!!!