The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

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

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,353 times Debate No: 11518
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




This will be a PF style debate.The first round we will present ourselves as well as bring out definitions WITHOUT any arguments until the SECOND round which will include cases.

My name is Ryan and i will be arguing the pro in this debate. I will prove how lobbying does more harm than good because in all actuality it does. To prove my arguments I will list the following definitions

lobbying-to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action (

Harm-the occurrence of a change for the worse (

Good-that which is pleasing or valuable or useful "weigh the good against the bad"


Organized-(create (as an entity)


Quick disclaimer, just cause I am about to shovel it doesn't mean buy it. for my real stance on this issue see my debate where I argued my opponents side.

I accept my opponents definitions except for Organized. in the resolution it is an adjective not a verb. So it should be
Organized: (formed into a structured or coherent whole) using the same source given by my opponent.

My name is Marauder as far as anyone be concerned on this website who is not my friend.

Thank you for starting this debate and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge as well as agreeing with my definitions. I do agree with the definition he provided. I don't advocate that there is not good in lobbying. I simply must argue that the bad effects of lobbying outweigh the good. I would like to state that the resolution says "does more harm than good" does is present tense meaning any examples of PAST lobbying or lobbyists is irrelevant so please keep that in mind.

1.Business lobbying groups are much more powerful than public interest groups; thus, policies are made to benefit large corporations instead of public interests.

According to Dorie Apollonio 2008 (professor of political science at the university of California, Berkeley)
While the corruption problem is important, it does not address what many political scientists have identified as systemic corporate bias in the lobbying system which is not traditional corruption but an equity issue. Every count of groups in the Washington lobbying community ever done has confirmed lobbying landscape dominated by businesses and business trade associations. A consistent finding that business and profit-sector organizations have an advantage in the process of mobilization is one of the most important elements of bias in the Washington interest group community.

In sum we can conclude that there are systemic reasons why the bias exists. For one, businesses tend to have fewer obstacles to mobilization than diffuse interest groups. And for another, most political conflict is structured so that the consequences of policy are highly salient to particular concentrated interests, but not the general public. Taken together, this suggests that the imbalances in the pressure system are endemic and not likely to change soon.

After looking at lobbying data from 1996, they found that businesses alone accounted for $461 million on lobbying expenditures- more than half (56 percent) of the $823 million spent on lobby that year. Together, business, trade associations, and professional groups account for 85 percent of the total spending reported. Just on their own corporations accounted for 43 percent of registrations, 46 percent of reports filed and 43 percent of issues mentioned

Also since business groups have money and thus money equals power they can have more lobbyists getting only their voice heard rather than the voice that speaks out for anyone of you looking at this right now. Thus creating more bias in Washington. So basically when we look at this point essentially what Im trying to say is that the lobbyists that are supposed to get your voice out there are not being heard nearly as much as business lobbying groups. This is more harm than good because businesses will get their "products" out there rather than gun rights lobbyists and women's rights lobbyists etc.

2.Lobbying is bribery and corruption
Hari Sud [a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager]
September 25, 2009
There is a strong connection between lobbying and political contributions. Although direct corporate contributions for political campaigns are strictly forbidden, corporate influence peddling continues unabated. Any interest group or trade guild seeking influence in the corridors of power maintains a steady stream of cash to the election campaign of one politician or another.
By the end of the year healthcare lobbyists alone will have spent half a billion dollars to block the public option from the Obama initiative. In a democracy it is legal to oppose the ruling party's initiative. In the United States there is no limit on how much can be spent to oppose an initiative; this makes the country as corrupt as any in the world.
Private interest groups spend tons of money during the conventions, pushing for people they trust to get advisory jobs. Lobbyists also form the central core of the election campaign staff. Without their unique knowledge and skill base it would be hard to run an election campaign. Lots and lots of money is spent.
Therefore, lobbying in the United States is a sophisticated name for corruption and bribery. Corporations call it a legitimate business activity, but it is no different from corruption in third world countries. It is hard to tell who is more corrupt. In calculating this, lobbying costs must be included. This would probably put the United States and most Western democracies on a par with most third world countries.

