The Instigator
Brownkid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Money should be in politics

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,040 times Debate No: 22463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Brownkid

Con

Why hullo thar, I would like to debate whether or not money should be in politics.

More specifically, American politics. Brownie points go to those who use the 2012 Presidential Election as fodder.

R1 is acceptance.


Zaradi

Pro

This oughta be good...
Debate Round No. 1
Brownkid

Con

Oh yes.
Just to be clear about what money is, not that you don't already know:

1.
any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.


Also, by "Money in politics" I mean money influencing politicians and people. This does include PACs and Super PACs. This does not incude government spending for things like healthcare.(All of this is just to be clear.)

NO, POLITICS SHOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MONEY.


CAMPAIGNS WITH A LOT OF MONEY ARE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN OTHER CAMPAIGNS

Let's take a look at Mitt Romney's campaign for President right now. He's outspending his competition overall 15:1. That's a lot of money. He spent over 3.4 million advertising just in Alabama and Mississippi.[1] He's outspending his competition 50:1 on advertising in certain states. Currently, in Wisconsin (where I'm from), I'm seeing all these commercials from Romney about the upcoming primary, and they are all character attacks on Santorum. Hell, I'm even seeing political ads on YouTube for the upcoming primary. In theory, seeing this over and over eventually is going to convince people to vote for Romney. Honestly, after seeing a lot of these commercials, I don't want to vote Santorum. But also after realizing the amount of money that went into convincing me to not vote for Santorum, I don't want to vote Romney. Now, not all of this money is for TV Ads. They are also for campaign signs and rallies. It seems like when Romney or Santorum or any other candidate is campaigning, they have these huge rallies for their supporters to evangelize even more people to their campaign.
Here's a chart detailing the spending of all the candidates on a day-to-day basis: http://www.npr.org...
Ron Paul 2012.

MOST OF THE MONEY GIVEN TO INFLUENCE POLITICS IS BY THE RICH

Most of the money that is given to SuperPACs is by the rich, who support these candidates so that they can gain tax cuts and other forms of beneits later on. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere, the Federal Election Commission reported these donors for over 1 million dollars: http://www.npr.org...

That, my friend, is huge. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson plan to spend 100 million dollars total on the Gingrich superPAC? They even said "I'm against very wealthy people attempting to [influence] or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it."

What about other Americans?

"When it came to small donors — those who gave $200 or less — the powerful Romney fundraising machine collected less than Santorum, or even Gingrich." [1]
That means that despite people donating small amounts of money, meaning actual supporters who aren't just swing voters, Romney's SuperPAC and his campaign are making more money than Santorum or Gingrich combined. And he's winning the campaign because of these ads, because at some point the people watching these ads realize how terrible the candidate being attacked is.

MONEY IN POLITICS IS ESSENTIALLY BUYING THE VOTE

The straw poll election is a prime example of this: When prompted, candidates will win by spending any amount of money necessary. The straw poll was said to be a forshadowing of the caucus, that whoever won the straw poll was most likely to win the nomination. So all the candidates went out and spent their hearts out buying tents, food, and merchandise to give to those who were coming to the straw poll. Since voting in the straw poll was 30 dollars, candidates handed away votes to those who would vote for them in the straw poll. Michelle Bachman spent 39,000 dollars alone on votes, and God knows how much on her tent, which had numerous famous rock bands and food.

The election is slightly different. Rather than literally buying the vote, they go out and spend money to gain influence over the voters. They spend the maximum amount of money possible in order to get those votes.

MONEY INFLUENCES THE VOTE FOR LEGISLATION BY CONGRESSPERSONS, MAKING IT SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REPRESENTED BUT RATHER INTEREST GROUPS ARE

In many cases, Congresspersons vote for legislation that large donors for their reelection campaign support. By this, I essentially mean lobbying. Lobbying remains a dominant force in today's politics. Congresspersons who received support from large companies in their reelection campain must support legislation that helps these companies in order to keep the support of these large donors. If Congresspersons feel obligated to vote for legislation that supports certain large donors but does not represent their constituents because they need the money in order to gain influence to be reelected, then that is morally objectional. Not only is it morally objectional, but it goes against the point of Republican government.

America needs clear representation, not by special interest groups but by what the American people actually want.

Vote con.



1. http://www.npr.org...

