The Instigator
mark.marrocco
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The United State's government is no longer representative of the American people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,504 times Debate No: 24602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

mark.marrocco

Pro

I will argue that the U.S. government is no longer representative of the American people in the democratic sense of the word "representative." In other words, the political decisions of the U.S. government are determined by the will of the politicians themselves, which itself is greatly influence by the "special interest" group's super-P.A.C.s, as opposed to political decisions being made on the basis of the consensus of the American people and their collective will.

This is evidenced by the following:
1) The invasion of the Iraq war by President George W. Bush without a Congressional Declaration of War, and therefore without so much as even representative consent of the people.

2) The 2010 Supreme Court ruling that political candidates are allowed unlimited financial contributions from any entity (in the name of the 1st amendment), as in either individuals or corporations, but thereby giving corporations a distinct advantage over individuals and therefore giving them priority over the American public in determining policy.

3) Government "bail-outs" of large corporations and banks, stemming from failures of the government to regulate these corporations and failures of these corporations to abide by the law and to be responsible for their own expenses and profits, resulting in a) Unwarranted taxes on the American people, b) Enormous bonuses for C.E.O.s and other officials of these companies paid for by the debt so incurred on the American public, c) No visible benefit from said bail-outs to the American people, in that unemployment did not improve as a result, and in fact has worsened or remained the same since.

4) This point is not a documented fact, but an argument in itself, and is barely ever recognized, let alone mentioned. My argument here is that all elections for U.S. political candidate are presented to the public as false dilemmas, where only two (at most three or four) candidates/parties are represented, when in fact, any citizen can be a legitimate candidate, Constitutionally-speaking. However, the nature of media-based political campaigns requires that a candidate needs large amounts of capital to make himself known as a candidate, and therefore candidates who are willing to pander to special interests, or come from wealthy, politically-oriented families, are at an advantage over those of humble occupation who nonetheless may have the best (or better) interests of the nation and the people sincerely in mind.

1) a)Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution.
b) http://en.wikipedia.org...
2) http://www.nytimes.com...
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

Since Pro didn't clarify, I'd like to propose an exact resolution: ‘On balance, the US government is not representative of the American people.' Obviously, it's not the case that the US is either always perfectly representative of the majority's views or never representative of the people's views and completely controlled by elites. The argument will be about whether the US government is representative of the American people in general.

1. The Iraq War was supported by the American people at the time. [1] The invasion may not have technically been Constitutional, but since when do the American people care about that?

2. While this decision was unpopular, I don't think it shows that the government is unrepresentative of the people. People may not support this specific decision, but they do support the existence of the Supreme Court as an unelected, undemocratic body, and respect its right to make decisions they don't like.

3. Pro argues that the bailout wasn't a good deal for the American people, but that's irrelevant. People did, in fact, support the bailout at the time. [2]

4. The reason only a narrow spectrum of views are represented at elections is because those are the things the American people believe and vote for. The American people think, for the most part, that what the government is doing is what they should be doing. They oppose cuts in all major causes of spending [3], and sometimes hold contradictory opinions, such as supporting cuts in corporate subsidies, but opposing cuts in farm subsidies. [3] The reason the US government has such bad policies is not because evil politicians control everything, but because the evil American people control everything.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://pewresearch.org...
[3] http://www.harrisinteractive.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mark.marrocco

Pro

Clarifiying resolution accepted.