So basically what this is saying is that basically congressmen and women are being bribed with thousands upon thousands of dollars to vote what the lobbyists paymasters want and basically whoever is the "highest bidder" gets what they want. Now this is sad as it is corruption. Which gos into my evidence basically stating that because of this "bidding" congressmen and women are being bought out making our country very corrupt.

3.Lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling.

Hari Sud
September 25, 2009
"Earmarks" are specific to U.S. democracy – the addition of items to a spending bill for a specific project, location or institution. If a bill put forth by the administration or Congress cannot pass, additional legislators may be bribed to support it by adding money earmarked for specific projects in their constituencies. This happened when the "bridge to nowhere" was built in Alaska at a cost of about $250 million.
Dozens of unnecessary spending projects are undertaken every year to favor one interest group or another. Lobbyists make sure their paymasters get their way. The Congressional Research Service, a private watchdog group, totaled earmarks from 1994 till 2004 at $53 billion.

In large part, this escalation in the number of earmarks reflects the growing number of lobbyists offering to obtain them for a fee. As the number of earmarks increases with each passing year, the business attracts more lobbyists who apply more pressure on Congress to spend more on pork-bar�rel spending.

Ronald D. Utt April 27,2006[senior research fellow in the Thomas a roe institute for economic policy at the heritage foundation]
A growing body of evidence suggests that illegal and questionable lobbying practices are not uncommon and that incidents such as those involving mr Abramoff have likely been repeated in similar transactions between other lobbyists and members.
A recent congressional research service analysis indicates the scope of such activities. The analysis found that the number if earmarks authorized by congress in appropriations bills alone increased from 4,155 in 1994 to 15,887 in 2005- an increase of 282 percent. 1,439earnarks in 1995, which grew to 13,997 in 2005 for an increase of 872 percent.
In a large part, this escalation in the number of earmarks reflects the growing number of lobbyists offering to obtain them for a fee. As the number of earmarks increases with each passing year, the business attracts more lobbyists who apply more pressure on congress to spend more on pork-bar-rel spending.

We all know earmarks do not help the United states in any way but waste our nations money which we really can't do being as we are in an economic crisis and what lobbying does is support such legislation and urge it. What my opponent may say is that because earmarks are helping one area it is helping. But this is simply not the case. It is called earmarks for a reason and the wouldn't be considered a problem if they weren't. What it does is make the congressman look good and hopefully get reelected but what it actually does is not help that area and wastes our governments money on unnecessary things putting us farther into the recession. Now this is not benefiting the united states AS A WHOLE so earmarks and pork barreling are more harm to the united states than good.

Because lobbying doesn't get your voice heard. Because lobbying IS bribery and corruption and creates more unnecessary spending putting us farther into the recession I can only see


We are arguing over if having a structured method for 'lobbying-to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action' does more harm than good in the US. My opponent has gone through a list of ways that what he has chosen to call the corrupt can influence our public officials. He has left the audience to assume a minuscule level of good coming out of our structured attempts at swaying our political representatives by not bothering to naming any of that list least you compare it and see that the good indeed, perspectively outweighs the bad.

Think, for a minute, if your freedom to assemble was taken away leaving your only option for petitioning your leaders being as an individual. In this happy world my opponent must be envisioning where there can be no organized lobbying his same 'corrupt' individuals would not be able to bid for power over the public officials. But you see they would infect still have the same influence over the officials. Before I might gather together a large group of people to sway my congressman and Donald Trump who's interest are opposite to mine gather a large group of people too and add his money to influence the congressman. But now it is just my own voice by itself that can petition the congressman VS the voice of Donald Trump who's voice still included his considerably large wallet. The influence of 'corrupt' bribery from wealthy individuals and business's via there owners still controls the officials regardless of the existence of organized lobbying. In fact we can even use our common sense to see that without organized lobbying our voices are indeed weaker than they were with it. For if I can raise a group large enough out of the constituents of the Congressman that he realizes can vote him out of office when that many are dissatisfied with him he just might do the right thing and ignore Mr. Trump.

So bribery, 'corruption', and greater power in the business owners, still exist just fine independently of organized attempts at swaying public officials. The common use of organized lobbying as conduit for 'corruption' and for a business owner to overpower my voice is a mere coincidence.