Zaradi

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his long-winded speech about how politicians are evil and corrupt, but he didn't really argue the resolution. Only a twisted, contorted interpretation of it that couldn't be farther from the truth. Let's go through the resolution, word-by-word.
Money: I'll agree to his definition.
Should: of preference, something we ought to do
Be in: Be included, involved in
Politics: We both know what this is, so no need for a definition.

This has nothing to do with how money influences politics. It's the simple question of should politics be free to play, or should we have to pay to play. By twisting the resolution, my opponent is trying to, basically, get me to defend "Bribery and corruption is good". I'm not gonna bite. Instead, I'll actually debate the resolution.

I contend that because our society operates around money, taking money out of politics would be a ridiculously stupid idea.

Our society has been set up around the entire concept of money in trade. We buy food and supplies with money, start businesses with money, pay workers with money, sell goods and services for money, the list goes on and on. But the one thing that they all have in common is the exchange of money. Politics are no different from the rest of society on their need for money to function. They buy arena's to speak in with money, pay campaign workers with money, buy advertising space with money, as well as using money to aquire the basic ammenities of life (food, water, etc.). Without money, there would be no politics. Politicians wouldn't be able to travel all over the country, supporting their platform and racing for election. It would be the start of absolute anarchy, as it would remove the government right out from under us.

For this reason, we should allow money to be in politics. Now let's go through my opponent's argument of how money should not influence politics.

I agree, money playing an unnecessary influence on politics is bad. But this doesn't mean that we need to take all the money out of politics right this second. Nor does it mean that money ALWAYS influences politics. Taking money away from politics would prevent politics from actually functioning, effectively taking away the American government and plunging our nation into anarchy. So, to put things basically:
1. Your argument doesn't actually adress the resolution.
2. By negating the resolution, we strip our country of a government and cause anarchy.

Because of the above reasons, I urge a vote for the pro debater.
Debate Round No. 2
Brownkid

Con

It has everything to do with how money influences politics. I'm not talking about the money that the government pays politicians to do their job, that's how they make their living. They need that money in order to feed their families and buy food.

"Politics are no different from the rest of society on their need for money to function. They buy arena's to speak in with money, pay campaign workers with money, buy advertising space with money, as well as using money to acquire the basic amenities of life (food, water, etc.). Without money, there would be no politics. Politicians wouldn't be able to travel all over the country, supporting their platform and racing for election."

Yes, of course, but with your argument you are saying that politicians won't be paid for their work. Once a politician is elected, they obviously receive a salary. That is how they should make their living. Today, politicians are among the richest Americans because lobbyists essentially bribe politicians to sponsor their bill.

Riddle me this, batman: If money remains in politics, how will the independents who possibly could lead the country better than Mitt Romney get their word out? Simply: They can't. Because they don't have money from huge donors. There are thousands of small family donors who donate to independents.
You can argue that there are more small donors that donate to other candidates, but those candidates got a jump start from large donors so that they could gain the name recognition to get the small donations too.


I say that we take a lesson from the Germans. There are 6 parties in Germany, and there are laws prohibiting the mass promotion of a candidate, including TV commercials.
What we should improve on from German politics is that there should be national government sponsored open forums for these 6 parties, in which candidates for the 6 parties are chosen by their popularity within the actual party(people would vote for that person based on their influence). That person would not gain influence through money, rather they would have that influence through being active within the party and playing an active role in advocating their stance.

That is basically how the forefathers did their elections, and I believe that is how it should be today.

If someone has the potential to run and win, then they should have the opportunity to do so. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, and Rick Santorum are all sponsored mainly by the rich few.

You have not refuted my argument from before, still. I said that there should not be money influencing politics and people, and you have not argued that it should influence politics and people.

Why would politicians still need massive amounts of money if they would be paid for their work once elected and if they do not need massive amounts of money to reach out to the American people to give their stances?

Vote Con, keep the government transparent.
Zaradi

Pro

"I'm not talking about the money that the government pays politicians to do their job"

Okay, so we only take some money out of politics? Because last I checked, giving money to politicians is exactly what you're advocating against. So you're either a) really confused about what you're arguing, b) don't know what you're talking about, or c) trying to change your advocacy in the middle of the round, which is highly abusive and highly unfair to me. Refute the resolution wholely or don't refute it at all and concede. Don't play both sides.