1. a) Con concedes that the Iraq War was "technically" unconstitutional. Since there is no other parameter to reasonably decide whether a legal document (the Constitution) has been adhered to or not than by "technicality," Con thereby admits that the Constitution was, in fact, violated. Since the Constitution was violated, Pro argues that this violation sets or strengthens a precedent of the government, especially the President in this case, increasing its/his own power at the expense of the rights of the American people. Especially their right to be represented. Congress is Constitutionally required to declare war because they are ostensibly representative of the people, and if this requirement is not met, then the result is what can only be reasonably described as an Executive, and illegal, decision to go to war by the President exclusively. Congress held no vote and, therefore, the people were not represented in any way.
b) The fact that polls around the time showed a trend towards support for the war is in no way evidence that the American people made the decision to go to war (assuming that these polls were representative of the American populace at large in the first place), and Pro argues that this is a case of a questionable cause fallacy where to believe that the American President made the decision to wage war based on public opinion is Cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning which leads to the false conclusion that public opinion caused the war, when in fact the invasion was caused by executive decision alone, which in turn influenced public opinion. In reality, the President made his intentions, and his inflexibility regarding their realization, well known in advance to the public and thus public opinion, as represented by political polls, conformed to his apparent decision because of a patriotic bandwagon effect as the apparently inevitable invasion neared. A trend which, it is to be noted, eventually reversed as it became apparent that the evidence against Iraq was essentially nonexistent [1]. It is also to be noted that this reversal in public opinion had no measurable effect on the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, as the majority began regarding it as a mistake around the turn of '06-'07 [1], but the war continued until December 15, 2011. That is roughly a four year delay. While Pro recognizes the need for a reasonable amount of time to exit a war-zone, Pro argues that this instance was a dubious use of the military's time that was directly opposed to public opinion, and therefore it is further evidence that the American population is not fairly represented by the American government.
c) Con asks a loaded rhetorical question that implies one incorrect, and one unfalsifiable, assumption(s). The incorrect assumption was that the argument was whether the American people cared whether they were represented or not, when that is in fact irrelevant, as the original argument was only that they are not fairly represented, and not whether they cared or not. The other assumption is that Con knows the state of the American people's concerns, worries, and desires, which he has no rational basis to assert, and which is unfalsifiable based on the subjective, unmeasurable, nature of the emotional state of "caring."

2) Pro would like to clarify here. Pro's argument that the Supreme Court decision is evidence for an unrepresentative government was one of cause, not effect. Therefore the popularity of the Supreme Court decision is irrelevant, as pro is aware of the Constitutional nature of the Supreme Court as a self-directed branch of government. However, the Supreme Court ruling establishes a precedent where political pandering, lobbying, and bribery are no longer just grudgingly-accepted pitfalls or barely-tolerated background flaws of the political system, but now are expected, dominant, and legal aspects of the resulting system. This creates an environment where the wealthy corporations and individuals, along with the politicians themselves, are at an even greater advantage in creating self-interested policy with minimal or no input from the American populace. Pro is aware that "can does not imply will" but argues that the government had previously achieved autonomy from the American people through other means (such as the precedent Bush established through an unconstitutional war.) This decision was merely the removal of one of the final legal "roadblocks" in the way of federal-corporate partnership and autonomy, whether it was intended that way and whether it was popular are both irrelevant issues.

3) Pro concedes Con's point that the fact that it was not a good deal is irrelevant, but argues that the people "supported the bill at the time" was not the case [2][3]. Con is referring to three polls as evidence, out of which the only one showing a majority of support for the bill is the one dated Sept. 19-22, which shows a 57% majority for the bill. However, the next poll (Sept. 27-29) shows a majority of only 45%, which is not in fact a majority and demonstrates a trend in the public toward disapproval of the bill as it approached its vote, and this is further evidenced by the even lower percentage in the Oct. 3-5 poll of 42% approval. October 3 was the date that the House of Representatives signed the bill into law, so claiming that the public supported the bill "at the time" is factually incorrect [2][3]. Allowing for some delay in transfer between what the public wanted and what the Congress decided, and for the sake of argument, Pro will argue that if we assume that the 57% majority held until, and through, the Congressional vote, then the population at large was still not represented, or at least misrepresented, by the government. Pro argues this because the vote was decided by a margin of 263-171[3], which is a 65% majority, as opposed to what was, at most, a 57% majority in the public at large.