My opponent reasons that Earmarks would not be considered a problem if there were not one. Obviously this reasoning rely's on the faith that people have a tendency to blame the right thing, like the Jews. I for one do not share this faith and demand that justify the logic behind 'It is called earmarks for a reason and the wouldn't be considered a problem if they weren't.'
He is right that I am going to quote an example of its good, and in my area This is the reason that public clearly isn't too concerned about earmarking, because when our congressman earmarks, he earmarks for ME. I am mad at other congressman for earmarking Federal dollars to pay for stupid stuff in other states cause it does me no good but raise national debt. But the one congressman I have a right to sway and can vote out of office, Rick Boucher, I am not mad at when he gets the money to pay for stupid stuff like water service near where I live. It is stupid because its a problem the state or even local government should have been able to take care of. But all this earmarked money was in essence spent on ME, the local region that live in or near. So do I or Boucher's other ever vote him out? No, he's as incumbent as they get. When the tax dollars are wasted though, they are wasted on US. I ask my opponent does he seriously critique his own representative, Its Cynthia Lummis isn't it? You don't have to surf around the sight too long before you find out she sponsors Federal tax dollars away like Boucher, and for YOU, but not me. She's not quite as much an incumbent as my man, Rich Boucher, but never the less she's been in there 4 years and you have had plenty of time to call her out on any earmarking. I do not think it raises too much concern for you when she's spending the cash in your region. It is these people who are to raise our voices against first when we are fed up with earmarking but no one ever does and that is because the truth is we are not actually concerned with earmarking.

I think we are beginning to see our voices are heard just fine, because our voices are dead silent to start with and this silence rings out loud and clear.

My refutations thus far have gone with the assumptions of my opponents view of a moral system. But if truly prepared to defend the Pro side of this issue with that moral system than he must be prepared to defend the moral system itself. There is absolutely nothing corrupt about a Senator if votes based on the opinion of another, it seems the only criteria for when my opponent calls this practice corrupt is when the opinion the vote is based on is not his own, witch is all too often by the people who complain about there opinions not being heard, a silent one. The fact the our leaders cannot head everyone's contrary opinions is not evidence of there being 'corrupted'.

My opponent also speaks of the people having the most money being the ones who's voices are heard being a bad thing. Hear are the testimony's of people who are on there way to being those same people (who have the most money) regardless of a recession purely on the fact they heed wise practices and are thrifty with there cash. if there is anyone we want influencing the decisions of our congressman on there spending practices, it should be the people who are indeed winning at making money themselves.
Such wisdom being behind the power the is behind congress's decisions is a good that comes out of organized lobbying, not harm.
Debate Round No. 2


y0ungDuB forfeited this round.


My opponents profile says he was online line 2 days ago and I posted my argument 3 days ago. I cant imagine why he didn't post then. Please post an argument next round.

All arguments extend.
Debate Round No. 3


My apologies for forfeiting that round. I had more important things to do.

Now my opponent said that i provided only the bad in lobbying. I did exactly what the pro side is supposed to do. I am supposed to show the bad in lobbying and my opponent is supposed to show the good in lobbying. It is your job as voters to choose who showed the more bad or good in lobbying.

My opponent never really had a case all he did was attack and for that reason alone you must vote pro for him not providing clash in cases. So basically what I'm saying is that i have nothing to attack against this whole debate. In my Frame work alone i stated that the 2nd round is for cases. If you don't buy this argument i will defend my case from his attacks anyways, just keep this in mind when voting.

My opponent attacked my first point by saying in opinion no evidence that lobbyists that fight for you (public interest groups hence the name) would be getting their voice heard because congressmen can decide to ignore it. What we can see is that congressmen just going to turn down 200,000 which is about their annual salary. So when congressmen take this bribe of money (which is largely because of BUSINESS groups who don't really care about what the public thinks) they feel obligated to go that way. If you look in my first contention i even bring up how business groups have more lobbyists and more money and here in the US money is power. So basically what's happening is business groups which have more lobbyists to persuade are getting their voice heard more than mine and yours which is clearly more harm than good because again business groups are only trying to get their products and what they want out there not necessarily what the public wants. So i ask that you take this into consideration when voting.

My opponent says that corruption is a mere coincidence but we can clearly see it is not because over the past decade we can see that with the rise of lobbying more earmarks have happened and our government has been more corrupt than ever.

