The Instigator
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

4a. Campaign Finance Reform

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,516 times Debate No: 5732
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

beem0r

Pro

Politics is a messy business. People with money finance campaigns, and in return, they expect those politicians whose campaigns they financed to help them out a bit.
No more should this occur. These are not democratic ideals. This country was founded on the notion that every taxpayer should have the same amount of say in government. That, unfortunately, does not hold true. To fix the situation, we must reform campaign finance. No more will we be a society where the wealthy and powerful make the rules while the everyman has barely any say. We should not stand for this.

There is also another problem with campaign finance as it stands. He who has the most money to spend on a campaign is most likely to be more successful. Take Ross Peroe, for example. The only time in recent history when a third-party candidate got an appreciable amount of the vote. Why did he do so well? It is widely believe to be his wealth that helped him here. This should not happen. A person's wealth will not help him/her lead this country, so there is no reason his/her wealth should help win an election. Reform could obviously fix this problem. Perhaps candidates could have limits of how much personal wealth could be spent campaigning. That is one of many ways that problem could be fixed. I am not advocating any specific way, I am simply noting that there is a problem and some type of reform is necessary to fix it. For the better of our political process, for the better of our country, and for the better of this world.
Tatarize

Con

We have acceptable amounts of campaign finance regulations we simply need to enforce those regulations in order to properly ensure a fair and productive election. While many people worry about lobbyists and companies buying up politicians one need look no further than Barack Obama. He ran an entire campaign primarily off small contributions from everyday people. He raised more money than any campaign in history without taking a dime from lobbyists. We need to keep our politicians accountable rather than have them write more loopholes into clever sounding laws.

This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet. Who's wife would even have a private company jet? Oh, McCain's wife does. -- We don't need to change the law we need to enforce the laws we have and make politicians accountable to the people. That's the point of democracy.

Ross Perot did do well because he had money. If you want to spend your money to run a political campaign you can still do this. Mitt Romney this election cycle was largely self-funded. But, ultimately it's the people who decide regardless of where the money comes from. Perot failed. Romney failed. And lobbyists, such as those running McCain's campaign, failed.

The system works. What we really need are run off elections and the ability of third party candidates to have a voice without sapping votes off from the second choice candidates. We need a fair and productive system for all the voices in politics. As it turns out, the laws we have work and people don't forgive those in the pockets of corporations.

The people aren't stupid and they vote for those who will best serve them. The politicians aren't stupid and can wiggle out of whatever laws we have them write for themselves. We must, as a people, hold them accountable.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Perhaps it's because only a small portion of the population is made of undecided voters in this election. No matter how much campaign money he has, he can't make people who are solid republicans vote his way, and he certainly can't make the people with irrational hatred for him vote his way either [people who hate blacks, people who hate muslims and listen to retarded email chainletters claiming that Obama's a muslim, etc].
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
From the sounds of it you both have very good arguments and really can't say who I think is more correct here. But based on the Pro's assertions, just look at the amount of money Obama has managed to collect for his campaign and what he is able to do with it. Although you would think that with all that money he would be much further ahead of McCain?
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
laws concerning campaign finance. He does a good job in my opinion (opinion has changed halfway through analysis, I should have read more thoroughly) of successfully doing this. Con could have gone on to suggest that the people take action to ensure that corrupt politicians are punished, however he wins this half of the argument in my opinion. I take back my previous point that I did not see the benefits of Con highlighting the loophole, under further review it makes excellent sense, I apologise.

The second half of the argument focused primarily on advertising. I'm rather disapointed that Pro did not include facts that showing the effectiveness of negative advertising in elections. However he showed nothing of the sort. Then Con brought up an excellent fact that showed all of Pro's examples to result in failures and suggested a better alternative approach.

Clearly the most effective argument was Con.

Reliable Sources: It disapointed me that neither side showed any sources in a debate where sources would have been very effective, and might possibly have won the argument (in my opinion) by doing so. So this is a tie.

Therefore a win for Con. Good job to both debaters, this was an excellent debate to read.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Scissorhands as a cleaner

Agreement before: Pro
Agreement After: Pro
Conduct: Really, before reading this debate, I expected to be an excellent one. To a degree it was however in my opinion more facts and better ettiquette could have been used. Both debaters did not post an opening or concluding sentence welcoming their opponent. Even if the character limit was small, even a small sentence at the beginning would have earned either debater (in my opinion a point for conduct) however this not being the case, I award neither. Tie.

Spelling and Grammar: Both Pro and Con made two mistakes in their paragraphs. However Pro had two sentence fragments, wheras Con made two errors related to the tense of a word (using a MS word spellcheck). Since Pro exhibited fragments I have to award points to Con. However if I could award you both points for grammar I would. It was an excellent display of grammar by both parties, Con just had a slight lead in my opinion and therefore wins the points.

Convincing Arguments: This is indeed the deciding factor. Both debaters had excellent arguments (in my opinion). However two very deciding points stick out to me after re-reading the debate. One of Con's points to me made no sense in the context of the argument. Pro states: "I am not advocating any specific way, I am simply noting that there is a problem and some type of reform is necessary to fix it." This making it clear that reform of finance is the side he wishes to take. The Con's argument should be negating that reform is necessary, however Con goes onto state: "This campaign season we discovered a rather impressive loophole that McCain wrote into the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill that exempts travel on your wife's private company jet."

I do not see how this benefits him, rather it only tears down his point that reform is not needed. He attempts to slightly tweak the argument to make it so politicians need to be reformed, and not the
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
I would just either of you tell why it is that we only hear about 2 possible choices for President? In doing some research via the internet I have found out that there is more than 2 possible choices and yet we only get to hear from the 2 that apparently are either chosen by the media or can raise the most funds.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering everyone.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by falafel 7 years ago
falafel
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
beem0rTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03