4. a) The people cannot vote for "views," only the candidates that may represent them. However, Pro maintains his argument that most elections, and especially Presidential elections, are presented through economic means as false dilemmas. The public does not vote for Republican or Democratic views because they are their exact (or even close) opinions, but because in the apparent absence of more agreeable options (which do in fact exist), their views tend to correspond somewhat more to one party or the other. However, if the other political parties and candidates were more salient in the mind of the public--if they were even options--which Pro argues is a trend that is vigorously resisted by the present establishment, then the public would be able to vote for candidates whose views were more representative of their actual opinions. This, however, does not in fact happen. Therefore, on balance, the pool of nominees, candidates, and elected politicians, is not representative of the opinion or views of the American people in general.
b) Here Con makes another over-specific claim to the opinions and feelings of an entire nation. Pro argues that, again, Con has no rational basis to assert knowledge of what the populace "thinks."
c) Pro fails to see the relevance of the opinions of the American public regarding spending cuts to the dilemma of political representation. Pro asks if Con could clarify here.
d) Con asserts that a) The American people "control everything" and that b) Both the American people and government are "evil." The use of the word "evil" is loaded language, and in no way did Pro imply that either were evil, or that either one "controlled everything." In fact, Con's assertion that the American people "control everything" is inconsistent with his proposal for a clarifying resolution, which Pro accepted.

[1] http://pewresearch.org...
[2] http://pewresearch.org...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

1. Pro's claim that "Congress held no vote" is simply wrong. Congress voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. [1] This isn't the same thing, Constitutionally, as a declaration of war, but that's hardly relevant to this debate. Congress using an authorization of military force rather than a declaration of war would only be relevant to the resolution if the American people cared about the Constitutional difference, which they don't. Pro claims that I am presuming to know the American people's concerns, worries, and desires, and that my talk about what the American people ‘care' about is illegitimate. This is nonsense—it's perfectly clear what I mean. For Pro's point about the Constitution to be relevant, Pro would have to show that not only was the Iraq War unconstitutional, but that such things mattered to the American people. For example, imagine, for the sake of the argument, that Social Security is unconstitutional. Which of these options would be Congress representing the will of the American people: A) following the Constitution and ending Social Security payments or B) ignoring the Constitution and continuing Social Security?

Why bother with a propaganda campaign if the decision was "caused by executive decision alone"? Surely, if that were the case, they could skip all the false claims about WMDs and such and just say we're invading Iraq. I think it is the case that even though Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq, the American people were still represented. The relevant question is: could Bush have made that decision without the support of the American people? I don't think so. Can you imagine Bush unilaterally deciding to invade Canada? According to Pro's model, he would be able to do this, and the American people would just have to sit back and take it. But, of course, Bush could not have decided to invade Canada—the public backlash would force Congress to stop him. And if Bush couldn't invade Canada for this reason, then why couldn't the public have stopped the Iraq War by reacting the same way they would to an invasion of Canada?

The majority did later realize that the Iraq War was a mistake, but this doesn't show that the government is unresponsive to the public will. Thinking the war was a mistake doesn't imply that you think we should withdraw immediately, or even withdraw soon. This is not evidence of a 'four year delay' unless Pro can show that most people wanted to withdraw in 2007. More likely, most people just trusted political and military leaders to handle the withdrawal timetable.

Even if it was the case that people wanted immediate withdrawal before 2011, that doesn't show that the American government isn't representative of the American people. Imagine someone saying 'speed limits have no effect on how fast people go, because everyone just drives 10 mph over the speed limit.' Obviously this argument is wrong. People will deviate by the amount they can get away with--but the speed limit still matters. You can get away with going 85 if the speed limit is 75, but not if the speed limit is 55. Now imagine someone says 'public opinion doesn't determine policy--look, politicians deviate moderately from public opinion.' Public opinion determines policy the same way speed limits determine speed. Not exactly--in a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy, politicians have some leeway--but for the most part, they stay within the acceptable range. Moderate deviations are allowed, but public opinion still keeps politicians in check.