If congressmen really need information they do not need to get it from lobbyists. The congressional research foundation solves such problems. They give congressmen the information that they need. No bias no corruption.

My opponent attacks my third point by saying that earmarks are helping his area. He also gos on to bring up the representative for my state, He even points ou my point exactly he says "she sponsors Federal tax dollars away like Boucher, and for YOU, but not me." exactly that's whats wrong. Congressmen and women are earmarking for ONLY their state to only help that state or county NOT THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE. Earmarks powered by lobbyists are causing federal dollars which may be helping ME but not YOU that is wrong and it is a waste. What's happening is the congressmen are voting for legislation with earmarks powered by lobbyists to basically make the congressmen look better by their state to hopefully get voted in. They are being selfish an only looking to hep themselves rather than the United states by itself. If you believe that earmarks do more good than harm that my opponent is trying to have you believe I ask you to go to this website to see a few examples of bad earmarks to good so you can outweigh them yourself. (

We are clearly not being heard like my opponent may have you believe he has shown u no evidence to prove otherwise. Lobbyists are bribers and the more lobbyists or bribers you have the more you get your voice heard like business lobbyists. My opponent has shown you no evidence to counter mine about this.

My opponent said that money isn't necessarily a bad thing and brought up a website that tried to prove his point. That website never said this was do to lobbying. Therefore it is unresolutional and don't buy it. Now even though i agree with my opponent that money isn't a bad Im just trying to say that they have more voice over you and I. Not only that but they will go but what they think is moral or not moral which may be against what the public thinks. Overall if someone with money has more voice than you in Washington it is unfair and does more harm than good.

Overall we can see from my arguments that lobbying does more harm than good. My opponent never stated a case. He never provided evidence to prove his point. Lastly and most importantly he never proved how lobbying does good all he did was attack my case. Just by that alone I ask you voters to vote Pro because of the unfairness that lobbying brings to our Government.

Thank you


Thank you for posting an argument.

It seems that, besides generally failing to understand the nature of even one of my arguments, My opponent has a few confusions about the burdens of both sides of this debate.

1) That it is my only task and option to provide a list of good things about structured lobbying, his only task and option for this debate is providing bad things.
2) I cannot be on the offensive even though I am 'CON'.

My opponent is PRO and as such has the burden of proving anything to do with the resolution. As CON I rather have the luxury of remaining on offense.

I have chosen a different path though to argue than just giving a list of the good done from lobbying, and this alternate path is just as valid. My opponent wants me to keep your minds in a box that concerns itself only with good and bad caused in organized lobbying current existence. But I say that it is equally important to consider the good and bad caused by organized lobbying un-existence, witch I gave. without organized lobbying all the bad my opponent argued would be far worse, and the good would be non-existent. So we have a net increase in bad without organized lobbying, and removal of any good as well. By having organized lobbying we are preventing this thus causing good just by making the bad less bad and by allowing there to be good at all.

That is in essence my case, in essence organized lobbying is 'a necessary evil'. And it is in this sense that it does 'less harm than good'. I cannot see where he got 'no evidence that lobbyists that fight for you would be getting their voice heard because congressmen can decide to ignore it ' out of that.

My opponent also reduced one of my rebuttal's to 'corruption is mere coincidence' but that is not what I argued. I argued that that particular conduit being used for corruption is coincidence. I do not deny that organized lobbying can be used corruptly, just as I would not deny the bible can be use corruptly. Is it relevant if arguing if the bible is overall good, No. What we are are purely concerned with in finding out 'more harm than good' is not if it can cause corruption, but rather 'if without would corruption go away'. but it would not, whatever system that fills the void will be the new conduit of corruption. The system of structured attempts to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action cannot be said definitively to cause corruption, corruption exist independently and finds away to use that system.

My opponent put a random defense to his position in the middle of his rebuttal's to my arguments, witch is okay, and I will deal with that hear. My opponent stated 'If congressmen really need information they do not need to get it from lobbyists. The congressional research foundation solves such problems. They give congressmen the information that they need. No bias no corruption.'
But you also left out 'no empathy'. If you want information about, lets say statistics on the poor for example, to be delivered as if it should matter to your elected representatives, then it will need to be given to them by someone who cares and can preach it with passion. And that is really what all our lobbyist are people who preach. Preaching the gospel of whatever there particular political view is. The data that our congress draws upon should not lose its heart.

