JT Round 1. Death_Kron vs Zarathustria: Irrelevant Elephant (or Donkey)

The topic for this debate is "One of America's two major political parties will cease to exist and be replaced by a new major party at some point in the 21st century.”

Death_Kron will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Zarathustria will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

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- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

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

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files 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. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

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 for a 24 hour extension 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.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

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.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

Firstly, I'd like to thank The Vagabond for his efforts in organising this debate and I'd also like to thank my opponent Zarathustria for taking part.

The subject of this debate is "One of America's two major political parties will cease to exist and be replaced by a new major party at some point in the 21st century" and my argument is that this is the case.

Traditionally, the United States have operated under a "two-party" system where the majority of American politics is dominated by two political parties with opposing ideas, those parties being the Republican party and the Democratic party.

The United Kingdom however is known operate under a "multi-party" system although in practice the similarity to the United States "two-party" system is evident; two major political parties have dominated British politics in recent years, those parties being the Conservatives and Labour.

This UK two-party rivalry between the Conservatives and Labour can be directly compared to the political rivalry of that between the Republicans and Democrats in the United States.

However, the prominence of this two-party rivalry doesn't rule out the fact that other minor politcal parties with differing views do in fact exist and also fight to secure their seat in power.

While the majority of a countries citizens will generally support one major party or another, there will always be a number of people that align themselves and agree with the views of some of these lesser or minor parties.

The United Kingdom has found itself in a peculiar situation recently after it's general election, for the first time in recent years neither major political party managed to secure power in the Cabinet.

Instead, the Conservative party struck a deal with the lesser known, lesser supported Liberal Democratic party to join forces and thus form a "coalition government"

In my opinion this is evidence that lesser known politic movements are now becoming increasingly noticed and also supported.

With this in mind, is it that unreasonable that the same couldn't happen in the United States? Taking this concept one step further, is it that unreasonable that a minority political party could actually replace one of the major political parties in the US?

I think not, and will provide further evidence to verify my claim based upon my opponents comments.

Thank you.

Thank you firstly, to The Vagabond for the opportunity to compete within this debate tournament. I wish every contender the absolute best luck, and especially my first opponent Death_Kron.

The topic that I have been assigned for this debate is "One of America's two major political parties will cease to exist and be replaced by a new major party at some point in the 21st century". My purpose within this statement is to why it is not the best idea.

America's political system has always been divided between two political parties: The Republican Party (hereby referenced to as GOP) and the Democratic Party. Each party's ideas are entirely different, and contribute to the freedoms that we all have by living in America. Without one of these parties prevalent, and with one in complete control, we will plunge even faster into a police state.

With each party in dominance of each other, it creates an even furthering of the “Checks & Balances” system. If a party was in singular control, they could theoretically do and pass almost any bill that they wanted. This would very quickly turn into a power debate among politicians and people. The people in control would be the rich half of America, and the corporations. The poor would become poorer, and the rich would become richer. The revolution we all fear would happen all too soon.

It's not unreasonable for minor parties to happen in the United States. However, the possibilities of it happening are slim to none because of people's dedication to their parties. If one major party leaves? The other one will assume complete control.

Thank You.

In references to Zarathustria's comment's in his opening statement I would once again like to draw comparision to the current "two-party" political system in place within the United States and the "multi-party" political nature of the United Kingdom.

I have already established the fact that in terms of technicality, the US & the UK operate under slightly different political models however in reality the american rivalry between the GOP and Democratic party can be compared to the of the rivalry between the two major parties in the UK; the Conservative party (Tory party) and the Labour party.

Zarathustria states that "Without one of these parties prevalent, and with one in complete control, we will plunge even faster into a police state." implying that if the GOP or Democratic party was in complete control the United States would descend into a police state and essentially a country in chaos's.

I'd argue this wouldn't be the case as the core beliefs of the Republican party are rooted in the political concept of Conservatism which has been identified as the following:

Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, preservation of "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[4]

The important text from the above quote is "preservation of "the rule of law and the Christian religion", this to me implies honesty and integrity as being part of the Republican parties underlying concepts and I find it hard to envision how a party with such a belief would turn their country into a police state.

On the same token the Democratic party has core beliefs that lie within the political concepts of modern liberalism that among other things, at the core, include thoughts such as

American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]

The above quote highlights thoughts of the Democratic party and once again I find it extremely hard to imagine how these ideals would turn the United States into a police state, if anything I'd actually predict that the above mentioned morals would be beneficial to the US.

Here in the UK there has been a political power struggle between the two main parties: the Labour party and the Conservatives for many years. However, following our recent general election for this has changed and the people have spoken; we now have one of the minor parties (the Liberal Democratics) joining forces with the Conservative party as a coalition government.

Now if it is possible for a minor political party here in the UK to effectively replace a major party and join forces with the other then why is it so unreasonable to assume a major party could not do the same in the United States?