2. Perhaps this decision will give special interests more influence, but there's no reason to think it would be significantly more, much less enough to give them more power of the government than the American public. No matter how much money corporations can give, they can't vote. People can always vote out politicians that don't do what they want.

3. The numbers Pro cites seem to support his claim that the public didn't support the bailout—but only if you assume that everyone who didn't answer ‘support' on the poll was opposed to the bill. But that is not how polls work—people can select ‘undecided.' For all of the dates cited, the percentage of people supporting the bill exceeded the percentage opposed. [2] Pro then compares the % of Congress voting for the bill to the % of the public supporting it. But this doesn't necessarily mean that Congress isn't representing the American people. Imagine that exactly 51% of voters supported the bailout in every Congressional district. For politicians to represent their districts views, 100% of them would have to vote for the bailout, because each of them has majority support in his or her district. But even if politicians support for the bailout was more than it should have been based on voter support, that doesn't imply public opinion doesn't determine policy—see my speed limit analogy earlier.

4. According to Pro, the public isn't represented by the government because they're faced with a false dilemma between Democrats and Republicans. The public would prefer something completely different, but that isn't an option, so they pick whichever of the two parties is closer to their views. However, Pro failed to provide any evidence for this claim. How, exactly, would the government be different if the American public had its way? Would we spend less on entitlements? No—the American people strongly support those. Would we have higher taxes—no, people don't want tax hikes. Would we spend less on corporate welfare? Maybe. People say they're against corporate welfare in general, but this changes when you ask about specific programs. Most Americans support agricultural subsidies, for example. Would we spend less on foreign aid? Maybe. The American people say they do, but they think foreign aid is 25% of the budget. [3] If you asked Americans if they wanted to not eliminate it completely, but just reduce it down to just 1% of the budget (which is the actual current amount), they would probably support that. Would we have fewer wars? I doubt it—the American people support all the wars we start, at least initially. They later realize the war was a mistake, and then we withdraw. There is a delay between when the public realizes the war was a mistake and the troops leave, but this hardly shows that the public isn't represented, since the public never favors immediate withdrawal as soon as they turn against the war—they support gradual withdrawal. Pro has failed to show that what the public wants is significantly different from what the government is like now.

Pro's claim that the establishment is able to use the 2 party system to keep the public's views from being implemented seems at odds with American history. When the public started to favor civil rights in the 1950s and 60s, what happened? Did the establishment shut them out? Did the people in power, as Pro suggests they could, simply continue to deny minorities civil rights? If Pro was right, surely they could have—they could just have the 2 parties both continue to oppose civil rights, and the American public wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It wouldn't matter that the 2 parties weren't anywhere close to the American public's true views—since they didn't have a choice besides those 2 parties, the American people wouldn't get their views represented. But obviously this isn't what happened. Politicians either had to change their minds about civil rights, or be replaced by someone who had.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://pewresearch.org...
[3] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mark.marrocco

Pro

1. I concede I made a mistake about Congress holding a vote, which in fact it did. However, it voted for the "authorization of use of military force against Iraq," as opposed to a "declaration of war." [1] A "declaration of war," I argue, would be a completely unambiguous statement expressing the intention to engage the state in question in a military conflict. This "authorization for use of military force" was not such a decision or declaration by Congress themselves, but a transfer of that decision making power to the President alone. [2] Which, I argue, is a roundabout way of circumventing the Constitutional responsibility of Congress to make such decisions in a democratically-representative sense. Even if this instance was in fact constitutional, there have been numerous instances of Presidents simply ignoring the Constitution, Congress, and the War Powers Resolution in recent decades, and as recently as the 2011 attacks on Libya. [3] How can policy be considered to be determined by public opinion if the President is simply free to use the military however he sees fit? And that has happened in the cases of Reagan in El Salvador, Clinton in Kosovo, and--again--Obama in Libya and Pakistan. The Constitutionality of these incidents, at least, is hardly debatable. And in all of those cases, there was Congressional, and thus, ostensibly, public disapproval. [3] Also, there has been a totally consistent trend in a periodical Gallup poll asking voters "If the leaders of our nation followed the views of the public more closely, do you think the nation would be better off, or worse off than it is today?" The answer has been a resounding "better off" for about 35 years. This shows that Americans feel, and have felt for two generations at least, that the government not only could follow their views much more closely, but should. [4]

