The Instigator
downey93
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
StephenAlsop
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/1/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,323 times Debate No: 11054
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

downey93

Con

I will let the pro decide whether they want to go first or not...
StephenAlsop

Pro

I will let con go first on this so it is an even amount of argument time
Debate Round No. 1
downey93

Con

I would just like to start off with a quote from the US court of Appeals.....

"In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress... But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings... That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process...."
-U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Rumely v. United States)

Therefore we negate the resolution which states resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

I would like to provide the following definitions to ensure a clean and fair debate:

United States: United States of America

Organized: having a formal organization to coordinate and carry out activities

Political: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

Lobbying: to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation

**Democratic Process: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the majority of the people

Resolution Analysis: In order for the Pro to win this debate, we believe that they will have to prove that people having no public opinion is benefiting the US. They will also have to prove how the examples we are about to provide have actually hurt the US…

With that in mind, lets look at examples of positive lobbying.

1. NAACP: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been lobbying for racial equality for more than 100 years, including within the political sphere.

"The NAACP's Washington, D.C., bureau, led by lobbyist Clarence M. Mitchell Jr., helped advance not only integration of the armed forces in 1948 but also passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964, and 1968, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

Unless my opponent plans to run a racism-good argument, he must concede that this was lobbying that brought more good than harm, which negates his resolution.

2. ACLU: In addition to it's legal aid in support of constitutional rights, the ACLU also concerned with influencing public officials directly, through lobbying campaigns designed to influence Congresspersons through communications from their constituents. Some of the good that came through this lobbying was, just in the state of Washington, "voting rights reform, extension of domestic partnerships, privacy for car travelers, and fair play in community sports."

3. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a non-profit organization that seeks to stop drunk driving, support those affected by drunk driving, prevent underage drinking, and overall push for stricter alcohol policy.

4. ACORN's (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, and other social justice issues. ACORN pursues these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.

5. NJELThe New Jersey Environmental Lobby. We are an independent, non-partisan, nonprofit organization focused on the preservation and protection of a healthy environment for all our citizens. This is just one of many examples of saving our environment.

So unless my opponent is going to take a stand against saving the environment, better schools, anti drunk driving, and voting rights… I don't see how the pro may win this debate because they are all within the legality of the law to do this… which leads me to my second point.

Contention 2: Lobbyists rights

Clearly and obviously it does not, given that the right to petition government, as an individual or as an organization, is protected by the first amendment to the Bill of Rights which states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Our political system is based on the idea that the people can and should try to influence our politicians to address the problems that exist. Thus political lobbying as defined cannot contribute to the breakdown of our political system. It IS our political system.

In conclusion how has lobbying given us more harm then good when it has helped against racism, environmental issues, public schooling and even drunk driving.. Those are just some of the examples that i have provided and believe that the neg should win this round.
StephenAlsop

Pro

First I would like to point out that the point here is not whether or not it is aloud to lobby its whether it is more harmful than otherwise. My opponent so far has written a long speech that has only a few points on where it has helped but you see companies like walmart and coca-cola that take extreme advantage of these abilities by building stores and production facilities that destroy the environment and kill smaller business.

There are other ways of getting your views out there.

You can meet with government representatives or talk to news stations and these ideas will weed out the possibility of both political corruption and the possibility of companies like Coca-Cola and Walmart.

My opponents second contention is also not a valid point because, the first amendment does not say that they have to let people speak during congress sessions or otherwise. Let us say that a famous law company is having a meeting about a certain client, you cant barge in there and give your argument its not legal... so why I ask is it ok in the government.

For these reasons political lobbying is a bad thing for our country and must be acted upon as such. vote pro
Debate Round No. 2
downey93

Con

First i would just like to start out with that my opponent never brought up any arguments of his own for me to argue so I dont really see how he could win this debate...

The examples that i did make are ones that need to be seen of examples of equality for black people and of saving the environment.
The arguement about Coca Cola and Wal mart, there not political lobbyist that do that so that point is invalid because it doesnt even pretain to the topic. If he could show that Coca Cola and Wal Mart are political lobbyists and they are the ones killing the environment, but so far I dont see how it relates.
Even about telling the News Stations, they cant do anything, thats why you lobby to tell the heart of the source.

About my second contention, of course you cant barge in there. You have to do it in the PRocedure that it is all set up in. OR else they wouldnt be listening to lobbyists.

In conclusion you really have to see still that the examples I gave in my first speech were good when they took action and have greatly made us a better country. For those reasons I still urge you to vote Con.
StephenAlsop

Pro

I have no points yet to make and as for coca cola and walmart they both have representitives called lobbiests and they go to the government on the companies behalf and that is why you should vote aff
Debate Round No. 3
downey93

Con

I would just like to add that the aff just supported lobbyists saying that Wal Mart and Coca Cola has lobbyists and we should go to them so it weeds into the economy...
so basically I believe my points still stand and considering the Aff brought up a Con arguement saying they are good then I believe Neg should win this debate
StephenAlsop

Pro

StephenAlsop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Clear win for Con, who got around to making a case in R2 which Pro then barely addressed. Pro offered no argument that lobbying was a net negative. Pro made numerous spelling errors and lost conduct by defaulting and refusing to debate the issue.

The debate aside, the case for lobbyists is that they provide legislators with detailed arguments and relevant facts about an issue. It's the the legislator's job to weight the arguments of the views that are offered.
Posted by downey93 6 years ago
downey93
sorry.. i forgot to put contention 1 and the tag line.. but its basically the examples I gave and all that stuff
Posted by purpleheartshatequeens 6 years ago
purpleheartshatequeens
lol pro is so stupid he spelled allowed wrong (aloud) and con, where the hell is your first contention? all I see is a second one.
Posted by jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
Pro your stupid, write an actual case with some evidence? Con wins hands down gl Downey93...
Posted by manga_rocks123456789 6 years ago
manga_rocks123456789
youre con, so why don't change so you be pro
Posted by deadlysmurfed1 6 years ago
deadlysmurfed1
Con your good in a way. But the diff of the us really
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Let's see, you are Con against a negative resolution. So therefore you are arguing that lobbing is net a good thing, right? If so, just be Pro and make a case.
Posted by downey93 6 years ago
downey93
it doesnt have to be 5 rounds.. just enough to get the point across so i just did more..
Posted by True2GaGa 6 years ago
True2GaGa
The United States if just a little F*cked up, that's all.
Posted by Scott_Mann 6 years ago
Scott_Mann
Five rounds? =/
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by y0ungDuB 6 years ago
y0ungDuB
downey93StephenAlsopTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Waraight 6 years ago
Waraight
downey93StephenAlsopTied
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 StephenAlsop 6 years ago
StephenAlsop
downey93StephenAlsopTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
downey93StephenAlsopTied
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 downey93 6 years ago
downey93
downey93StephenAlsopTied
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