The Instigator
y0ungDuB
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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: 3/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,322 times Debate No: 11380
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

y0ungDuB

Pro

i will let my opponent state his/her case first =)
Sky_ace25

Con

My opponent has failed to structure this debate in any way. Thus, he has allowed me to make this into any form/shape/or image that I wish.

Thus, I will define harm as such:
Harm is a fictional supervillain in the DC Comics universe. He first appeared in Young Justice #4 (January 1999).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_(comics)

I will define good as such:
full: having the normally expected amount; "gives full measure"; "gives good measure"; "a good mile from here"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Lobbying will be defined as:
Lobbyist (previously titled Angel) is a TV drama series produced by Korea Pictures International, Inc. for South Korea's biggest TV network SBS. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist_(TV_series)

My opponent has the burden of proof to show that a South Korean TV network has had a show that is in the U.S. My opponent must then prove that this tv show produces more of a fictional super-villain than actually achieving a full amount of something. I contend that I get a full amount of tv and thus clearly good outweighs the harm.

My opponent may not refute my framework next round as he allowed me to start and make any argument I wish to frame this debate. Assuming this is a reference to the Public Forum topic, when the first person drops their speech, the second person is allowed to frame and extend any thing he wishes. Thus, my opponent must be able to prove the paragraph above. If he fails to do this you Negate, Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
y0ungDuB

Pro

First of all this gentleman argument is a complete fallacy. i would like to also state that wikipedia is a non viable source of information and cannot be used in this debate for it can be edited and altered. Now for a real case and a real debate. And i would also like to state that his arguments are completely flawed as well as unresoloutional he did not once state why we need political lobbying and i will show you why we don't. Lastly i would like to state that is framework is completely flawed and it is ignorant as well as rude to take this as a joke all i did was try to show a sense of respect and let you go first.

Definitions
lobbying - Communication with elected officials or their staff, which expresses a position on a pending piece of legislation. walk.networkofstrength.org/Page.aspx
Good- Possessing desirable qualities; adapted to answer the end designed; promoting success, welfare, or happiness
harm-the act of damaging something or someone
I strongly affirm today's resolution that "In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good." I don't advocate that there is not good in lobbying. I simply must argue that the bad effects of lobbying outweigh the good. Now after this resolutional analysis my partner and I have 3 contentions that outweigh the good in lobbying. They are………..

1. Business lobbying groups are much more powerful than public interest groups.

2.Lobbying is bribery and corruption.

3.Lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling.

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) Bruce E. Cain (assistant adjunct professor of clinical pharmacy at the university of California, san Francisco) and Lee Drutman (PHD candidate in political science at the University 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.

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.

3.Lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling.

Hari Sud [a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager]
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.

BECAUSE BUSINESS GROUP LOBBYISTS CONTROL WHAT GOES ON IN LOBBYING, BECAUSE LOBBYING IS CORRUPTION AND LEADS TO UNNECESSARY SPENDING ON EARMARKS
Sky_ace25

Con

Voters, my opponent has some nerve saying that I do not provide good sources when he cleanly offers you random definitions with no clearly defined source. Furthermore my opponent gives you a random biased organization, and he does not tell you why it is more credible than wikipedia. Furthermore, my opponent has forfeited the point that this is a PF style debate. Ask any debate judge/coach and they will tell you if you drop a round all arguments are extended. My opponent dropped completely round one and thus all my framework is cleanly extended across the flow. Thus, my opponent has yet to prove why a South Korean TV Network produces more of a fictional super-villain than actually achieving a full amount of something.

I am deeply offended that my opponent is willing to drop all my arguments, because he deems them "unworthy". My opponent is an elitist at best and he is to blame himself for lacking framework. Thus, all my points are cleanly extended over; at the instance that my opponent is not upholding or affirming the resolution in all cases what-so-ever, as is his burden, you by default vote neg.

(Just to humor you I will refute my opponent's meaningless arguments)
1. My opponent never proves why organized lobbying does MORE HARM than good. Even if you accept his points he has only proved that lobbying does harm; yet he doesn't prove why it does not do MORE harm than good.

2. One of the U.S.'s main power sources is CAPITALISM; our entire economy is based on making sure our company's prosper. If a government is keeping there economic system stable they are clearly doing more good than harm. Personally, I'd rather have money spent on making sure a bank doesn't go bankrupt, rather than wasting it on useless government programs.

3. "Lobbying is bribery and corruption" This is a completely ridiculous opinion; To be honest there are many people who would say the U.S. government is bribery and corruption. Thus, the blind are leading the blind, my opponent's arguments holds no ground.

4. Lobbyists waste our money on junk right? That's why they manage to convince a MAJORITY VOTE in the senate and the house to vote for the proposition. The whole point of the U.S. federalism government is that we place power in an elected representative body. In order to ensure a stable rule and society it is in our best interest to allow them to rule. Thus, my opponent is basically saying our entire elected body is easily bought and corrupt and is willing to do whatever anybody else wants. Now then who votes for the government, the people. My opponent is trying to say that the U.S. people are so incompetent that they can't even vote for good people. My opponent's entire argument is based on flawed logic and clearly does not prove why political lobbying does more harm than good. "The Bridge to Nowhere" my opponent defines as a waste, but it was clearly helping a group of people. Thus, it is clearly gaining a positive and a good achievement. My opponent wants a gridlock government that does absolutely nothing and this would do way more harm than good.