I think that the fact that there was a propaganda campaign strengthens my argument, because the purpose of propaganda "is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." [5][6] In this case, Bush started his propaganda campaign to further his cause in Iraq well ahead of the time of the "Authorization" of war, such as when he labeled Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil" as well as a "grave and growing danger" in his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address. [7] This culminated in his address given in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, about a week before the "authorization." The speech, among other things, said, for example, that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." [8] Most of which is simply false. Indeed, independent, non-profit journalists conducted a study that "counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both." The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." [5] So then, the only question left here is whether a population that forms their opinion on public policy on the basis of false information provided by their government is actually having their opinion represented by said government, or is government policy actually determining their opinion?

The Canadian example Con presents is, I think, a faulty comparison, as Con is ignoring the significant differences, such as that Canada was never accused of human rights abuses, "illegal" possession of W.M.D.s, or associating with terrorists.

Con's speed limit analogy is a clever and useful illustration of the psychological effect(s) of "anchoring," whether he knows it or not, but in this case, as I have hopefully already demonstrated, I argue that he has reversed the chain of causality. Public opinion doesn't anchor policy, but rather it is quite the opposite.

2. This is simply incorrect. Ballot access is a prerequisite to even be placed on an official ballot, not to mention to get votes in an actual election. [9] This decision raises an already high bar by making competing with well-established and corporate-sponsored politicians and parties even more difficult for potential newcomers. [9] The most adamant dissenter of the vote, Justice Stevens, wrote, "The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind, and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf." [10] In other words, it's still bribery, and an even worse kind than that involved in only the voting aspect of an election, because in order to get elected, you have to be on the ballot. [9] Even President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." [10] Which is a statement that, if I took it at face value alone, instead of the empty appeasement I think it probably was, I would agree with.

3. Although I concede that the Congressional vote doesn't have to match the opinions of the public exactly, the fact remains that the majority of the public was not supportive of the bill "at the time." [11][12] Moreover, Bush yet again forced his will onto the public when he said that, "We are going to get a package passed,' and that "We will rise to the occasion, where Republicans and Democrats will come together and pass a substantial rescue plan.' [13] Even though there was, justifiably, significant disagreement and confusion in public opinion about the bill. [11][12]

4. The strength of my original argument on this point now rests mostly on the arguments and evidence in point 2, however, there are allegations that there are even steeper obstacles than I've already described. Since these approach "conspiracy theory" territory, I will simply point the audience to the evidence, and allow them to determine its role, if any, in the already well established facts of point 2. Here is the main source: http://www.votescam.org...

The question of how the government would be different if voters had more options can't reasonably be answered, as the current parties determine what the issues are now. Only the point that it would be different is relevant. [4]

Con's argument here that "politician's either had to change their minds about civil rights, or be replaced by someone who had" insinuates that people can just vote out all of the bad candidates. This is dubious, as it may be easy to vote out one "bad" candidate, but much more difficult to ensure that there's even one "good" candidate on the ballot. [9]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.gpo.gov...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.gallup.com...
[5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[6] http://mason.gmu.edu...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.nytimes.com...
[11] http://articles.latimes.com...
[12] http://pewresearch.org...
[13] http://www.bloomberg.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

1. Pro again fails to explain why the Iraq War being unconstitutional means that the US government is unrepresentative of the American people. If the American people don't care about Constitutionality, then this point is irrelevant. To repeat my example from last round: "For example, imagine, for the sake of the argument, that Social Security is unconstitutional. Which of these options would be Congress representing the will of the American people: A) following the Constitution and ending Social Security payments or B) ignoring the Constitution and continuing Social Security?"