My opponent then defends his third point with a ridiculous source for comparing good and bad earmarks as it gives only three and calls that a statistic. I can easily add on more example to upset the 2-1 ratio making it 2-2 .
But this is utterly unimportant as that was not the point of my argument. My argument was about the role my opponents hypocrisy plays in this. If you, audience, where to have a problem with earmarking, would you go onto a debate website and complain about it to people who don't live anywhere near your district or state, or would you hold a rally in your county encouraging your neighbors to vote the incumbent out? would you write your complaints to your representative or to me, a random redneck from southwest Virginia? Witch option being taken would show true concern about earmarking? The nature of this argument that my opponent missed is that his voice and the voice of business owners are being represented perfectly at the same time. the reason that looks the same as just listening to the business owners is because they are the only ones who are speaking up.

We cannot hold our representatives accountable for failure to represent our voice's when our voices are mute to start with. Now if my opponent was more open to holding that rally, aka organized lobbying, then maybe his voice might have a real chance of being represented. To me that sounds like more good than harm.

My opponent then claims I said 'money isn't bad' and that I said he claimed vice verse. This is absolutely false. He again failed to understand the nature of my argument. It is not 'money isn't bad' it's 'people with most money being the ones who's voices are heard isn't bad' the website was to show how money is often enough a sign of wisdom, if you end up with a lot of it because you practise thriftiness to acquire it. building wealth is hard and is not something accomplished by those with bad judgement. My opponents case is that only the rich can get there voices heard in our government thanks to organized lobbying and I bring Dave Ramsey's website up to point out that if my opponent is write on that one point its all the better! In essence I am equating the scenario he's presented 'only people with money get there voice represented' to 'only smart people get there voice represented'. That is a good thing. if things were not that way as my opponents wishes things were not, then all of the stupid people who cant be wise with there money would get there voices heard as well. I will state again organized lobbying does more good than harm. It has made sure only the thriftiest individuals of our society can affect how our country is run.

I would now like to point out among all my opponents rebuttal's to 'my arguments' not one of dealt with the fact that he has not justified is calling corrupt as being thought of as bad. It alone rest on the hope that you to carry the same moral system, and I doubt you do as his definition of a corrupt system seems only to need that his particular view is not taken over other peoples opinions. Regardless of organized lobbying existence this is to tall an order to demand of his representatives, they will always be corrupt by his use of the word because they can never represent everyone contrary views especially people like my opponent who have none that they ever bother to share with the representative. I am calling my opponent out on this do please give an answer to this question 'HAVE YOU TOLD CYNTHIA LUMMIS YOUR CONCERNS?'

I would hope the reading audience members who live in the USA ask themselves this same question, replacing Lummis's name with there congressman. I would hope you are inspired by the answer you have to give yourself even if its a negative answer. As many can easily become cynical towards there control over the direction there country is going basing the excuse on organized lobbying, But if you stop for a minute, remember that the only people you have ever spoke your ideas and thoughts too are your buds at work, or family members, and that you have indeed not actually begun to try to get your voice heard to people in charge you might realize the new options you have before you. Go, get people together and get somebody that writes for a newspaper there to cover your group. Become a visible swing of votes in the statistics they take of the poles of who gets voted out of office and for what reasons. Embrace that first amendment right. HAVE A VOICE THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED. BE SILENT NO LONGER!
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to clarify something with not only my opponent but also the voters. My opponent has agreed that lobbying is "evil" and does harm. If a tool like lobbying is being misused and is doing more harm than good why have it? My opponent cannot provide one example of good lobbying you can clearly see lobbying is not needed and does do more harm than good. The resolution says lobbying not lobbying being taken out doing harm so my opponents argument about if or if not lobbying is in place is unresolutional.

He said he has taken the path to basically just defend but under the framework i provided in the first round that my opponent agreed to by accepting this debate says otherwise. If you look i said this will be a PF (public forum) style debate. Under the PF style not only do you have to provide a case it is completely different from a CX (cross examination) debate which my opponent is going under. CX basically says pro has o provide the evidence about how it works and all con has to do is refute it. In PF it is completely different, you both have to provide times it has worked and hasn't worked and provide arguments and a case in the first round. So the route my opponent has gone under is not under the framework and is automatically a loss. If tt doesn't convince you i will refute his arguments anyways.