Voters, you vote Neg, because of how I have formed the structure initially which my opponent cleanly drops. He has not proved why the South Korean tv show produces more super-villains than actually achieving a full amount of something. You may vote Neg right off of that.

If you don't buy that you can clearly look at all his points and you clearly see they are flawed and do not even prove why lobbying does more harm than good. My opponent has not affirmed the resolution in any way and thus you may easily Negate.
Debate Round No. 2
y0ungDuB

Pro

y0ungDuB forfeited this round.
Sky_ace25

Con

My opponent has forfeited his round and thus all his arguments are dropped and all of mine are extended. I will wait to see if he will respond later on.
Debate Round No. 3
y0ungDuB

Pro

First of all i would like to state that my opponent never even stated his case just a framework which is absolutely ridiculous. Second of all his attacks on my case were completely weak and were all based on his opinion no evidence no nothing to back up anything he said! Even though he has weak attacks that don't even hold up i would like to state again how his framework is a complete fallacy and being as my opponent has not stated his case neither any points to prove WHY POLITICAL LOBBYING DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD not only that but he never refuted my case andwhen he tried to he used again opinion. Now for this only you must vote PRO.

1) my opponent attacks my case by saying i never prove how lobbying does more harm than good. Well obviously i have just by looking at my case. I will go through them to clarify with my opponent as well as the voters why lobbying does do more harm than good. I say business lobbying groups are more powerfull than public interest groups. Now public interest groups are the lobbyists that get my as well as your voice heard in washington. Now when business groups have ore power and money they have more lobbyists to get their voice or "Products heard" rather than the publics thus doing more harm than good. Now i bring up in my second point that lobbying is bribery and corruption. It's bribery because the lobbyists bribe the congressmen and women with hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes millions to make them vote how the lobbyists paymasters want. My third contention is about how lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling, meaning that earmarks/pork barreling which is all those added parts to legislation on a waste on things our country as a whole not just one area are being forced down congress' throats and putting us farther into our recession which is definitely more HARM than good.

My opponent attacks my 2nd point by saying its an opinion. well i provided the evidence to back it up and my opponent didn't use any to say otherwise. Now he says "To be honest there are many people who would say the U.S. government is bribery and corruption. Thus, the blind are leading the blind, my opponent's arguments holds no ground." DO YOU SEE ANY PERSON SAYING THAT he says there are many, well he didn't state one!

My opponent attacks my 3rd point by saying that basically since there was a majority vote that because of these congressmen can basically see and not vote for it if there's earmarks. Well that's the whole point of earmarks. They put these earmarks in large legislation that basically congressmen can not pass up just because there's an earmark and not only that but they are usually hidden and can hardly be seen or looked at so yes they can get through without being known. now he also brings up valid pint saying the people vote them in so basically it's the people being represented. Well congressmen and women can choose what they want and usually they put earmarks in to benefit ONLY their state or county to basically look good from their public's prospective and hopefully get reelected. Which is wrong because they are only benefiting some and doing more harm to the united states. He says that the bridge to nowhere is clearly helping some people. One he doesn't say who and two it was a waste project which helped no one and wasted MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that our country needs.

My opponent states that he would rather make sure money goes o a bank so they don't become bankrupt rather than waiting it on useless government programs well those programs my friend are earmarks and you just agreed with me. Not only that but our country is not pure capitalist actually. He says that our entire economy is to make sure company s prosper well what about the PEOPLE and in a capitalism country it's actually to make the people prosper not the business so you are sadly mistaken.

Overall you can clearly see the pro has one. My opponent never showed you a case. Never proved to you why lobbying does more good than harm and never brought up evidence once. His framework was flawed and he never supported his framework anyways! So from this i urge a Pro vote on todays debate thank you.
Sky_ace25

Con

My opponent is trying to get me to prove framework, however let me remind my opponent that it was HE who didn't open the round. Furthermore my opponent has yet to prove why a South Korean TV show produces more super-villains than a full amount of something. My opponent has NOT REFUTED MY DEFINITIONS therefore he has forfeited the round to that framework. My opponent has clearly failed, because his entire case is off-topic to the framework that he himself has accepted. I have clearly used accurate definitional sources for my sources, (remember my opponent never even provided definition for his case), thus my opponent fails in the regards of actual framework. Finally, remember my opponent is the instigator, my job is merely to prove his case false, it is not my burden to provide a counter case. (he never establishes this, remember he dropped the first round and REMEMBER HE DROPPED THE PREVIOUS ROUND and in any PF round if you drop a round all your arguments are over)

(To humor you I will refute my opponent's meaningless contentions anyway)

(1st paragraph just repeats everything)

2. It's a commonly stated principle that there are people who do not like the American government as of now. Ask any person who doesn't like Obama or just turn on the media and you will see many washington scandals. I don't have to prove a commonly accepted principal. My opponent has made no other refutes other than that. My opponent is clearly just throwing in a person's opinion on the debate case which doesn't prove anything. He has not proved why ONE PERSON can represent the entire American Majority.

