Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: agreement
Round 2: opening statements
Round 4: rebbutals/ summing up
No sources necessary and both parties carry burden of proof
In the news recently, Washington D.C. has been stirring over one particular issue. This issue is unlimited funding of super PACS (Political Action committees) towards political campaigns. Many politicians believe that this allows businesses to directly influence elections. Others say that it gives more power to the upper-class who can typically afford to donate more toward their favored candidate. Their are some major flaws in these arguments.
1) Some citizens believe that allowing unlimited funding gives businesses an unfair advantage of directly influencing elections. This could not be further from the truth. Unless the money goes to tampering with the ballots, every American citizen has the right to vote regardless of how much a business donates to super PACS for a certain candidate. In the last two elections, the candidate from the two major parties with the least amount of super PAC funding won the election. Money can not directly buy a citizen's vote. The people, businesses, and labor unions of America all have the right to donate as much as they want to influence a political election.
2) The upper-class do not gain power with unlimited super PAC spending. About 1% of Americans are in the upper-class. The beauty of democracy, is that no matter how much money one person has, 99% of the country gets just as much say as them. That 1% could donate as much as they want to their candidate of choice. However, without the say of at least 50% of the rest of the population, the candidate receiving the money will lose. Also, labor unions donate to super-Pacs as well. In fact, labor unions donate more money to political elections than any other organization. Even if donating to super PACs gave a specific group more of a voice in government, the upper-class would not have the biggest voice. The 17.7 million blue-collar workers that make up labor unions would have the largest voice.
My opponent states in his last argument, "if you do the math about 50% of the population get influenced through money, power, and greed." Does this mean that half of the people of America are corrupted, greedy, robber barons who care nothing for the rest of the country?
My opponent also states that, "the upper class will get more power full because one they can choose people who wish to only make the rich richer." This is totally true. The upper class does have the power to vote for someone they feel will help them succeed more. However, the other 99% of the population still exists and has the right to vote. Take this scenario for an example, the top 1% of the population have created a super PAC and have allocated one trillion dollars to the campaign of candidate A, because he promised to abolish taxes for the top 1% and raise taxes on the rest of the country by 20%(I know this is ridiculous but it is strictly hypothetical). On the other hand, candidate B has about 300 million dollars in donations from super PACs created by the other 99%. Although candidate A has a trillion dollars in his campaign budget, the other 99% of the population supports candidate B because they favor his flat tax plan as opposed to candidate A's silly tax plan. As a result of the election, candidate B will win because of his political platform and the people's support. The upper class can raise as much money as they desire, but without the support of the other 99% of the country, a candidate has no chance of winning an election.
the pro claims that this will help it will not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Oh goodness, half the debate Con misunderstood what Pro was even talking about. In addition Con didn't even contend to any of Pro's points.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.