My opponent defends his arguement i attacked by saying that "I argued that that particular conduit being used for corruption is coincidence." But then he goes on to say this "I do not deny that organized lobbying can be used corruptly" this is my exact point. If lobbying or something is being used corruptly most of the time which i have proven and my opponent agreed to then why use it. Lobbying is clearly doing more harm than good if it is corrupting like my opponent agreed to. Then he said "I would not deny the bible can be use corruptly." Im pretty sure the bible doesnt corupt the government and "do more harm than good" and i really don't understand how he can say the bible can be used corruptly!

My opponent then attacked my point about the congressional research foundation on how they give information the congressmen and women need. He then attacked that point by saying "need to be given to them by someone who cares and can preach it with passion.....that is really what all our lobbyist are people who preach" No lobbyists bribe and are corrupt like you agreed to. Not only that by why have someone preach it when you can get non biased facts and information from a more reliable source. I will provide an analogy for an example- lets say you wanted to buy a computer. On one hand you can look at all the facts and compare something from the statistics non bias or anything. On the other hand we have someone "preaching" to you about their computer and then bribe you with money! Hardly no statistics or anything. Same deal with lobbying, my opponent is trying to convince you that bribing with money and preaching congressmen is more effective than the hard facts non biased so you can make your own decision!

My opponent attacks my third point by saying that it was a ridiculous source (even though he provided you with no evidence or "sources")by saying that "his(meaning mine) voice and the voice of business owners are being represented perfectly at the same time" yes they are i agree with my opponent on that but what he is failing to see is that the businesses are being heard more because of their money and the power and my opponent still hasn't refuted that.

He said that we cant hold our representatives accountable for failure to represent our voice's when our voices are mute to start of with. We can see that actually they are by public interest groups hence the name. Again business groups since they have more lobbyists and more money they are being heard over our interests which is doing more harm than good. It's unfair as well as unjust. Which has not been refuted.

My opponent than said that basically it is good that ONLY the richer more wealthier people are getting their voice heard. One that is completely unjust and two you are forgetting the nature of my argument. What i was meaning is that business groups that have the money are getting more heard than the public interest groups which you have not refuted so obviously you agree. Then you said that smart people which are the more wealthier should affect how our country is run. WOW, that means than less than 1% of The United States should vote because that is how many "rich people" are i our country. Not only that but basically your agreeing that people that aren't as successful like the middle class or the poor should not get their voice heard. That is not on offensive but it does more harm than good. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are smarter than anyone else most of the time it's quite the opposite. Look at celebrities these days like Paris Hilton do you want her to run the government? You said it yourself "then all of the stupid people who cant be wise with there money would get there voices heard as well"

To answer my opponents silly question about "HAVE YOU TOLD CYNTHIA LUMMIS YOUR CONCERNS?" No because she is too busy getting corrupted by the lobbyists bribing her with money! What about you? That's why we have public interest groups but again unfortunately they are getting less heard because of the business groups. Who is a congressman or woman going to listen to more? A piece of paper from one kid in wyoming or 200,000 dollars? Answer that one.

You can clearly see the Pro has one this debate. MY opponent never provided a case. My opponent never showed you why lobbying is good when i have proved otherwise. My opponent hardly followed the framework that i have provided. My opponent never provided evidence to support his reasoning. My opponent agreed that wealthier people of the united states should have more voice than 98 percent of America. His whole points again were all opinion. When can see that with lobbying your voice isn't being heard. We can also see that lobbying is wasting more government on useless projects called earmarks. Lastly we can see that lobbying is bribing and corrupting not only or congressmen and women but also corrupting the whole United States government. So from these harsh reasons i provided in this paragraph summarizing this debate you can clearly see the Pro has won this debate.

Thank you and good debate.


I admit before this debate I was not familiar with PF style, so I had googled it to get a better understanding. After studying up on it I feel confident in saying my opponent is wrong if he thinks cross examination is not a part of it. As far as presenting ‘cases' the only reason my opponent thinks I have not given one is because there is only one case he is even listening for. I presented a case just fine and have continued to throughout this debate; My case's being that my opponent does not have a voice that can be represented and indecently under that same cynical case follows that most of America does not. My case also has included the high measurement of good that comes out of total reduction of harm and even providing the opportunity for good. Those two cases are not a cross examination of anything he has said.