While I respect my opponents beliefs that a two-party system in the US will always hold true due to the general populations allegiance with one of the two major parties, I'd also state that in my opinion this idea is a little out-dated and old fashioned.

The times are changing and increasingly its evident that slowly people are changing their views and breaking away from traditions.

The Libertian Party in the United States has now more than 200,000 registered voters and enforces beliefs that support strong civil liberties, if this party came into power these values would not make the United States weaker, it would make the country stronger!

I'm shocked on an almost daily basis when I read the newspaper or listen to the news and hear about the acts of terror that are occuring around the world. The amount of blood shed by innocent civilians and that of the personel of the US army and combined coalition forces is now becoming unacceptable (was it ever acceptable?) and I'd wager that the majority of Americans feel the same way.

The Libertian Party supports a principle known as "non-interventionism" i.e. they will not interfere with the internal politics of a foreign nation. Even the first American president advised his country to avoid "foreign entanglements."

In my opinion this is a principle that many Americans would take to heart and is one of the reasons that I believe that eventually the Libertian Party would be backed by so much support that they would be in a position to replace one of the major parties and fight for governmental contention.

That is one sole reason why I believe the Libertian Party could replace one of the current major parties in the United States, I will provide further evidence of my claim based upon my opponents comments.

Thank You

It would appear that my opponent is late in posting his reply so I'm going to utilise my right to post immediately without waiting for an annoucement of turn forfeiture.

In my last post I highlighted the flaws in Zarathustria's argument/fears about the United States being controlled by one major political party by describing some of the underlying core beliefs of the Republican and the Democratic parties and why these principles would not lead to a "police state"

However, at this point I'd like to point out to the judges that whether the United States could ever be controlled by one singular politic party was not the question posed in this debate, I'm arguing that another political party in the US could replace either the Republican or Democratic party in the 21st century.

I ended my last post post by bringing the concept of "non-intervention" to the readers attention and suggesting that it's an issue many Americans would agree with and for that sole reason I can envision people backing the Libertian Party as it's a concept that is central to that parties beliefs.

It's entirely possible that over a period of time enough supporters will join the Libertian Party to a point where they are in a position to replace one of the United States two major parties.

Aside from "non-intervention", the Libertian party also has very clear views on a subject that has always been at the center of controvery; Abortion.

Their views are as follows:

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2010) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Libertarian perspectives on abortion

Now to some this may seem trivial however the majority of people will agree that at the least, Abortion is a difficult subject to talk about. Different people have mixed feelings regarding the subject and that's perfectly understandable however I know one thing; Americans value their freedom.

What has freedom and abortion got to do with each other, you ask?

The Libertian party quite rightly believes that the right to have an abortion is a part of a persons individual rights, "especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body"

If your pro-abortion or anti-abortion, that's an individual choice but at least your allowed to make that choice, the Libertian party supports the notion that although women have the right to have an abortion, they may choose not to if they wished and that the decision is completely down to them.

This freedom to make the decision yourself and not be ostracised in accordance to a governments policy is an admirable trait and one that many Americans (or any countries citizens for that matter) would appreciate.

It's not necessarily the subject matter that's important here, it's more down to the fact that the individual is allowed to make a decision and isn't told what to do.

Sticking with the subject matter of an individual being rightly entitled to free will, the Libertian parties statement of principles begins with the following:

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual."

en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

The Libertian parties views regarding Abortion reflect that they do as they say they will i.e. defend the rights of individuals, this is something I feel the majority of Americans would find appealing and also makes me believe they would feel proud to be part of a party with such beliefs.

There is evidence available that suggests that the Libertian party is becoming stronger and stronger:

The year 1995 saw a soaring membership and voter registration for the party. In 1996, the Libertarian Party became the first third party to earn ballot status in all 50 states two presidential elections in a row. By the end of 2009, 146 Libertarians are holding elected offices.[

In 2002, Ed Thompson, the brother of former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, received 11% of the vote (best ever Libertarian result for Governor) running for the same office, resulting in a seat on the state elections board for the Libertarian Party, the only such seat for a third party in the U.S

The support for the Libertians is only going to grow as more and more American's allign themselves with the parties beliefs and ideas and it's only a matter of time before they replace either one of the two political parties currently at loggerheads with each other.

Socratic Questions

1.) Why do you think it's that unreasonable the Libertian party couldn't replace either the GOP or the Democratic party?

2.) Do you agree that it's possible for smaller parties to come into power?

3.) What do you think would happen if one of the major US politic parties was replaced?

I will respond to Zarathustria appropriately.

Thank You

Unfortuantely, it seems like my opponent Zarathustria has missed his second 24 hour time limited post and hasn't requested an extension at any point. This is disappointing as I feel he could have offered a good counter argument to my claims and I was enjoying learning about something that I know very little about.

What happens now? Do I win via forfeiture? Or the debate declared a no-contest?

Could a mod please help me out here?

Death Kron has won by default and will advance to Round 2.