The Instigator
NPDAgeek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hierocles
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Hierocles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 44326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

NPDAgeek

Pro

FIRST ROUND-Acceptance

SECOND ROUND-Constructive phase

THIRD ROUND-Answer phase

FOURTH ROUND-Summary and Voters

This is VALUE debate, there is no policy fiat, only claims and support of claims.
Hierocles

Con

I accept your challenge in this debate. I stand to negate your resolution. I hold that democratic elections are MORE won than bought. An electoral victory is NOT a good or service to be exchanged for money. The election is ultimately decided by a plurality and or majority among the community of eligible voters, and each voter is free to decide whom she chooses to vote for. Regardless of how much money is spent on election campaigns, each voter stands alone in that booth on election day, and makes her own decision.

Definitions:
Democracy: forms of government, both direct and indirect, where representatives or policies are chosen through popular elections or referendums.

Bought: Past tense of 'buy,' to obtain [something] in exchange for money or goods

Won: (In this context) by achieving a plurality and or majority of votes among the community of eligible voters

Majority: 50% +1

Plurality: a countable margin by which a number exceeds another number, especially of votes.

Time: The time period under discussion is living memory, say approx. 1950-Present
Debate Round No. 1
NPDAgeek

Pro

I accept the interpretation of the resolution, and hold that

DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS ARE MORE BOUGHT THAN WON MAKING THEM A COMMODITY

Contention 1. Political Campaigns=Advertising Campaigns

A) ELECTIONS ARE TV SHOWS
i. most citizens do not care entirely
ii. most voters know a minimal amount of names, and even positions
iii. A majority of voters who care not are not won by content of character alone
iv. the candidate who can buy the most things with their name on it, or the most advertising on television, or signs on roads, or bumper stickers or pins is the one most likely to plant their name in the memory of the otherwise uncaring voter population
v. That kind of advertising costs money, lots of money

B) POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES
i. PACs are organizations allowed to endorse candidates and further political ideals
ii. Protected under first amendment
iii. Amass billions of dollars for campaigns
iv. pay for more prime time in a campaign week than the average clerk makes in their life
v. They stomp competition with negative ads, and out buy them in face time
vi. If joe shmo were to enter the race now, he would never see a single interview, debate, let alone an office seat

C) CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT
i. Many elections are won based on celebrity influence
ii. Obama Clooney and you was a campaign fund raising competition where the winners got to eat dinner with Obama and Clooney
iii. Celebrity endorsement costs money
iv. If one cannot pay for as much endorsement and their opponent they will lose

The election is not entirely in the hands of voters, they judge based off character sure, but if the majority of voters are negligent to already existing positions then they are not going to seek the philosophies of candidates from obscure parties unless they are directly presented with them. The candidate with the most money to buy advertisements, celebrity influence who are backed by PACs are most likely to win elections.
Hierocles

Con

My opponent has made a series of baseless claims without attempting to cite any evidence. This is surprising since, as the instigator of the claim, he holds the burden of proof. I will cite evidence to refute each of his claims in a line-by-line refutation of his case.

A) ELECTIONS ARE A FORM OF DEMOCRATIC CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
i. NPDAgeek: “most citizens do not care”
Most Americans do care. In 2012’s presidential elections the turnout rate was over 55%.<http://elections.gmu.edu...;
ii-iii. Most voters know enough to make a choice that reflects their values. <http://www.people-press.org...; Voters affiliate a party because they share the party’s platform. Voters tend to vote for their party's candidates because they share similar beliefs.
iv. & v.Sometimes the candidate with less campaign money wins. In 2010 over 60 U.S. congressional races were won by the candidate who spent less money. An analysis performed by The Center for Responsive Politics shows that having more campaign money is not enough to win an election. THEREFORE, an election is NOT a commodity. If the party with less money can win the election while the party that spends more money loses that means that elections cannot be a commodity as my opponent suggests. <http://www.opensecrets.org...;

B) PACs receive money from diverse sources. Americans donate money to PACs they believe in. These PACs then use those donations to advocate on behalf of the people they represent, like seniors that support Social Security through the AARP.

C) CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT:
Often celebrity endorsements have little to no impact on the success of a campaign. In 2000, Ralph Nader had a cadre of celebrity endorsements, but could not carry a single state.<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...;

Don't let the money in politics push you into fatalistic cynicism. Accept the complexity.

Debate Round No. 2
NPDAgeek

Pro

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
Hierocles

Con


Seeing that NPDAgeek has forfeited round 3, all of my round 2 arguments still stand!




Failing to respond to arguments means he concedes them, and thus these arguments should be accepted as TRUE in the debate.




Since NPDAgeek agrees that:


1. Elections are a Form of Democratic Engagement


2. Most citizens CARE enough and KNOW enough to make a decent decision most of the time


3. Often the smaller spender wins an election, and therefore elections are not commodities and that elections are, on balance, more won than bought. Round 3 extension of this argument:


Many times the non-establishment candidate wins the primary. In 2010 over 60 of the congressional races were won by the candidate that had less campaign dough. In many of the bigger spender wins, it could be attributed to advantages reaped from being the incumbent in a safe district. In most close races, the smaller spender won about half of the time. SOURCE:<http://www.opensecrets.org......; If politicians were commodities to be bought and sold then the highest bidder would always win - that's not the case.


4. PACs can be legitimate forms of expression funded by the cumulative donations of everyday middle-class people. Round 3 extension: Case in point, if over 20 million of the 40 million AARP members donate one dollar to AARP’s PAC then that PAC will be very influential, but it would not hold a mirror to the caricature of PACs that NPDAgeek is trying to draw.


5. Celebrity endorsements are nearly irrelevant to winning an election. In 2000, Nader had a host of Hollywood endorsements and he couldn’t even carry California.



Therefore, you must VOTE CON.


In his next response, I challenge NPDAgeek to uphold HIS BURDEN OF PROOF by both


(A) Refuting all of my arguments and argument extensions made in round 2 & 3. AND


(B) Prove, despite that often the smaller spender wins, that elections are indeed commodities to be bought.



If he fails to uphold his burden of proof then you MUST vote CON.



Respectfully submitted,

Hierocles



Debate Round No. 3
NPDAgeek

Pro

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
Hierocles

Con

Given that NPDAgeek has forfeited his response, all of my arguments still stand. Therefore you must vote CON because he has failed to uphold his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
NPDAgeekHieroclesTied
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 Checkmark1 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 had superior arguments. And pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
NPDAgeekHieroclesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only provided an outline of case, without supporting arguments or sources. Con provided rebuttal arguments with good sources. Pro forfeited without rebuttal. Con's best argument was that candidates who spend less sometimes win. That could never happen if the resolution were true.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
NPDAgeekHieroclesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet his burden of proof.Con wins the debate. Pro also forfeited the debate and did not provide any resources. Those points respectively go to Con as a result. Good luck to you both in future debate debates.