The rest of what I have said can be called cross-examination, but some CX is necessary in all debates just to keep the debate from deteriorating into ‘talking past each other'. There is nothing wrong with rebuttal being present in my argument and I believe when you include CX in your argument it shows respect for the one you are debating for what they have to say because if you have been paying attention and have considered what they have said enough to give responses that demand to know the context of the opponents statement to even understand the response, then you are showing respect instead of passing their statements off as ‘just their opinion' before moving on. When you fail to include CX in your responses in a debate you are in essence leaving your opponents stance unaddressed that's in conflict with yours, showing yours is all that you concern yourself with. It is a way of calling your opponents very thoughts (and by proxy their soul) garbage because it's just their garbage ‘two-cents' to you.

It is for these reasons I consider part of an unwritten and perhaps until now unspoken, code of respect among those who have chosen to practice the art debate, to always include some form of CX in response in debates. Politicians sometimes give their stump speeches in the same room and call it ‘debating' and label themselves ‘brave' for being ‘unafraid to face opposition'. But there is nothing to fear when concerning our pursuit of truth. Make no mistake they are not debating but ‘talking past each other' when they do this and it is a horrible tragedy that such ‘debating' has become associated with PF style debating, or even debating at all.

Before moving on to addressing any remaining cases or rebuttals that are unaddressed in this debate I would like to make one thing clear. I have not agreed that Lobbying is ‘evil' nor have I agreed that it is ‘corrupt'. I believe that I have gone more than out of my way to make my point on that clear but I shall try one more time for my opponent's sake. I have only agreed that Lobbying ‘can be used' to do evil, and that it ‘can be used' by the ‘corrupt' to accomplish ‘corrupt' things. To drive this point home I added that even the Bible ‘can be used' for those same ends, even though I am as God fearing and bible believing as it gets. My opponent brushed that particular comment off by opponent who's profile claims to be Christian as well by saying ‘Im pretty sure the bible doesnt corupt the government and "do more harm than good" and i really don't understand how he can say the bible can be used corruptly!'. This leads me to conclude that he believes if something can be used corruptly or for ‘evil' then that thing itself is ‘evil' or ‘corrupt'. He certainly didn't acknowledge that good things can be used for evil corrupt purposes, witch was my point.
It seems my opponent has never defended his being a Christian against an atheist before as it doesn't take long before they bring up things like ‘the crusades' and the ‘Spanish inquisition'. During the Civil War verses out of the bible would be used to justify things like slavery, calling black skin color ‘the mark of Cain' or part of the curse Noah put on Ham and all of his descendants. Corrupt teaching like that ended up coming out of Bible verses like the story of Ham and Cain, but this should be taken as evidence that the bible is corrupt or evil, only that an evil corrupt person can use the bible for those corrupt purposes. In the Scriptures themselves it provides an example of Satan himself using Bible verses (Psalm 91) when tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

So, its pretty clear that if even the ‘Good Book' can be used for evil, then the mere use of a practice or item for evil ends doesn't make the practice or item evil, it could even be true that a practice or item be overall good and evil still find away to use it. It is this way with ‘Structured attempts to sway the decisions of ones political leaders.' Overall, the freedom we have from its existence makes it a good thing but it can be used by the evil and corrupt for corrupt and evil things.

This is part of why it is rather useless to just defend and attack the examples of good and bad lobbying. Its ultimately not relevant data when we want to get to the truth of the matter. They are so many laws and bills that go by in a year as our leaders do what it takes to run this country, that we could never hope to know about them all so that we can count the good and bad and see witch list is bigger. The ones that are made famous by the media are usually the most shocking as the media has learned ‘shocking' sells really well so naturally the ones we ever bother to dig up may seem to have more bad examples than good. But the sheer mass of the ones we don't know about are such a large fraction of the bills and laws and general business efforts of our lobbyist can easily have more good examples among those even if stacked against all the commonly known examples lobbying.