"With your argument you are saying that politicians won't be paid for their work."

Hey, reading comprehension! Yes, this is exactly my argument. If we take away all the money from politics, this takes away their salary, as it is money flowing into politics. If this happens, then the government entirely collapses, anarchy starts, all that bad stuff.

I'd also like to point out that you never really refute this. You summarize it, sure, but you don't really do anything to refute it. As such, my case can be clearly extended across the flow as conceded to.

"If money remains in politics, how will the independents who could lead the country better than Mitt Romney get their word out?"

I didn't realize this debate was about should we give independents as much ground as the two primary parties. How is this relevant, again?
And actually, I'd argue that if we took all the money out of politics, it would not only prevent independents from getting their word out even more, but it'd also prevent every other politician from getting their word out. Without money, there's no television ads, no signs on the sides of the street, no radio ads, no speeches and rallies. Nothing. No way at all to get their word out. With money, at least SOME politicians are getting their word out. So your own argument a) is a reason to affirm rather than negate, and b) makes my impact outweigh yours because I'm at least getting some people their voice.

"You have not refuted my argument from before, still."

I'm pretty sure I did...I'll re-mention them down here in case you didn't see them, as well as the explanation for both arguments.
1. Doesn't apply to the resolution. While influnece and corruption are bad things, they don't necessarily apply to the resolution. The resolution, as I explained last round, is about whether politics should be free to participate in or should cost money to participate in. You're not proving why politics should be free. I'm proving why it should cost money. Thus, this is why you're going to lose this round.
2. If we go with your plan, we remove all money from politicians and politics, effectively removing our government and causing anarchy. This was never refuted in my last round, you only summarized what I was saying and proceeded to move on and ask me the independents question afterwards. Never refuted it. This is another reason why you're going to lose this round.

"You have not argued that it should influence politics and people."

And, voters, here is all the evidence you need to prove that by him trying to frame the way he wants this resolution is set up, he's trying to push me into a "Bribery and corruption is good" debate. I already explained how that didn't apply, and went on to affirm the ACTUAL resolution. So I don't have to fulfil this ridiculous burden he placed upon me.

So the round breaks down in a few easy ways:
1. He's not refuting the actual resolution.
2. I'm affirming the actual resolution, despite his insistance that I debate some different resolution other than the one stated.
3. If we negate, we cause irrevocable harm that contradicts his entire case (no money gives people voice). Without money, NOBODY has a voice. So by affirming, I prevent the harms listed by the con debater.
4. He hasn't actually refuted my case. Since it's the only case talking about the specified resolution, it's the main reason to affirm.

Before I conclude, I'm going to talk for a bit about how there shouldn't be new arguments in this next (and final) round. New arguments in the last round are abusive because there isn't as much time to debate on them, and thus can lead to skewing of the debate. For example, if I were to go into my last round and then spend 7000 out of the 8000 characters listing off new reasons why my opponent's argument fails and why my side is the correct side, my opponent wouldn't be able to respond to them. That would, technically, make them go conceded, and thus would be reasons to vote for my side. But this is highly unfair since he can't respond to them. Thus, since it's unfair for me to make new arguments, it should also be unfair for him to make new arguments. In order to keep the debate completely fair and even, the debaters should both be constrained by the same limitations and rules. If I can't post new arguments in the final round, neither should he. Thusly, the last round should only be for summarization of the round and re-stating your points. If he posts new arguments in his next (and final) round, deduct a conduct point and do not weigh them. Only pay attention to the arguments that have already been stated.

Thus, I'll stop here and urge a rightful vote in affirmation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Brownkid

Con

Pro is obviously going for a fallacy.

I said at the beginning of the debate "Also, by "Money in politics" I mean money influencing politicians and people. This does include PACs and Super PACs. This does not include government spending for things like health care.(All of this is just to be clear.)"

"If we go with your plan, we remove all money from politicians and politics, effectively removing our government and causing anarchy."

Very false. Again, refer back to my previous quote. It has become quite clear that you are going for a fallacy in order to cover up the tragic flaw in your previous arguments that you are now unable to fix.

"Without money, NOBODY has a voice."