3. If earmarks are hidden how are we aware that they exist? My opponent clearly is lying here. Furthermore the AMERICAN PEOPLE vote for congressman to help themselves. A fundamental principle America was founded on is the idea that all Americans vote in there own interests (which is very often true). If my senator from MA helps my state I'm happy. So clearly I don't see how more HARM has been done by allowing a state to benefit themselves. Furthermore if we are to accept that this is a commonly used principle then EVERY STATE has the ability to do this. Thus, the harm is minimized by the fact that all states are able to do this. Thus, the only thing left is the good where even projects like the bridge to nowhere, help some x amount of people. My opponent's argument has clearly failed here.

4. Ummm our founding fathers didn't even trust the people to vote for the president, because they saw them as "the uneducated majority". Furthermore, our country has prospered while our economic system has boomed. We are clearly a capitalist country, my opponent's refute is dead here. Furthermore, I don't see what is wrong with helping our banking system that protects our PEOPLE. My opponent is clearly trying to harm the American people. His entire argument is on faulty logic just by him stating that we are not a capitalist country when we clearly are. Clearly we care about our banking industry and thus we are helping our economy which is GOOD. My opponent has not mentioned any actual harm that is done to the American people in his refute, and thus no harm is done. Thus my opponent gains no ground here.

5. My opponent cleanly dropped my refute to argument 1, he has already lost this.

6. Overall,my opponent is trying to arbitrarily put an unfair burden on me by telling you I needed a case. My opponent has forfeited TWICE his rounds (the initial and the previous). Thus, I am allowed to frame the debate in any way (my opponent provided no rules). My opponent has never refuted my original framework about the South Korean television show cleanly proving that my opponent has not upheld the resolution. If you look at my opponents case it is completely flawed as I've proved. He does not prove to you why lobbying does more HARM than good. Even if you accept there is some "x" harm look through my opponents entire refute he has never proved why more HARM is done than good achieved. I have cleanly showed you that our economy benefits from lobbying and thus you vote off that. You vote off my opponent failing to refute my original frame work. My opponent is only trying to get a vote off the fact that I never show you a case. Well to be honest, (I'm sorry if this was rude), I am insulted that my opponent 1. failed to provide an opening case 2. Failed to actually argue in a civilized manner other than petty name-calling 3. Failed to actually prove any points in a debate. 4. Acts as if my logic is not as good as his which I find very stupid. 5. He completely has the never to drop the previous round meaning that all his arguments are dropped anyway.

Voters, look at the facts, my opponent is clearly just looking for an easy win without even trying, you clearly see all my arguments outweigh his, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sky_ace25 5 years ago
Sky_ace25
lol so you decided to multi-account this debate so you'll win? lol you're pathetic lmfao
Posted by kweef 5 years ago
kweef
Are you kidding? How can anyone vote con?! This guy is clearly not serious
Posted by y0ungDuB 5 years ago
y0ungDuB
It's been an entire year now and i have now realized how much of a dumbass you are. Grow up you immature simpleton.
Posted by y0ungDuB 6 years ago
y0ungDuB
Ha speaking of random definitions look at yours first! lol haha fun and funny debate!
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
P.S. Youngdub you gave a random source for ONE definition not all of your definitions. Two of your definitions have no sources. Furthermore, if you actually argued your points instead of constantly complaining about how I'm not worth your time, you may have actually been more convincing. Any real debater should know they are not always going to be in a black-and-white debate. If you can't stretch your skills you are going to lose.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
Couldn't resist, I can't stand a guy who opens without presenting a case. Makes them look like a case-snatcher.
Posted by y0ungDuB 6 years ago
y0ungDuB
Look at the 2nd round i had clear definitions and yes idid put the source. i did state that his framework was flawed and whoever thinks that it wasn't flawed is mistaken.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Okay Youngdub change you votes now.

You obviously lost, because its a PF debate you never attacked his refutations on his case ergo its extended, you drop the framework as well, all points CON

however,

Sky_ace25 stop being semantical.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
1. You never defined anything, your fault. 2. I killed your pathetic case. 3. You didn't even source your definitions.
Posted by y0ungDuB 6 years ago
y0ungDuB
I am utterly appalled by your reasoning. You definitions are from wikipedia and you can clearly see LOBBYING THE TV SERIES. Come on dude your not in the 5th grade i clearly refuted your framework and your definitions with my own. I can't believe someone would take debate like a joke and you clearly did no offense.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by kweef 5 years ago
kweef
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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 Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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 y0ungDuB 6 years ago
y0ungDuB
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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 True2GaGa 6 years ago
True2GaGa
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 6 years ago
Steelerman6794
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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 Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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 Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
y0ungDuBSky_ace25Tied
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