Our search for truth in this matter should not be decided by a contest of who among two individuals can look up more examples of lobbying that fits there side, because we should expectedly be always left with the doubt ‘maybe if I had just looked up a bit more…' if we did go about this debate that way.
What we can get to the bottom of with what we know though is the perception of what a blessing it is that the bad is only as bad as it is thanks to the fact that we have the freedom to make organized attempts to sway our political representatives. To truly justify saying something ‘does more harm than good' means that that something makes us worse off with it than we would be without. Taking account of what could be happening but is not is just as important as considering what is being ‘caused' by an action when considering the net value.
Take for example founding out the economic net gain from installing a small wind turbine outside your home. You do not just way the value of how much installation cost, or maintenance over time, and put it against the savings; you also consider how much your capital you spent on the installation could have made you just sitting in savings account at the bank.

My opponent say's he agrees that he's voice is represented at the same time as business owners but suggest that his voice is represented less somehow. This is simply not possible, either your voice is represented or it is not. Now, he may be trying to compromised representation of his voice and Business owners voices by saying there's is ‘represented more' and if he is, I think I have shown by now why that is the preferred outcome, more good than harm. If one is accomplished enough to own a business they have earned their voice gaining more respect than the average citizen, especially in bills on the economy, as they personally oversee that infrastructure.

It seems my argument runs just a little bit over 8000 charcters and I do not know what to cut. Since it is not much I will post the rest in the comment section.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 8 years ago
Your right, I should have given more focus to lobbying=free speech, but I only hinted at in the first round when I painted Pro's 'happy scenario'.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
The definitions are wrong. If you write a letter o your congressperson, you are attempting to influence a politician, and hence you are lobbying under the definition. Attending a protest rally of any kind also meets the definition, as does writing a newspaper editorial or blogging on an issue. Con didn't challenge.

The assertion that business lobbies are the strongest is dead wrong. The Jewish-American lobby, AARP, gun rights, and other issue-advocacy groups dominate. Neither side offered any evidence in support of their position.

The most fundamental issue at stake is freedom of speech. How could that have been overlooked? the resolution claims that free speech does more harm than good. That's an extraordinary claim.

Neither side argued very well, but Con's oversights made his case especially weak.

I gave conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit, although Con made the conduct violation of attempting to argue in the comments in excess of 8000 characters. The extra must be ignored, so that's not as bad as the forfeit.
Posted by Marauder 8 years ago
My opponent admits he's never attempted to contact his representative. My point that I wish to get across is that the average American that ‘isn't being heard' because of organized lobbying is guilty of the same thing. If there is any reason that some get their voice heard ‘more' than they its because they say less.
It shows how much we truly do have faith in the good of organized lobbying when we can see that my opponent would not even try the alternative to it by writing to his congressman and has chosen to depend on lobbyist to represent his voice. He asks things like ‘if it does bad why have it' and by showing his own choice in lobbyist representation over the alternative, self-representation of his voice, that's why we have it. Because we know that way is better, the way that does the most good.

Did you all know that back in the day when governments all over Europe was changing and democracy was becoming new many rejected the path that America took, keeping a form of monarchy, on the grounds that democracy was just unfitting, mob rule. Wouldn't it be great if you could limit that democracy so that you would have all the advantages of democracy without the disadvantages of mob rule? Well when only the most thrifty 1% of a nation end up having the ability to participate in that democracy, you have cut out the part that make up the mob mentality. My opponent says this is the way things are now. If that is so then organized lobbying has provided us that more fitting democracy, an improved one. That dream scenario is all good.

Thank you for a good debate.
Posted by Koopin 8 years ago
Posted by Marauder 8 years ago
It is too late for him Koopin, for I have come and swiped it. It just goes to show what happens when you dont learn the valuable lessons from Dora the Explorer.
Posted by Koopin 8 years ago
Yes, Swipper is a, well, we call him a fox. He comes and swipes things. In order for him not to swipe your case you have to type in three times at the bottom of your debate

"Swipper no swiping"

He will then not swipe your case, it seems dumb, but you have to do it. You can still edit your debate.
Posted by y0ungDuB 8 years ago
Ok? Anything else u want to add cherymenthol? Want to accept this challenge or just critique?
Posted by Cherymenthol 8 years ago
Nice definitions

"social groups form everywhere"

Posted by y0ungDuB 8 years ago
Whose swipper and should i be concerned?!?!
Posted by Koopin 8 years ago
Swipper is gonna swipe your case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31