You have a voice right now, don't you? Again, you do have a voice without money. Everyone isn't a mute person who needs surgery in order to speak! Human beings, by nature, have influence over other human beings. It's called REAL LEADERSHIP. It isn't puppets that corporations nominate in order to gain influence in the government to manipulate legislation, it's people that can actually lead a nation into the right direction with the ideas that the American people approve. This system can actually work for ANY nation.


It is agreeable to go with not making any new arguments, which I have not done.

However, since you have attempted to take my quotes out of context this entire debate in order to create a fallacy, it is not favorable for you to not make any new arguments.

I urge all voters to vote con.
Zaradi

Pro

Okay, so at the end of the day, this is a seriously easy vote for the pro debater, as my opponent really isn't refuting anything.

My opponent's main gripe, as he sorely sent me a rage-filled PM about (I'd love a deduction in conduct if I can get it, but I don't know if there's a way to prove it, so it's up to those if they take my word on it or not) is that I didn't talk about "money in influenceing politics". But, for the third time, I ask you to refer back to my case, where I went through the resolution word-by-word and established what ground was permissible, under the resolution, for the pro and the con. My opponent never touched on that analysis except to say, basically, "Hey! You didn't do what I wanted you to do!"

Sorry 'bout that. Word your resolution more carefully to avoid people like me who take it literally.

But let's move past that and continue down the rest of the way.

My opponent seems to be confused about a lot of things in his last round. My opponent seems to think that I'm going for some unknown fallacy, and I have no idea what he's actually talking about. Just saying, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is a fallacy that says "Bad Resolutional Wording Fallacy" then sure, I went for that. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, so my opponent's arguments don't make much sense.

Not to mention that the fallacy talk is entirely new, and I already went over why the last round shouldn't include anything new, but that's besides the point. Just ensure the deduction in conduct from this and we can move on.

My opponent then makes an entirely new refutations to my point that if we take away the money in politics, nobody has a voice. But a) this is entirely new, it wasn't made anywhere else in the rounds, and b) he doesn't actually refute my argument. I said that if we take the money out of politics, we have no way to get our voice out. We have no money to reserve speaking arenas, no money to hold rallies, no money to buy television ads, and no money to, basically, get our voice out there. This was said in the second round, and even more so in the third. Nowhere did he refute my case on either.

So, at this point, he hasn't refuted my case at all. It becomes an easy vote for con from there, even if his case still stands past my arguments. But his case doesn't stand past my arguments. Again, look to my responses in the second and third rounds, which were not touched at all until this final round, about how a) his argument doesn't apply to the resolution, and b) how his argument prevents us from having a voice. With his case refuted, the refutations conceded, and my case never refuted until the final round, the vote becomes really simple for the voters:

Reasons to vote pro:
1. He conceded my case up 'till the final round, after I already pointed out why it was wrong to post new arguments in the final round.
2. He conceded the refutations against his case, up 'till the final round. Since they went conceded, we can consider his case refuted.
3. I argued the resolution, while my opponent tried to twist it into a different resolution than the one he actually made when making this debate.
4. If we negate, we prevent his case from ever becoming true i.e. we prevent anyone from actually being able to have a voice.

Resons to vote con:
1. Uhh......
From an objective stand-point, none really.
2. At least he argued every round! There's something!

Easy vote for the pro here.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Still in the voting period. I'm losing by a couple points :/
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
True, true. Did you ever end up winning that debate?
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Apparently not, according to a bunch of the votes on MY debate! lol
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
B-bu-but....I mean...

Wait. Isn't that what we're SUPPOSED to be doing? xD
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
No, it's inexcusable. How dare you interpret the resolution to mean exactly what it says!
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I'm sorry Dakota! Will you ever forgive me?! D:
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I'm sorry Dakota! Will you ever forgive me?! D:
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
OMG Zaradi, you semantics-playing cheater, you actually debated what the resolution said, not what he meant the resolution to say, how dareee you!
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Round one by my opponent:
"I would like to debate whether money should be in politics or not"

If only I was smart enough to notice this during round -.-
Posted by Brownkid 5 years ago
Brownkid
fml
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
BrownkidZaradiTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better Conduct because he slowed down to show Con what the resolution actually was Pro had better spelling and Grammar because Con said " Simply: They can't." That is not a coherent sentence. Pro had more convincing arguments because he argued closer to the resolution than Con and his points went untouched
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
BrownkidZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con learn your side.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
BrownkidZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: lol con didn't even know his own resolution