Americans may think that the country would be better off if the leaders of the nation followed the public more closely, but this proves nothing. The American people are stupid, and want contradictory things--thus Congress can't do exactly what they want. Americans overwhelmingly support cuts in government spending [1], unless you ask about specific programs, then they oppose cuts in any significant part of spending. What the American people want is impossible. Maybe the nation would be better off if Congress could achieve the impossible, but they can't, so this hardly shows that the government is unresponsive.

Yes, the Iraq War was based on a propaganda campaign. But this begs the question: why bother with a propaganda campaign? If Pro was right, and Bush could make whatever decision he wanted without regard to public opinion, then surely no propaganda campaign would be needed--he could just say, 'we're going to war, if you don't like it, you can suck it.'

And yes, Canada was never accused of those things--that's my point. Since the American people don't see Canada as a threat, we would never go to war with them, even if the President wanted to.

Pro suggests that rather than public opinion causing policy, it is the opposite--policy causes public opinion. However, he fails to demonstrate exactly how this is supposed to work--by what mechanism does policy cause public opinion?

2. Pro doesn't really respond to my point here. "Perhaps this decision will give special interests more influence, but there's no reason to think it would be significantly more, much less enough to give them more power of the government than the American public." Having an effect =/= having a significant effect.

3. It doesn't matter that a "majority" of the public didn't support the bill. I repeat my earlier point: "The numbers Pro cites seem to support his claim that the public didn't support the bailout—but only if you assume that everyone who didn't answer ‘support' on the poll was opposed to the bill. But that is not how polls work—people can select ‘undecided.' For all of the dates cited, the percentage of people supporting the bill exceeded the percentage opposed."

Pro quotes Bush saying that we "will" pass the package to suggest that this shows that Bush is forcing his will on the American people. But this is nonsense--it's just the way people talk, and isn't meant to be taken literally. What if Bush said, "We WILL hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden." Is he suggesting he's going to force his will on reality and that we will definitely find Osama bin Laden? No, he's just saying that he wants to kill Osama bin Laden and is going to try to do so. Saying "I will do something" rather than "I will try to do something" is just a rhetorical difference--the first one sounds stronger.

4. Links to other websites making your argument for you don't count, you have to make the argument inside the debate.

"Con's argument here that "politician's either had to change their minds about civil rights, or be replaced by someone who had" insinuates that people can just vote out all of the bad candidates. This is dubious"
It may sound dubious to Pro, but I think the fact that it actually happened during the 1960s outweighs his incredulity.

[1] http://i2.cdn.turner.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
That's fine, I'll wait a few days to post.
Posted by mark.marrocco 5 years ago
mark.marrocco
I just want to give fair warning to you, LaissezFaire, that I might not have Internet access for a few days, so if you wanted to wait as long as possible to post your response, then that might be the best way to continue this without any forfeitures, as I can then just respond once I get back. However, if you don't want to, you don't have to obviously, and I'd take the responsibility by probably having to forfeit at least one round, if not the rest of the debate. I'm sorry for the lack of foresight on my part.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
mark.marroccoLaissezFaireTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Even if the American people don't acknowledge it, the constitution is their representation, con tried to cleverly get around this.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
mark.marroccoLaissezFaireTied
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: Con did a great job in pointing out the elements of the government that still rely on the people's representation.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
mark.marroccoLaissezFaireTied
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: Con wins on pretty much every individual argument in the debate. I found the propaganda argument to be most significant, as it shows that if representing the will of the people was not necessary for politicians to achieve their agenda there would be no reason for it. Con also shatters Pros constitutional argument by showing that the public at large does not care about that. What people want, social security for example, they will find a way to get.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 5 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
mark.marroccoLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON did an exelent job at pointing out the elements of the government that the American people still have control over, thus the representation aspect of the resolution still stands because politicians don't have complete control in our government.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
mark.marroccoLaissezFaireTied
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 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: Amazing defense by con using public apathy toward the constitution to batter down pro's arguements.